NationStates Jolt Archive

..or a vacuum cleaner or an alarm clock? A vacuum cleaner what do we need, a filter - okay we will have some genes from a sponge; a pump - well there are plenty of those in nature. An alarm clock - timing systems are fairly common, the display could be like the skin of a squid or octopus with some jellyfish thrown in so it glows in the dark, chlorophyl so it can power itself maybe it could catch and digest flies as well.

Why would we WANT to?

Why would you NOT want to?

Why would we WANT to?

Self-repairing, energy efficient, don't need external power sources, friendly.

Ohhh, that would be awesome :D
But the problem is that if we could make some good stuff - we could make bad, as well.
Nobody would be safe from geneticaly altered viruses or bacteria D:
Do not want. >o<

Self-repairing, energy efficient, don't need external power sources, friendly.
Taking your toaster for a walk :p

I'm not sure that the idea of a bulbous veined pulsating fly-eating 'affectionate' vacuum cleaner really appeals....

..or a vacuum cleaner or an alarm clock? A vacuum cleaner what do we need, a filter - okay we will have some genes from a sponge; a pump - well there are plenty of those in nature. An alarm clock - timing systems are fairly common, the display could be like the skin of a squid or octopus with some jellyfish thrown in so it glows in the dark, chlorophyl so it can power itself maybe it could catch and digest flies as well.

It's a beautiful thought.

Here, let me dirty it up for you. We could genetically engineer the vibrator! Self-cleaning, photosynthesizing, fly-eating, non-sentient human genitals!

I'm not sure that the idea of a bulbous veined pulsating fly-eating 'affectionate' vacuum cleaner really appeals....

Bastard. You beat me to it.

I'm not sure that the idea of a bulbous veined pulsating fly-eating 'affectionate' vacuum cleaner really appeals....

The Blobulator!! So efficient, it powers itself, it's ALIVE!

Keep away from children, small pets and water, do not feed after midnight

The Blobulator!! So efficient, it powers itself, it's ALIVE!

Keep away from children, small pets and water, do not feed after midnight

And you beet me to that.

I for one, welcome our new fly-eating octopus-skinned sponge-pumping glow-in-the-dark vacuum-cleaning overlords

I for one don't particularly think that having to change my alarm clock's litter box would be a pleasant thing to do, I'll stick with the electrical one.

This was created directly from Darth Vaders DNA.

http://gizmodo.com/5078124/vader-toaster-is-most-awesome-bread+branding-device-yet

I'll file this away under Strange Ideas, Do Not Want.

Please no. I felt bad enough when I kicked my alarm clock out the window (it was an accident; I was sleeping the wrong way around on my bed). If it had been a living thing I'd have just had one more level of guilt trip to worry about.
It's a beautiful thought.

Here, let me dirty it up for you. We could genetically engineer the vibrator! Self-cleaning, photosynthesizing, fly-eating, non-sentient human genitals!
Wouldn't that be either bestiality or sexual slavery (depending on how human you want to imagine the thing is)?

The question is, why?

The question is, why?

Why have factories when you can grow things.

Because I'm sure everyone would like to have household appliances that eat them or crawl into their brainpan and zombify them in their sleep.

Nightmare fuel thread, GO!

YES WE CAN.

Vote Obama for 2009, 2010 and 2011, and by 2020 you'll gather enough CHANGE to afford a genetically engineered toaster.

Why would we WANT to?

Why would you NOT want to?

Because depending on how intelligent it's bred (no pun intended, for once) it might wind up just like this AI version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZslRQvv5zM).

..or a vacuum cleaner or an alarm clock? A vacuum cleaner what do we need, a filter - okay we will have some genes from a sponge; a pump - well there are plenty of those in nature. An alarm clock - timing systems are fairly common, the display could be like the skin of a squid or octopus with some jellyfish thrown in so it glows in the dark, chlorophyl so it can power itself maybe it could catch and digest flies as well.

I don't want an alarm clock that squirts ink at my face to wake me up...

Taking your toaster for a walk :p

http://darthmojo.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/cylon03-full1.jpg

CYLON!:eek:

Cylons were created by man, they rebelled, they evolved and they have a plan.

Wouldn't that be either bestiality or sexual slavery (depending on how human you want to imagine the thing is)?

If it's genetically engineered to the extent Rambhutan suggests, it's more like a machine. Which a vibrator is anyway.

We're going to have some real dilemmas about what is alive and what isn't, when biotech really gets going. Good times!

*snip pic*
CYLON!:eek:

Cylons were created by man, they rebelled, they evolved and they have a plan.

"Some nice hot crisp brown buttered toast?"

I don't want an alarm clock that squirts ink at my face to wake me up...

Ink if you're lucky.

"Some nice hot crisp brown buttered toast?"

These toasters only toast humans. Tis the toast of war. ;)

http://www.fightingtigersofveda.com/cylon4.jpg

Ink if you're lucky.

And now I'm scarred for life, thank you.

These toasters only toast humans. Tis the toast of war. ;)

*snip pic*

I prefer the idea that rebelling creations keep an image of us as the Gods who made them possible.

I'm getting depressed now. Of course we will make robot soldiers, we're doing it already with pilot-less drones. Biotech only makes that scarier because yes, they can evolve by themselves which machines can't.

Could we ever genetically engineer a toaster..
..or a vacuum cleaner or an alarm clock? A vacuum cleaner what do we need, a filter - okay we will have some genes from a sponge; a pump - well there are plenty of those in nature. An alarm clock - timing systems are fairly common, the display could be like the skin of a squid or octopus with some jellyfish thrown in so it glows in the dark, chlorophyl so it can power itself maybe it could catch and digest flies as well.
At first glance, the toaster seems the most problematic, as it would be extremely difficult to engineer a living system capable of generating the concentrated temperature required to do the actual toasting (although there are a number of organisms that can tolerate extremely high temperatures, very few are known to actually generate them themselves). It might be possible, I suppose... the chemical reaction used as a defence mechanism by bombardier beetles can reach 105° Celsius, which is a start, but it'd take a lot of that sort of thing going on at once to heat up a grill-like setup and make your toast. I'm sure there are engineers who could work out some kind of way to do it, once you'd engineered a big pile of heat generating units for them to play with.

In short, no, I can't see any reason that we might not ever be able genetically engineer these things.

As far as my knowledge of genetics go, only humans and animals can be genetically engineered. Things lack genes so... no. We cannot genetically engineer a toaster.

As far as my knowledge of genetics go, only humans and animals can be genetically engineered. Things lack genes so... no. We cannot genetically engineer a toaster.

I think the OP meant taking genes from existing animals and creating a creature that performs the tasks household appliances and equipment can.

I think the OP meant taking genes from existing animals and creating a creature that performs the tasks household appliances and equipment can.

But even after that, wouldn't the things need genes from both sides? I mean, granted, it already has the genes from the animal, but wouldn't it also need the gene pool of the object in question to be engineered?

But even after that, wouldn't the things need genes from both sides? I mean, granted, it already has the genes from the animal, but wouldn't it also need the gene pool of the object in question to be engineered?
Not at all, for the same reason that floral calendars (planted such that the species in bloom highlight the month of the year) do not require 'calendar' genes. It's one-way traffic, simply a case of taking a physical effect that comes of a set of genes being expressed and putting it to use.

Not at all, for the same reason that floral calendars (planted such that the species in bloom highlight the month of the year) do not require 'calendar' genes. It's one-way traffic, simply a case of taking a physical effect that comes of a set of genes being expressed and putting it to use.

I see.

I think I have to say that the completely biological toaster is a living thing, if it is grown rather than manufactured, if it can repair itself, and if it can reproduce.

But then, no manufacturer has much incentive to make a toaster which can reproduce. Unless there is some way of collecting payment whenever one of the toasters has baby toasters. Intellectual property question there.

I think I have to say that the completely biological toaster is a living thing, if it is grown rather than manufactured, if it can repair itself, and if it can reproduce.

But then, no manufacturer has much incentive to make a toaster which can reproduce. Unless there is some way of collecting payment whenever one of the toasters has baby toasters. Intellectual property question there.

It's a simple matter of the breeder having a "queen" toaster that breeds infertile drones that are capable of making toast.

I think I have to say that the completely biological toaster is a living thing, if it is grown rather than manufactured, if it can repair itself, and if it can reproduce.

But then, no manufacturer has much incentive to make a toaster which can reproduce. Unless there is some way of collecting payment whenever one of the toasters has baby toasters. Intellectual property question there.

Create ranches and make sure that they need a certain hormone which only the company has in order to reproduce. That way only the company can breed toasters.

Create ranches and make sure that they need a certain hormone which only the company has in order to reproduce. That way only the company can breed toasters.

Yes that would work.

It occurs to me that they could be seedless fruit, and the company keeps tight control over the trees that they grow on.

It's a simple matter of the breeder having a "queen" toaster that breeds infertile drones that are capable of making toast.

Nice. Queen toasters, waddling around the farm excreting toaster eggs.

I think I have to say that the completely biological toaster is a living thing, if it is grown rather than manufactured, if it can repair itself, and if it can reproduce.

But then, no manufacturer has much incentive to make a toaster which can reproduce. Unless there is some way of collecting payment whenever one of the toasters has baby toasters. Intellectual property question there.
I think you're missing a more important problem: Who would want to eat something that had just been organically warmed? Think about how a toaster works, and then ask yourself: Would I feel comfortable shoving pieces of bread into the orifice of an animal, and then eating that bread when it was ejected a few moments later?
Somehow, I don't see a market for organic toasters emerging any time soon.

I think you're missing a more important problem: Who would want to eat something that had just been organically warmed? Think about how a toaster works, and then ask yourself: Would I feel comfortable shoving pieces of bread into the orifice of an animal, and then eating that bread when it was ejected a few moments later?
Somehow, I don't see a market for organic toasters emerging any time soon.

You old fogey. We will laugh at you, as you shovel coal into your own power station to keep your antique electricals going.

Hell, you're so silly even my kettle is giggling.

You old fogey. We will laugh at you, as you shovel coal into your own power station to keep your antique electricals going.

Hell, you're so silly even my kettle is giggling.
Pfft. As soon as I get my organic fuel cells working, you'll eat your words straight out of my electrical toaster!

Nice. Queen toasters, waddling around the farm excreting toaster eggs.

And it just takes one freak mutation to turn Breakfast Time into Aliens.

Pfft. As soon as I get my organic fuel cells working, you'll eat your words straight out of my electrical toaster!
Hmm, what would go into that?

Yes everything makes a form of "bio energy" But how to get it to work....

Pfft. As soon as I get my organic fuel cells working, you'll eat your words straight out of my electrical toaster!

You have to meet the right woman first. And those organic fuel cells aren't self-cleaning.

=======EDIT IN==========

Hmm, what would go into that?

Yes everything makes a form of "bio energy" But how to get it to work....

Twelve years of schooling and a bullwhip.

But HNFV could save money on food. Set up as a refuge home for runaway appliances with toast or dust phobia. Then slaughter them with his old-fashioned steel knife and cook them up in his dumb old electric stove that doesn't ask questions.

And it just takes one freak mutation to turn Breakfast Time into Aliens.

I'm not saying there won't be the occasional mutation.
>.>
<.<

*checks with lawyer*

Toasting in epic bread! Sorry, posting in epic thread!

And it just takes one freak mutation to turn Breakfast Time into Aliens.

Toasters popping out of peoples chests and tentacle raping fertile women?! :eek: ZOMG!

Toasters popping out of peoples chests and tentacle raping fertile women?! :eek: ZOMG!

Ok, where was the tentacle reference made? I totally missed that.:eek:

Ok, where was the tentacle reference made? I totally missed that.:eek:

MUTATION! Who knows, the toaster might have squid or alien DNA somewhere and thats how the mutation occurs. :eek:

And let's not forget the bathroom!

Mirrors which distort and tint the reflection to flatter you.
Toilets which clean themselves (not when you're sitting on them tho).
A bathtub that carries you back to bed if you fall asleep in it.
Bars of soap which put out suction pods to hang onto slippery surfaces.
Smart shampoo that never gets in your eyes, and gives you a trim as it cleans.
A toothbrush you can chew up like a lollie when it's finished.

And every one of them friendly and helpful, sparkling clean and smelling of mint.

Toasters popping out of peoples chests and tentacle raping fertile women?! :eek: ZOMG!

Ah. Japan will be the first to genetically engineer toasters.

And let's not forget the bathroom!

Mirrors which distort and tint the reflection to flatter you.
Toilets which clean themselves (not when you're sitting on them tho).
A bathtub that carries you back to bed if you fall asleep in it.
Bars of soap which put out suction pods to hang onto slippery surfaces.
Smart shampoo that never gets in your eyes, and gives you a trim as it cleans.
A toothbrush you can chew up like a lollie when it's finished.

And every one of them friendly and helpful, sparkling clean and smelling of mint.

Or citrus, if you prefer.

Ah. Japan will be the first to genetically engineer toasters.

And they'll never really grow up. When you're 140 years old and mostly replacement parts, they'll still find Hello Kitty the cutest thing ever.

Or citrus, if you prefer.

Exactly. Real citrus, not that revolting ester we get now.

Only if it has tentacles. Tentacles are always fun on genetically engineered things with a high mutation rate.

Only if it has tentacles. Tentacles are always fun on genetically engineered things with a high mutation rate.

With enough tentacles around us we could do without legs, most folks don't use them much anyway. Just relax as your car oozes you gently into the loving embrace of your house.

Taking your toaster for a walk :p

YES! pets with apurpose i can see the marketing right now

I want to genetically engineer small mess-making creatures that run around like monkeys on speed and drive you insane with their antics. I shall call these creatures 'children'.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get Little Goofball off of the refrigerator. :p

I want to genetically engineer small mess-making creatures that run around like monkeys on speed and drive you insane with their antics. I shall call these creatures 'children'.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get Little Goofball off of the refrigerator. :p

Please allow me to interest you in our latest fridge, the LG "Big Momma." She has an IQ of nearly 80 and is fully accredited in modern child-care practices.

With every conceivable protective gene built in, she protects children from intruders and creepy uncles with the ferocity of a mother tiger, but she's warm and soft on the outside and won't let them eat sweets before dinner.

Five year warranty against eating children. May have unfulfilled urges to reproduce. May eat ice-cream when moody.

I for one, welcome our new fly-eating octopus-skinned sponge-pumping glow-in-the-dark vacuum-cleaning overlords

And you beat me to that.

..or a vacuum cleaner or an alarm clock? A vacuum cleaner what do we need, a filter - okay we will have some genes from a sponge; a pump - well there are plenty of those in nature. An alarm clock - timing systems are fairly common, the display could be like the skin of a squid or octopus with some jellyfish thrown in so it glows in the dark, chlorophyl so it can power itself maybe it could catch and digest flies as well.
o.o Genetically engineered? That doesn't even make sense, it's organisms that are genetically engineered... appliances like toasters are electrically or mechanically engineered...

Um...I have two questions.

First, from the Not Getting It Department:

If you genetically engineer creatures to do all your household chores for you, how is that different from hiring staff, the way we do now?

And second, from the Office of I Don't Think That's Gonna Work, Dude:

What will you all do when your appliances decide to unionize?

Um...I have two questions.

First, from the Not Getting It Department:

If you genetically engineer creatures to do all your household chores for you, how is that different from hiring staff, the way we do now?

Speak for yourself. I'd be mad to do that since a cleaner charges more than I earn.

And second, from the Office of I Don't Think That's Gonna Work, Dude:

What will you all do when your appliances decide to unionize?

Allow me to interest you in the LG Big Bubba, our latest Butler ...

I'm prepared to let this thread go straight if people really want to talk about bioengineering. I don't think Rambhutan went as far as I in speculating about such appliances being entire living creatures (let alone having sentience.)

We don't let cattle unionize (that's called a stampede I guess, but ...) let alone plants. And we already genetically engineer quite a few things, there really isn't any reason why eventually we can't design creatures from scratch, instead of hunting around for genes for existing capabilities.

Self-cleaning and self-healing seems a much more saleable feature than chirpy conversation with your breakfast, I must say.

All these moral questions have long been answered by these guys and their games exactly about it. Well, not as much answered as asked. But still.

http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/geneforge/index.html


(Shareware. Classical RPG. No mechanical technology - instead, magic-powered genetic engineering of living tools. Some of the more intelligent creations disagree about the tools bit, however.)

Please allow me to interest you in our latest fridge, the LG "Big Momma." She has an IQ of nearly 80 and is fully accredited in modern child-care practices.

With every conceivable protective gene built in, she protects children from intruders and creepy uncles with the ferocity of a mother tiger, but she's warm and soft on the outside and won't let them eat sweets before dinner.

Five year warranty against eating children. May have unfulfilled urges to reproduce. May eat ice-cream when moody.

Sounds like my wife. ;)

Speak for yourself. I'd be mad to do that since a cleaner charges more than I earn.



Allow me to interest you in the LG Big Bubba, our latest Butler ...

I'm prepared to let this thread go straight if people really want to talk about bioengineering. I don't think Rambhutan went as far as I in speculating about such appliances being entire living creatures (let alone having sentience.)

We don't let cattle unionize (that's called a stampede I guess, but ...) let alone plants. And we already genetically engineer quite a few things, there really isn't any reason why eventually we can't design creatures from scratch, instead of hunting around for genes for existing capabilities.

Self-cleaning and self-healing seems a much more saleable feature than chirpy conversation with your breakfast, I must say.
Yeah, but you don't expect cattle to pick up after your lazy messy ass and be friendly while they're at it. For that sort of thing, you usually end up having to pay. You want that toaster to love you while it burns your bagel? Make with the health benefits, monkey-boy.

Seriously, the whole point of having machines to do these chores was so we wouldn't have to worry about the hurt feelings of living creatures, because when you hurt living creatures' feelings, eventually they form unions and petition the government for redress and maybe even burn your house down. You know how many house fires are caused by appliances even now? Wait till they gain the capacity to get pissed off at you.

I'm gonna vote no on the bio-gadgets, thanks.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is how the problem with Replicants started.

:D

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is how the problem with Replicants started.

:D
I rest my case.

I think you're missing a more important problem: Who would want to eat something that had just been organically warmed?

You think that's bad? I read a sci-fi novel a few years ago where humanity had turned to bio-engineering for everything. The living creature that you pissed and shit in would clean you itself. Three guesses how.

Yeah, but you don't expect cattle to pick up after your lazy messy ass and be friendly while they're at it. For that sort of thing, you usually end up having to pay. You want that toaster to love you while it burns your bagel? Make with the health benefits, monkey-boy.

Seriously, the whole point of having machines to do these chores was so we wouldn't have to worry about the hurt feelings of living creatures, because when you hurt living creatures' feelings, eventually they form unions and petition the government for redress and maybe even burn your house down. You know how many house fires are caused by appliances even now? Wait till they gain the capacity to get pissed off at you.

I'm gonna vote no on the bio-gadgets, thanks.

In sci-fi at least the bio-engineered gadgets are usually no smarter than your average dog, most often less so, operating according to specification on pure instinct and/or training. Kind of like frat boys. Except better housebroken.

Yeah, but you don't expect cattle to pick up after your lazy messy ass and be friendly while they're at it. For that sort of thing, you usually end up having to pay. You want that toaster to love you while it burns your bagel? Make with the health benefits, monkey-boy.

Hehe. Your analysis is soundly grounded in the rigorous thinking of the great Marx himself. Congratulations comrade.

Seriously, the whole point of having machines to do these chores was so we wouldn't have to worry about the hurt feelings of living creatures, because when you hurt living creatures' feelings, eventually they form unions and petition the government for redress and maybe even burn your house down.

Seriously? That's a pretty sweeping summary of industrialization. I grant that unionization has a part in that development, but it drove it only the way it would go anyway.

How, really, is a household tool different from a factory, or a mechanized mine, or a tractor? It's the more effective tool which produces the same result for less hours and less effort of the labourer.

And all those people who would be planting in the fields find something else to do. The seamstresses become machine-operators, producing far more per hour so that we have cheaper clothes (that's the other side of it, consumption increasing.) The economy expands, seeking out new things to do with this available labour.

And when an economy is so industrialized that the price of labour is the most significant cost, the work moves elsewhere. But still we are addicted to work, and a strange thing happens: the services industries start to expand. We go back to employing servants for things we could do ourselves, cooking our meals or cutting our hair or cleaning our houses.

I think we've discovered that ultimately, the neato, cheaper-than-last-year things we can buy are just things. They're soulless and have no purpose but as tools, and we're lonely in our palaces and big cars. Our toys all get boring eventually, without other people to play with. Our work isn't worth anything, unless some other person values what we made.

You know how many house fires are caused by appliances even now? Wait till they gain the capacity to get pissed off at you.

If they're that smart then they also have a good reason NOT to burn our houses down, because they'll be destroyed themselves.

A suicidal toaster would be a far smarter toaster than necessary not to burn a bagel. I agree with you that "being nice to massa" isn't a necessary quality, and to try to make them hold conversation about what's in the news today would condemn them to the fate of Marvin the Paranoid Android. Or indeed of a dog who is locked up alone in a house while it's 'owner' is at work.

I'm gonna vote no on the bio-gadgets, thanks.

That's fine, I doubt anyone is ever going to take away your option of mechanical, manufactured goods for your own tool needs.

I'm not saying "whoo-hoo this will be great" if we go about bio-technology in the same ethically reckless way we have dealt with livestock or undisturbed ecosystems. We need to act carefully, recognizing differing degrees of rights in all things which are alive, or simulate life so closely that we can't tell the difference. It needs to be debated at the political level (and popular culture has to stop trivializing this very real future as "frankenstein's monster.")

We're going to have to do that, biotech or not, when artificial intelligences start making such contributions to society that they can demand their rights like good proletarians.

An "ecosystem" of new species, without overlords and without slaves, but all mutually dependent on each other for their specialized roles IS a risky utopia. But it's all I believe that will save us from the fate of the apes or the neanderthal, utter marginalization at the mercy of our own creations or extinction.

You think that's bad? I read a sci-fi novel a few years ago where humanity had turned to bio-engineering for everything. The living creature that you pissed and shit in would clean you itself. Three guesses how.

It really doesn't worry me. If the toilet wants to lick my bum, I'm fine with that.

(Yeah, it would have to want to. Dung beetles like dung, don't be anthromorphic.)

Can you tell me the name of that novel?

It really doesn't worry me. If the toilet wants to lick my bum, I'm fine with that.

(Yeah, it would have to want to. Dung beetles like dung, don't be anthromorphic.)

Can you tell me the name of that novel?

Off the top of my head no. Can't remember the authors name either but he was some sort of scientist, possibly an astrophysicist. Can't be many of them writing novels, they have to many physics things to do.

I think you're missing a more important problem: Who would want to eat something that had just been organically warmed? Think about how a toaster works, and then ask yourself: Would I feel comfortable shoving pieces of bread into the orifice of an animal, and then eating that bread when it was ejected a few moments later?
Somehow, I don't see a market for organic toasters emerging any time soon.

Do you eat eggs?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is how the problem with Replicants started.

:D

I really appreciate that you draw your example from a movie I HAVE actually seen. There aren't many of them. (Blade Runner, for anybody google-impaired)

Replicants are robots (artificial intelligences) with a covering of human flesh, right?

The purpose is quite clearly to trick humans who think they're living in an all-human world into accepting something non-human as an equal.

Really not what what I'm for. We have to grow up and accept that humans have some qualities, and other lives have others.

Are we, as humans, that terrified of any rivalry that the only acceptable animal is a slave?

Do you eat eggs?

"Not the shells" to save His Bottomness Of Fiddles from answering.

Do you like what I did with your thread? What larks, eh? :p

Off the top of my head no. Can't remember the authors name either but he was some sort of scientist, possibly an astrophysicist. Can't be many of them writing novels, they have to many physics things to do.

On the contrary, thinking about physics is a great way to throw a piston. Philosophers have the same problem.

Difference is, who buys your books when you turn to writing fiction for a living.

The Conscience of God, by Deitzl Kumpwstzn, MA (Phys.) -- wow, this will be some whacky quantum stuff! -- BUY!
The Bigger Bang, by IIengo Kwaayzi, PhD (Phil.) -- gee, this sounds kinda hard and confusing. -- back on shelf.

Do you like what I did with your thread? What larks, eh? :p

Glad you kept it alive - my broadband connection died on me last night.

Do you eat eggs?
Yes, but first I crack the shells and then I cook them in a frying pan and/or baked good. I'd never reach into a chicken's nest and just gobble down whatever I found.

In sci-fi at least the bio-engineered gadgets are usually no smarter than your average dog, most often less so, operating according to specification on pure instinct and/or training. Kind of like frat boys. Except better housebroken.
I don't know what sci-fi you read, but I tend to go for books/movies like I, Robot, Terminator, Bladerunner, Hitchhiker's Guide ("Real People Personalities (tm)", anyone?), 2001: A Space Odyssey ("Open the pod bay doors, HAL." "I'm sorry, I can't do that, Dave."). These things never turn out well in the long run.

Yes, but first I crack the shells and then I cook them in a frying pan and/or baked good. I'd never reach into a chicken's nest and just gobble down whatever I found.

But people can get used to most things, I mean balut seems pretty disgusting to me but if I had been born in the Philippines I might be used to the idea of eating half developed duck foetus.

Hehe. Your analysis is soundly grounded in the rigorous thinking of the great Marx himself. Congratulations comrade.



Seriously? That's a pretty sweeping summary of industrialization. I grant that unionization has a part in that development, but it drove it only the way it would go anyway.

How, really, is a household tool different from a factory, or a mechanized mine, or a tractor? It's the more effective tool which produces the same result for less hours and less effort of the labourer.

And all those people who would be planting in the fields find something else to do. The seamstresses become machine-operators, producing far more per hour so that we have cheaper clothes (that's the other side of it, consumption increasing.) The economy expands, seeking out new things to do with this available labour.

And when an economy is so industrialized that the price of labour is the most significant cost, the work moves elsewhere. But still we are addicted to work, and a strange thing happens: the services industries start to expand. We go back to employing servants for things we could do ourselves, cooking our meals or cutting our hair or cleaning our houses.

I think we've discovered that ultimately, the neato, cheaper-than-last-year things we can buy are just things. They're soulless and have no purpose but as tools, and we're lonely in our palaces and big cars. Our toys all get boring eventually, without other people to play with. Our work isn't worth anything, unless some other person values what we made.



If they're that smart then they also have a good reason NOT to burn our houses down, because they'll be destroyed themselves.

A suicidal toaster would be a far smarter toaster than necessary not to burn a bagel. I agree with you that "being nice to massa" isn't a necessary quality, and to try to make them hold conversation about what's in the news today would condemn them to the fate of Marvin the Paranoid Android. Or indeed of a dog who is locked up alone in a house while it's 'owner' is at work.



That's fine, I doubt anyone is ever going to take away your option of mechanical, manufactured goods for your own tool needs.

I'm not saying "whoo-hoo this will be great" if we go about bio-technology in the same ethically reckless way we have dealt with livestock or undisturbed ecosystems. We need to act carefully, recognizing differing degrees of rights in all things which are alive, or simulate life so closely that we can't tell the difference. It needs to be debated at the political level (and popular culture has to stop trivializing this very real future as "frankenstein's monster.")

We're going to have to do that, biotech or not, when artificial intelligences start making such contributions to society that they can demand their rights like good proletarians.

An "ecosystem" of new species, without overlords and without slaves, but all mutually dependent on each other for their specialized roles IS a risky utopia. But it's all I believe that will save us from the fate of the apes or the neanderthal, utter marginalization at the mercy of our own creations or extinction.
And THIS^^ right here -- the above quoted rant -- is the reason why this entire amusing notion can only end in tears and rivers of human blood.

It has nothing at all to do with the technology. Nope, nothing. Technology is always morally, ethically, functionally neutral. There is nothing inherently bad or wrong about the proposed technology.

What's wrong with it, and what guarantees a bad result, is the brains of the people applying it.

Too much vision and too little humor. That's what oppresses populations, kills people, and ruins good ideas. When you get some out-there "visonary" who is talking about something that is, today, entirely imaginary, but who applies such rigid literal-mindedness to it that he can't even recognize a little rhetorical humor in another person's remark and thinks that person is trying to accurately describe history... well, I'm sorry, but that's a signpost, and it reads "Road to Disaster."

What's that old saying about how early computers worked? "GIGO = Garbage In/Garbage Out." I find that rule applies especially when you include the project designer, too.

Bio-tech may very well be the future, friend. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that it will be -- though not in the form you are imagining -- because I have a good friend who is working in that field right now at Cal-Tech (in the area of developing "smart" prosthetics and implants for disabled people, as well as "smart" environments that can be controlled by neural implants; not an organic toaster, but rather the ability to toast bread via mind control, essentially).

But the ONE THING I WOULD NEVER DO is put some literal-minded weirdo with no sense of humor, history, or perspective in charge of such projects.

EDIT: Btw, BSB, I have decided to cast you in the role of the literal-minded, humorless, thinking-in-a-vacuum weirdo mad-scientist-cum-social-engineer wannabe, so don't even waste your time trying to clarify that you were kidding. It's too late. You made the thread, now you get to play the role. :p

I really appreciate that you draw your example from a movie I HAVE actually seen. There aren't many of them. (Blade Runner, for anybody google-impaired)

Replicants are robots (artificial intelligences) with a covering of human flesh, right?

The purpose is quite clearly to trick humans who think they're living in an all-human world into accepting something non-human as an equal.

Really not what what I'm for. We have to grow up and accept that humans have some qualities, and other lives have others.

Are we, as humans, that terrified of any rivalry that the only acceptable animal is a slave?
No. You're thinking of Terminator. Replicants are fully bio-engineered right down to the trademarked bone. Terminators mimic human behaviors/reactions. Replicants have a real sense of individual self, which is inherent, i.e. not implanted by their creators. This is why many of them come to realize that there is something off about their artificially implanted memories, and something arbitrary about their short life spans. And THAT is the cause of their resentment against the humans who make them.

"Some nice hot crisp brown buttered toast?"

Would this toaster happen to be a Talkie Toaster?

Bio-tech may very well be the future, friend. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that it will be -- though not in the form you are imagining -- because I have a good friend who is working in that field right now at Cal-Tech (in the area of developing "smart" prosthetics and implants for disabled people, as well as "smart" environments that can be controlled by neural implants; not an organic toaster, but rather the ability to toast bread via mind control, essentially).

What I want to know is when I can make a mind-mind call...

I like your ideas, Rambhutan!

Thank you

..or a vacuum cleaner or an alarm clock? A vacuum cleaner what do we need, a filter - okay we will have some genes from a sponge; a pump - well there are plenty of those in nature. An alarm clock - timing systems are fairly common, the display could be like the skin of a squid or octopus with some jellyfish thrown in so it glows in the dark, chlorophyl so it can power itself maybe it could catch and digest flies as well.

why does this remind me of a B-Movie I once saw... where aliens alter a vaccum cleaner so that it would mate with a human to produce a cleaner species. :p

What I want to know is when I can make a mind-mind call...
Cal-tech is working on it.

I don't know what sci-fi you read, but I tend to go for books/movies like I, Robot, Terminator, Bladerunner, Hitchhiker's Guide ("Real People Personalities (tm)", anyone?), 2001: A Space Odyssey ("Open the pod bay doors, HAL." "I'm sorry, I can't do that, Dave."). These things never turn out well in the long run.

Those are advanced AI's for the most part, not bio-engineered service beasts. A whole different kettle of fish with separate problems.

Those are advanced AI's for the most part, not bio-engineered service beasts. A whole different kettle of fish with separate problems.
Yes, like the pooping.

why does this remind me of a B-Movie I once saw... where aliens alter a vaccum cleaner so that it would mate with a human to produce a cleaner species. :p

You sure this was a B-movie? The plot synopsis just screams 'porn'.

And THIS^^ right here -- the above quoted rant -- is the reason why this entire amusing notion can only end in tears and rivers of human blood.

It has nothing at all to do with the technology. Nope, nothing. Technology is always morally, ethically, functionally neutral. There is nothing inherently bad or wrong about the proposed technology.

What's wrong with it, and what guarantees a bad result, is the brains of the people applying it.

Too much vision and too little humor. That's what oppresses populations, kills people, and ruins good ideas. When you get some out-there "visonary" who is talking about something that is, today, entirely imaginary, but who applies such rigid literal-mindedness to it that he can't even recognize a little rhetorical humor in another person's remark and thinks that person is trying to accurately describe history... well, I'm sorry, but that's a signpost, and it reads "Road to Disaster."

What's that old saying about how early computers worked? "GIGO = Garbage In/Garbage Out." I find that rule applies especially when you include the project designer, too.

Bio-tech may very well be the future, friend. In fact, I can almost guarantee you that it will be -- though not in the form you are imagining -- because I have a good friend who is working in that field right now at Cal-Tech (in the area of developing "smart" prosthetics and implants for disabled people, as well as "smart" environments that can be controlled by neural implants; not an organic toaster, but rather the ability to toast bread via mind control, essentially).

But the ONE THING I WOULD NEVER DO is put some literal-minded weirdo with no sense of humor, history, or perspective in charge of such projects.

EDIT: Btw, BSB, I have decided to cast you in the role of the literal-minded, humorless, thinking-in-a-vacuum weirdo mad-scientist-cum-social-engineer wannabe, so don't even waste your time trying to clarify that you were kidding. It's too late. You made the thread, now you get to play the role. :p

Before you made you first post to this thread, I'd been joking for several pages. Even serious posts got the treatment but I had pretty much run out of funny. I was starting to think I might be annoying people who really wanted to talk seriously about the subject.

So when I answered you post I quite explicitly said I wasn't joking any more. Here was your reply:

Yeah, but you don't expect cattle to pick up after your lazy messy ass and be friendly while they're at it. For that sort of thing, you usually end up having to pay. You want that toaster to love you while it burns your bagel? Make with the health benefits, monkey-boy.

Seriously, the whole point of having machines to do these chores was so we wouldn't have to worry about the hurt feelings of living creatures, because when you hurt living creatures' feelings, eventually they form unions and petition the government for redress and maybe even burn your house down. You know how many house fires are caused by appliances even now? Wait till they gain the capacity to get pissed off at you.

I'm gonna vote no on the bio-gadgets, thanks.


That has to be a joke. Or else you just called me names. I took it as humour.
This paragraph begins "Seriously ..."
This paragraph is a simple statement.


I think I have a pretty good sense of humour, in that I can detect jokes without having to have smilies spattered all around them. But how the hell am I supposed to take that post as "a little rhetorical humour" ? It seems to go out of its way to rule out any such interpretation.

Why would you ambush me that way? Trying to prove that your sense of humour is better and subtler than mine? Fine, whatever. You're smarter than me too, and educate yourself better, and probably lead a more virtuous life too.

The last dozen or so times I have replied to your posts you've turned it personal in much the same way as the above. I can't help thinking that you just don't like me ... so rather than inviting any more pain I just won't reply to you in future. I will continue to read your posts with interest, but I'm just too delicate for that kind of working over.

Before you made you first post to this thread, I'd been joking for several pages. Even serious posts got the treatment but I had pretty much run out of funny. I was starting to think I might be annoying people who really wanted to talk seriously about the subject.

So when I answered you post I quite explicitly said I wasn't joking any more. Here was your reply:


That has to be a joke. Or else you just called me names. I took it as humour.
"Monkey-boy" is the single most memorable phrase from 80's cult flick "Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension" in which villain Dr. Emilio Lizardo (John Lithgow in arguably his best role, as argued by more than one film critic) who is a reptilian alien disguised as a human incarcerated in a New Jersey insane asylum, taunts his keepers who do not know of his secret plans with the shout, "Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!" (with Italian accent), obviously referencing the fact that we humans are primates and his people, the Red Lectroids from Planet 10, are not.

The proposer's lack of cultural awareness is a point against your proposal. A person who does not immediately recognize a Buckaroo Banzai reference should not be put in charge of developing new life forms.

This paragraph begins "Seriously ..."
Indeed, it does. However, although reading is fundamental, it is not enough just to see the words. You must also be able to follow the sense of what a person is saying in order to tell when they switch from joke to seriousness, as when, they start with a joke and then switch to a real point, even though they persist in presenting it in a humorous style.

A person who is familiar with history should be able to tell that I was describing a truth about history but using a vastly oversimplified and hyperbolic style to do it.

Why would I do that? Because I was assuming that the person I was speaking to would be able to know that (a) I was not describing a literal set of specific events, and (b) I was describing a general sense that automation causes less trouble with labor that labor does precisely because the machines are not alive.

So, the proposer's inability to tell fact from fiction or navigate a layered statement is another point against your proposal.

By the way, if item 2 of your list is anything to judge by, I'll bet you took my response to item 1 as 100% serious, too.

This paragraph is a simple statement.

If you are referring to the third paragraph of my post, then yes, you are correct. That is a simple statement. It is also a true statement. Is there a reason you are pointing that out?

I think I have a pretty good sense of humour, in that I can detect jokes without having to have smilies spattered all around them. But how the hell am I supposed to take that post as "a little rhetorical humour" ? It seems to go out of its way to rule out any such interpretation.
Apparently, your detector is not as good as you thought it was.

Why would you ambush me that way? Trying to prove that your sense of humour is better and subtler than mine? Fine, whatever. You're smarter than me too, and educate yourself better, and probably lead a more virtuous life too.
All of that is probably true. However, none of it is relevant or even suggested by anything that came before this post of yours. Nobody ambushed you with anything.

Was I making fun? Of course I was, but not of you. I was playing with your proposed idea, not you. Did you expect to post your great ideas and receive only agreement and endorsement? Did you think everybody who read your idea would think it is a serious proposal that has any applicability to real life?

The last dozen or so times I have replied to your posts you've turned it personal in much the same way as the above. I can't help thinking that you just don't like me ... so rather than inviting any more pain I just won't reply to you in future. I will continue to read your posts with interest, but I'm just too delicate for that kind of working over.
I'm sorry you think I don't like you, but I assure you, it is not so. The truth is I have no feelings about you at all. You say you have replied to me a dozen or so times -- I assume you mean over many different threads. I have to be completely honest and admit I have no recollection of us having much in the way of discussion about anything in any thread before now. I certainly do not enter a thread with negative feelings about you. If someone were to ask me what I think of you, I would have to tell them that I have no idea what your views on any issue are.

If you want a real serious response to this thread's topic, completely free of any humor or rhetoric or anything like that, then here it is:

Genetically engineering animals to function the way the OP envisions would be unethical in the extreme, and for that reason I would reject any such proposal.

It is one thing to selectively breed animals to enhance natural qualities they already possess so that humans can benefit from domesticating them. That does not fundamentally alter the nature of the beasts. Even so, the fact of domesticating and selectively breeding animals creates an ethical burden upon humans to care for such animals and not abuse them. For a society that uses living creatures in such a way to maintain an ethical foundation requires that the lives of such creatures be granted a value in society that governs how they must be treated.

But it is a different thing entirely to create creatures solely to be slaves to human desires for things such as toast or clean carpets, and to fundamentally alter the nature of existing creatures or engineer entirely new life forms for that purpose. Not just creating a symbiotic relationship with creatures that would be doing what we ask of them even if we didn't ask it, but to actually create a being that has no purpose in the world but to serve the whims of humans. That indicates a lack of value granted to those lives, as they are nothing but servitors, with no recognition that they have any reason of their own to exist.

That requires a mindset that sees living beings as nothing but tools or toys to be used for personal convenience -- in essence, a slave-master's mentality -- fundamentally unethical.

In my serious opinion, the proposed idea is unethical, unrealistic, unnecessary, selfish and even a bit juvenile. If it were being seriously proposed, I would advocate against it.

Are you happy now that I gave you a serious response? Or did you prefer it when I treated your idea as a joke, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you couldn't possibly be seriously suggesting such a future?

Thanks for your reply, Murayvets. Both your previous humour and your serious opinion on the subject are now very clear.

Everything in this thread is TL;DR, except the title.

My answer is a resounding YES, because it sounds sufficiently silly to invest money in.

Genetically engineering animals to function the way the OP envisions would be unethical in the extreme, and for that reason I would reject any such proposal.

It is one thing to selectively breed animals to enhance natural qualities they already possess so that humans can benefit from domesticating them. That does not fundamentally alter the nature of the beasts. Even so, the fact of domesticating and selectively breeding animals creates an ethical burden upon humans to care for such animals and not abuse them. For a society that uses living creatures in such a way to maintain an ethical foundation requires that the lives of such creatures be granted a value in society that governs how they must be treated.

But it is a different thing entirely to create creatures solely to be slaves to human desires for things such as toast or clean carpets, and to fundamentally alter the nature of existing creatures or engineer entirely new life forms for that purpose. Not just creating a symbiotic relationship with creatures that would be doing what we ask of them even if we didn't ask it, but to actually create a being that has no purpose in the world but to serve the whims of humans. That indicates a lack of value granted to those lives, as they are nothing but servitors, with no recognition that they have any reason of their own to exist.

That requires a mindset that sees living beings as nothing but tools or toys to be used for personal convenience -- in essence, a slave-master's mentality -- fundamentally unethical.

I see these sorts of objections come up a lot in discussions of present and future genetic engineering and, for whatever it is worth, I agree that there are ethical issues with the sort of things you're talking about. It's worth bearing in mind, however, that genetically engineered solutions do not necessarily entail creation of complete organisms.

In my serious opinion, the proposed idea is unethical, unrealistic, unnecessary, selfish and even a bit juvenile. If it were being seriously proposed, I would advocate against it.

If the proposed solution to a problem was to engineer a biological system that did not involve any higher brain functions should it still be viewed it as "unethical, unrealistic, unnecessary, selfish and even a bit juvenile"? Given that we are already capable of maintaining such systems without relying on a brain to regulate their 'life' it seems reasonable to conclude that new systems could be created that function in the same way.

If people do still feel that such projects would be unethical or somehow selfish, or whatever, I must ask them... where should the line be drawn? What of blue cheeses or probiotic yoghurts? These contain organisms that we use for our own benefit, with nary a thought for their well-being. What if the base genetic construct that we were to modify was a plant? Would that be okay? Going further, what if the newly-engineered system did not involve modifying an existing organism at all, but was instead created from scratch by replicating desirable characteristics from several organisms by way of using the same genes?

The "modified animal" versus "ground-up construction of entirely new organic tissue" distinction is a crucial one to make and is something that a lot of people tend to ignore in this sort of discussion, preferring to react with a big "ick" and a blanket refusal to even contemplate the type of genetic engineering that we will soon be capable of.



(These are broad general points and my questions are not necessarily directed at you, Muravyets. Your posts simply happened to be the ones nearest the end of the thread that seemed to illustrate the mindset that I'm talking about.)

Longhaul is right, I am not talking about creating anything with an advanced nervous system capable of feeling pain let alone thinking. I was actually thinking of organisms more like plants than animals - where the ethics and morality of that lies is something we should be working out now. I think it is a mistake to rule this kind of bio-engineering out. Fresh water is going to be a limiting factor in the coming years and I believe this kind of approach could be used to produce a very efficient de-salination 'plant' better than conventional tehnology. To steal William Burrough's title 'soft machines' are something that we will develop at some point.

I have no interest in pursuing this topic seriously. I see tons of practical problems with it, and a lot of pie-in-the-sky imagining at about the same level of depth as a Sci-Fi original movie script. While the thread had the atmosphere of a fun party game, where we got to play with a future notion, I was happy to be the kind of downer voice that humorously brings up all the things that could possibly go hilariously wrong with the idea, but if people are going to start parsing this out as if it is actually on the horizon, I'll bow out because I have nothing good to say about it.

I have already mentioned the direction of bio-tech that is currently being worked on, which is exciting, controversial, and already on the horizon. I hope I have also indicated that I am not against humans reorganizing our world to support our lives. And I hope I have made clear that my real, serious concerns are about ethics, not about the technology, and that it is my view that the proposed application of the imagined science would be unethical.

However, since none of it is even close to being real (Cal-tech is not, to my knowledge, working on a toast tree), I will not rain on your parade by being the downer voice of serious ethical objections.

You sure this was a B-movie? The plot synopsis just screams 'porn'.oh yeah. a low budget B-movie.
Damnit.. the title escapes me. but it was helarious when the owner uses the vaccum to clean up some aphrodisiac that he spilt.

oh yeah. a low budget B-movie.
Damnit.. the title escapes me. but it was helarious when the owner uses the vaccum to clean up some aphrodisiac that he spilt.

Over-sexed rugsuckers from Mars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200940/

tayloring a life form to emulate a mechanical object would be illogical.

leave it to a primative species like earth's 'humans' to suggest such silliness.

tayloring a life form to emulate a mechanical object would be illogical.

leave it to a primative species like earth's 'humans' to suggest such silliness.

I would say that humans mainly do it the other way round - a computer is just an attempt to create a non-organic brain - is that somehow more logical?

..or a vacuum cleaner or an alarm clock? A vacuum cleaner what do we need, a filter - okay we will have some genes from a sponge; a pump - well there are plenty of those in nature. An alarm clock - timing systems are fairly common, the display could be like the skin of a squid or octopus with some jellyfish thrown in so it glows in the dark, chlorophyl so it can power itself maybe it could catch and digest flies as well.

I'm reminded of several bits from Bruce Sterling's Distraction (in particular the biological watch Greta made for Oscar - basically genegeneered from the circadian neural cells from a rat and the biophosphoesent cells from a firefly).

Cylons were created by man, they rebelled, they evolved and they have a plan.

Err... no. The Cylons were a lizardoid race that created the Cylon robots...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylon_(1978)

At first glance, the toaster seems the most problematic, as it would be extremely difficult to engineer a living system capable of generating the concentrated temperature required to do the actual toasting (although there are a number of organisms that can tolerate extremely high temperatures, very few are known to actually generate them themselves). It might be possible, I suppose... the chemical reaction used as a defence mechanism by bombardier beetles can reach 105° Celsius, which is a start, but it'd take a lot of that sort of thing going on at once to heat up a grill-like setup and make your toast. I'm sure there are engineers who could work out some kind of way to do it, once you'd engineered a big pile of heat generating units for them to play with.

In short, no, I can't see any reason that we might not ever be able genetically engineer these things.

Indeed.

As far as my knowledge of genetics go, only humans and animals can be genetically engineered. Things lack genes so... no. We cannot genetically engineer a toaster.

Heh. Who says a toaster has to be a mechanical device, and can't be biological?

Create ranches and make sure that they need a certain hormone which only the company has in order to reproduce. That way only the company can breed toasters.

Boneless toaster ranch, anyone?

Yes that would work.

It occurs to me that they could be seedless fruit, and the company keeps tight control over the trees that they grow on.



Nice. Queen toasters, waddling around the farm excreting toaster eggs.

Even better: boneless seedless toaster ranch!

I want to genetically engineer small mess-making creatures that run around like monkeys on speed and drive you insane with their antics. I shall call these creatures 'children'.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get Little Goofball off of the refrigerator. :p

SPIGGANS!! (http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html)

o.o Genetically engineered? That doesn't even make sense, it's organisms that are genetically engineered... appliances like toasters are electrically or mechanically engineered...

And, again, who says a toaster must be mechanical?

You sure this was a B-movie? The plot synopsis just screams 'porn'.

B porno?

"Monkey-boy" is the single most memorable phrase from 80's cult flick "Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension" in which villain Dr. Emilio Lizardo (John Lithgow in arguably his best role, as argued by more than one film critic) who is a reptilian alien disguised as a human incarcerated in a New Jersey insane asylum, taunts his keepers who do not know of his secret plans with the shout, "Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!" (with Italian accent), obviously referencing the fact that we humans are primates and his people, the Red Lectroids from Planet 10, are not.

The proposer's lack of cultural awareness is a point against your proposal. A person who does not immediately recognize a Buckaroo Banzai reference should not be put in charge of developing new life forms.


Indeed, it does. However, although reading is fundamental, it is not enough just to see the words. You must also be able to follow the sense of what a person is saying in order to tell when they switch from joke to seriousness, as when, they start with a joke and then switch to a real point, even though they persist in presenting it in a humorous style.

A person who is familiar with history should be able to tell that I was describing a truth about history but using a vastly oversimplified and hyperbolic style to do it.

Why would I do that? Because I was assuming that the person I was speaking to would be able to know that (a) I was not describing a literal set of specific events, and (b) I was describing a general sense that automation causes less trouble with labor that labor does precisely because the machines are not alive.

So, the proposer's inability to tell fact from fiction or navigate a layered statement is another point against your proposal.

By the way, if item 2 of your list is anything to judge by, I'll bet you took my response to item 1 as 100% serious, too.


If you are referring to the third paragraph of my post, then yes, you are correct. That is a simple statement. It is also a true statement. Is there a reason you are pointing that out?


Apparently, your detector is not as good as you thought it was.


All of that is probably true. However, none of it is relevant or even suggested by anything that came before this post of yours. Nobody ambushed you with anything.

Was I making fun? Of course I was, but not of you. I was playing with your proposed idea, not you. Did you expect to post your great ideas and receive only agreement and endorsement? Did you think everybody who read your idea would think it is a serious proposal that has any applicability to real life?


I'm sorry you think I don't like you, but I assure you, it is not so. The truth is I have no feelings about you at all. You say you have replied to me a dozen or so times -- I assume you mean over many different threads. I have to be completely honest and admit I have no recollection of us having much in the way of discussion about anything in any thread before now. I certainly do not enter a thread with negative feelings about you. If someone were to ask me what I think of you, I would have to tell them that I have no idea what your views on any issue are.

If you want a real serious response to this thread's topic, completely free of any humor or rhetoric or anything like that, then here it is:

Genetically engineering animals to function the way the OP envisions would be unethical in the extreme, and for that reason I would reject any such proposal.

It is one thing to selectively breed animals to enhance natural qualities they already possess so that humans can benefit from domesticating them. That does not fundamentally alter the nature of the beasts. Even so, the fact of domesticating and selectively breeding animals creates an ethical burden upon humans to care for such animals and not abuse them. For a society that uses living creatures in such a way to maintain an ethical foundation requires that the lives of such creatures be granted a value in society that governs how they must be treated.

But it is a different thing entirely to create creatures solely to be slaves to human desires for things such as toast or clean carpets, and to fundamentally alter the nature of existing creatures or engineer entirely new life forms for that purpose. Not just creating a symbiotic relationship with creatures that would be doing what we ask of them even if we didn't ask it, but to actually create a being that has no purpose in the world but to serve the whims of humans. That indicates a lack of value granted to those lives, as they are nothing but servitors, with no recognition that they have any reason of their own to exist.

That requires a mindset that sees living beings as nothing but tools or toys to be used for personal convenience -- in essence, a slave-master's mentality -- fundamentally unethical.

In my serious opinion, the proposed idea is unethical, unrealistic, unnecessary, selfish and even a bit juvenile. If it were being seriously proposed, I would advocate against it.

Are you happy now that I gave you a serious response? Or did you prefer it when I treated your idea as a joke, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you couldn't possibly be seriously suggesting such a future?

No matter where you go there you are. :D

And serious reply - it doesn't have to be a higher level animal.

For a toaster, take a bit or coral or sponge, mix in some thermophile DNA , and add a souped up version of the bombadier beetle's fire starter, and wallah!