Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I doubt they would use non-human genes, just use alternative human genes. There's no reason not to remove and replace genes causing cystic fibrosis for example.

There is already a good deal of research into how we might adapt the genetic structure of species exhibiting negligible senescence (lobsters, giant tortoises, hydras, etc.) in order to produce similar longevity in humans. Which, actually brings up an issue unique to aging: what happens if we can modify people such that they, for all intents and purposes, do not age? I mean, of course they'll die eventually (if not of age, then injury or disease), but much of the human willingness to take risks is grounded in the realization of our own mortality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gymnogyps wrote:

Anyway, more philosophical... Whats the point of athletic competition if the results are purchased?

In many ways they already are. An Olympic training schedule doesn't pay for itself. Additionally, while genetics are important to athletic ability, what you do with those genetics is also important. Michael Phelps isn't brilliant swimmer simply because he happened to be genetically predisposed to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gymnogyps wrote:

Say my parents were musicians, and there was a way to "turn up" a child's musical ability VIA genetic manipulation. My parents decide to go through with it. What if everything else about me has no interest or even dislikes music? What if I really wanted to do anything but music? How would I know if my genes had been altered? It's kinda messed up, actually.

But would it matter? What is the distinction between the natural manipulation of the genetic structure of a given child caused by the process of fertilization, and the intentional manipulation of that process by a human? In either case you could claim that you would have been a different person if a certain event didn't happen, or happened differently.

I would also question the degree to which genetics can be said to influence preference.

While nanobot implants and cybernatic improvements may be "superior" to genetic alteration, they do have an issue in that they actually make the human body reliant on the implant. Eventually, those humans would evolve to where they could not live without the implants. And if something destroyed those implants(EMP or some other sort of directed attack) those humans would suddenly suffer the consequences, which could range from nothing to outright death.

Take a nanobot Immune system. With the Nanobots doing all the work, the natural Immune system would atrophy. If all those people suddenly lost their Nanobots they would be extremely vulnerable. It would be like AIDS but a billion times worse. A little cold could kill you, Yogurt would be instant death, your own gut bacteria would eat you from the inside... Might make a cool drama

So really you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The only real option is to use Nanobots only for the treatment of serious diseases and remove them from the body afterwards.

 Grey Templar wrote:
While nanobot implants and cybernatic improvements may be "superior" to genetic alteration, they do have an issue in that they actually make the human body reliant on the implant. Eventually, those humans would evolve to where they could not live without the implants.

Per our present understanding of genetics, that would not be the case. Changes to the expression of a given gene in a given person do not alter the gene itself (at least so far as genetics is understood). So, while you might see a person with a nanotechnologically enhanced immune system become dependent on it, his progeny would not be so hampered.

Additionally, I think you're underestimating how slowly evolution occurs. It can be taken as a something very close to a rule that technology will outpace it.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
While nanobot implants and cybernatic improvements may be "superior" to genetic alteration, they do have an issue in that they actually make the human body reliant on the implant. Eventually, those humans would evolve to where they could not live without the implants.

Per our present understanding of genetics, that would not be the case. Changes to the expression of a given gene in a given person do not alter the gene itself (at least so far as genetics is understood). So, while you might see a person with a nanotechnologically enhanced immune system become dependent on it, his progeny would not be so hampered.

yeah, but why would only one generation use the nano-implants? It would become a standard procedure and everyone with them would get screwed if they deactivated.

Additionally, I think you're underestimating how slowly evolution occurs. It can be taken as a something very close to a rule that technology will outpace it.

Well yeah, I did say eventually.

 Grey Templar wrote:

yeah, but why would only one generation use the nano-implants? It would become a standard procedure and everyone with them would get screwed if they deactivated.

True, but technology is far from stagnant, and its reasonable to assume that each successive generation would be equipped with superior enhancements, both in terms of effect and resilience. And of course you will always have dissenters who opt out, and the inevitable presence of methods designed to supplement any type of nanotechnological enhancement; in the event of failure or otherwise.

And either way, it isn't as though humans aren't already vulnerable to on a systemic level. We all have the same vulnerabilities to airborne poison, for example.

But that doesn't address my point that if the Nanomachines get disabled the people with them are hosed. You would still need a natural immune system. That can't be replaced with failsafe machines.

Speaking of the Eugenics wars.
I just happened to watch Space Seed this morning. How does the new Treks's continuity work now that we've passed what should have been Khan's timeline?

 Grey Templar wrote:
But that doesn't address my point that if the Nanomachines get disabled the people with them are hosed.

Sure it does. This isn't an either or thing, once you have the technology to produce nanomachines capable of augmenting your strength/endurance/immune system/whatever, you also have the technology to readily supplement the enhancement by way of things like gene therapy.

Further, even in the absence of genetic enhancement in concert with nanotechnological enhancement, you still have to account for the fact that technology is not uniform. My computer couldn't survive a trip to Mars, as stellar radiation would almost certainly eat it for lunch, but there are computers that can; the same goes for EMPs. A more down to Earth example would be the comparative vulnerability to viruses seen in Windows and Mac systems. The point of this being that it would be virtually impossibly to disable all nanotechnological enhancements, even in a relatively small area, because the enhancements would not be uniform. And, even if they were, you run into the same problem with genetic enhancements. I mean sure, we could make everyone genetically capable of processing chlorine gas, but there will always be a way to circumvent that capacity.

To sum up, some people might not be able to survive without their enhancements, but we already know that no one can survive without certain key biological processes. At worst the situation hasn't changed, at best the presence of diversity in genetic or technological capacity creates a form of safety in numbers.

But that doesn't address my point that if the Nanomachines get disabled the people with them are hosed. You would still need a natural immune system. That can't be replaced with failsafe machines.

Frankly the point that are attempting to make doesn't really matter. It's the equ"valent of saying, "Man, but what about those people who are dependent upon their biological systems? I mean one errant fireball and poof, they're fethed." Nanobots are much more resilient to pretty much everything in comparison to organic based multi celllular organisms.