Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grek]

In principle, we could start with a non-human. The problem then becomes modifying the non-human to have a human mind. Which is super duper hard.

[Littleloki]

Ok thanks for the clarification Grek.

Searching the animal kingdom I think I have a few more suggestions.

1. Orangutans! Seriously, orangutans have the most energy efficient structure of any animal on earth even more so than a sloth or even a human at complete rest. This is said to do with their slow growth and reproductive cycles but it's not quite known what causes it. Nail that down however and we have an extremely efficient being.

2. Camels. While using massive fat lumps as a way to concentrate body fat and store water in said fat might be a little out there, The camel still has a lot that we can use. Oval shaped red blood cells allow for the transfer of oxygen even during times of great dehydration. The camel also has advanced kidneys and intestines that can recycle a lot of water out of waste. So much so that they piss syrup and excrete what is essentially charcoal. They also can trap excaping water vapor using their nostrils but I do not think that is necessary. 

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Organic = has carbon. I'd say it's pretty organic.
I think they want a human. The real question is: do we want to design someone who can work in the environment without costly equipment, or someone who could survive if cut off from all civilization with just the dirt around them to support them?

@gwg full post incoming, but for now:
You're blundering past the point: we don't want to require our players to explain precisely how we would accomplish our goals. That is completely unfeasible. So long as it is possible IE not impossible, we should be able to do it, given enough research. In game research. Not. NOT. Real life bloody research.
Otherwise I WANT TO KNOW precisely what genetic markers you'd fit the feather gene between;  I want to know every bloody mechanism involved in your damn ectotherm idea. Chimpanzee writing shakespeare eh? You know you can't just poke a gene in there and make the body do entirely new things.

full edit incoming, btw I'm tired.

-Now that I'm off-duty, & no longer typing from the back of a moving vehicle:

Spoiler: Wall of text part 1 (click to show/hide)

How bout we just raise the normal body temperature to 48 centigrade (220 Kelvin) so they would not need too cool down as much (instead they'd need to keep warm most of the time, like earth people do)

    If we want to increase the average body temperature, we have to go in and fix all the proteins in the body that denature (ie. stop working) at that temperature so they don't break. That would be a whole lot of work.

Indeed. Especially with that kind of temperature. Why even have it so high?

Also: just saying 'increase mean body temperature, engineer replacement proteins' might work out just fine- it's a forum game after all. Stealing proteins would work too, but in terms of forum game turns it'd take the same amount of effort, 'adapt lizard enzymes to work in our creature' is just as many commands as the previous one.

Well, firstly, that assumes that the GM is bending realism; secondly, it assumes that we'd rather be lazy than debate biology. And I'd imagine that for many of us here, debating the biology is half the fun.
*raises hand*

We're going to have to bend realism at some point. Unless you want to code in the genetics yourself. Or as a more relatable example, do we want to go over the suite of avian respiratory adaptations or just say 'bird lungs'?

That's not what I was saying.
There's a difference between "decide the details but leave the last ones out" and "who cares about realism?"

Are you implying that it's impossible to modify or create enzymes that aren't denatured at (what was it? 350c?)? Because that appears to be what you're saying is completely unrealistic.

I don't get where I would have said that.

On an aside, 350c might be a bit much. 48 is better.

On shrinking: Hmm, nifty. So we could go down to a meter while maintaining perfect portions & overall functionality you'd say?

No, there is, because there are varying degrees of rule of awesome jurisdiction. Basic gameplay functionality? I'd say rule of awesome would be important here. Making telekinetic humans? I'd say, in this thread, that's outside it's jurisdiction (hopefully, unless it's included in subsequent backstory).
The reason the rule of awesome is important here is because requiring us to explain, down to the molecular level, how our modifications would work is not viable, aka, NOT. AWESOME.
How is carbon fiber produced? You get a bunch of carbon and string it together with complicated chemical processes.

Technically, unicorns pooping puppies is a possibility. However, while I was kinda poking fun by calling it 'the Avatar carbon fiber gene', bones reinforced with carbon fiber might see somewhat more practical applications than a unicorn that poops puppies.
It's already been stated but: this is the future. We might know how.

Spoiler: part 2 (click to show/hide)

Is your chimpanzee argument based on us being a college grad or based on the hyper-complexity of DNA? Because if the latter, we're in the future dude. We're colonizing worlds, and have already been bio-engineering for an undetermined amount of time. We've probably gotten quite a few stanzas plays written already.
If you're talking about the player character as an individual. Well, I disagree with putting limits on ourselves in this situation. Rule of awesome and functional game design yes?

On amino acids and carbon atoms. Again, we REALLY should not have to get into the nuts and bolts of precisely how these things would be done, but another poster gave me an idea: lets say the body works with amino acids. It builds the carbon fibers within a larger scaffolding, something it can work with, and then just floods the area around it with enzymes intended to snip away the scaffold?
AGAIN though, you are being unrealistic in your demands.

The point RAM had was two-fold:
1. It's probably possible to make carbon-fiber, and all kinds of other nifty carbon features in our critter. BUT
2. He thinks it would take too much time, and too much energy, to do so.

Spoiler: @other people! (click to show/hide)

@ram
Good point with the blood thing....maybe..the plant could grow into the person??? So long as it's non-toxic, and highly controlled.
I wouldn't call it a tree, that'd be too heavy, and you're being racist against trees! Our friends would never do something like that! If we design them right.
I'd also like to know what's on the bio-market, and I'd say let's keep it in mind if the bones aren't holding up.

@loki
Mmm, carrying lumps of water might be prohibitive in high-gravity. Oval-shaped blood is interesting, and the excretion thing is the same idea behind the uric acid mentioned earlier.
I think the orangutan thing is mostly because of their slow metabolism, and they are actually only better than most mammals- they don't beat sloths.

btw, I'm seeing a trend in these wide-open 'you are an engineer' games, and how people tend to play them..

[GreatWyrmGold]

1. Orangutans! Seriously, orangutans have the most energy efficient structure of any animal on earth even more so than a sloth or even a human at complete rest. This is said to do with their slow growth and reproductive cycles but it's not quite known what causes it. Nail that down however and we have an extremely efficient being.

If we had to start nonhuman, sure. That said...well, putting aside aentience, orangutans live in the jungles. I hhgly doubt that theu have good water conversation qualities.

2. Camels. While using massive fat lumps as a way to concentrate body fat and store water in said fat might be a little out there, The camel still has a lot that we can use. Oval shaped red blood cells allow for the transfer of oxygen even during times of great dehydration. The camel also has advanced kidneys and intestines that can recycle a lot of water out of waste. So much so that they piss syrup and excrete what is essentially charcoal. They also can trap excaping water vapor using their nostrils but I do not think that is necessary.

Not. bad

Organic = has carbon. I'd say it's pretty organic.

Diamonds also have carbon. So do graphite, coal, and buckyballs. I dont' think any of those are found in nature.

@gwg full post incoming, but for now:
You're blundering past the point: we don't want to require our players to explain precisely how we would accomplish our goals. That is completely unfeasible. So long as it is possible IE not impossible, we should be able to do it, given enough research. In game research. Not. NOT. Real life bloody research.
Otherwise I WANT TO KNOW precisely what genetic markers you'd fit the feather gene between;  I want to know every bloody mechanism involved in your damn ectotherm idea. Chimpanzee writing shakespeare eh? You know you can't just poke a gene in there and make the body do entirely new things.

The problem is, is it possible tro ever find out if we can't even find a place to start?
I doin't think so.

No, there is, because there are varying degrees of rule of awesome jurisdiction. Basic gameplay functionality? I'd say rule of awesome would be important here. Making telekinetic humans? I'd say, in this thread, that's outside it's jurisdiction (hopefully, unless it's included in subsequent backstory).
The reason the rule of awesome is important here is because requiring us to explain, down to the molecular level, how our modifications would work is not viable, aka, NOT. AWESOME.
How is carbon fiber produced? You get a bunch of carbon and string it together with complicated chemical processes.

The problem is, there's no way to code life to make those chemical processes that can be conceived, so it violates suspension of disbelief.

It's already been stated but: this is the future. We might know how.

And we might discover that pholgiston is real and that the speed of light is actually 100 meters per second in space. Not bloody likely, though.

Is your chimpanzee argument based on us being a college grad or based on the hyper-complexity of DNA? Because if the latter, we're in the future dude. We're colonizing worlds, and have already been bio-engineering for an undetermined amount of time. We've probably gotten quite a few stanzas plays written already.

It's more about doubting the possibility of making up entirely new genes which work at all despite not remotely resembling anything in nature.

On amino acids and carbon atoms. Again, we REALLY should not have to get into the nuts and bolts of precisely how these things would be done, but another poster gave me an idea: lets say the body works with amino acids. It builds the carbon fibers within a larger scaffolding, something it can work with, and then just floods the area around it with enzymes intended to snip away the scaffold?
AGAIN though, you are being unrealistic in your demands.

...How are the carbon fibers built? That's the part that's not working.

The point RAM had was two-fold:
1. It's probably possible to make carbon-fiber, and all kinds of other nifty carbon features in our critter. BUT
2. He thinks it would take too much time, and too much energy, to do so.[

1. It's possible to make carbon fiber, peple have already done it. The question is...is it possible to wengineer organisms to do so? I don't believe so.
2. And that's probably the case.

[~Neri]

Lets just cook a few batches of everything and see how the ideas work.

[RAM]

I would expect that they would be satisfied with anything that is capable of a basic understanding of commerce, law, government, and a profession. Given that they want a bio-engineered entity, I doubt they are here to cure over-population, although it is possible that our creations will provide services for large domed communities or something... It is likely that the interest in this planet is strategic or mineral, but everything these days is likely automated, so they will likely require some measure of technical expertise.


So...The Basic:
 Human
 Small (lets call it 1 metre tall)
 thicker bones.
 Large Avian Lungs
 Uric acid
 Urinary tract to pass liquid waste off into the fecal slurry near the end of the small intestine

^These seem to be the things that have gotten lots of votes, although I may have missed something, I want to start one of these for comparison.

Variants(As above but with the following changes.):
Creature from the black lagoon:
 Symbiotic plant produces broad leaves with highly endothermic photosynthesis. Subject is to be shaded and, umm... Are we pumping excess energy directly into the subject's blood? Lets go with that for now...
 Hrmm, lets make this one nocturnal,

Velociraptor:
 Avian bones
 Feathers
 Long fingers
 Panting
 Voluntary Sweating
 Extra Mitochondria
 4 lung sacks

Titan:
 Heavier bones
 Short, stout limbs
 Improved shock-absorbency
 Air compressor
 increased mitochondria
 Stronger muscles
 Two hearts
 Four Stomachs
 Reduced Fat
 Nocturnal

Dragon:
 Feathered head
 Head spines
 Scales
 Cold-blooded
 Wings(Purely for heat radiation)

I wish to order a male and a female of these five proposals.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

The problem is, there's no way to code life to make those chemical processes that can be conceived, so it violates suspension of disbelief.

......................You're demanding we conceive the chemical processes to create the carbon fibers. Lovely.
You look at an enzyme, one that is already coded for. You modify it. If it does what you want it to, mess with the code until the right modified enzyme is produced. Repeat. String these together, and you get a chemical process. We do have a place to start, and we're still assuming this research hasn't been done in-game yet. Genetic modification isn't the same as phlogiston and the speed of light- one's actually a field of technology, something that can improve with time. Like if we went to the future. Phlogiston & light speed are universal truths that would be discovered.
You realize, you're going to have to do this for your ectotherm idea, right?

It's more about doubting the possibility of making up entirely new genes which work at all despite not remotely resembling anything in nature.

Already stated: we wouldn't have started from scratch. Also: we don't know the state of electronics tech yet.

...How are the carbon fibers built? That's the part that's not working.

Can you please explain why.


I vote for ram.


-edit
Also, I think that technically, diamonds, graphite & coal are found naturally. This is a diction argument.

-edit
I made a picture of what I meant with the carbon fiber formation scaffolding thing.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

-edit
@RAM: I'd also like to see the higher-optimal-body-temp idea in one of those.

[RAM]

A cell that can produce viruses is pretty profoundly unnatural, but they still exist...

[weenog]

Guys, we are collectively being dumb as hell about this.  We have a large lab, three assistants, and basic gear for a lab and op of this size (whatever the basics are, for this kind of operation at this time in the future).  We most definitely have access to at least one moderately powerful computer, likely one that's scary powerful compared to anything we have in the RL present (maybe it could even run DF at 100 FPS with 1000 dwarfs, and the ocean and the magma sea re-routed to continually avalanche obsidian into hell).  We also certainly have files of the known relevant parameters of this environment.

We need to start the team running a life/evolution simulator program with the environment configured to match this planet's, import creatures using all of the ideas we're considering, individually and in combination, run it at high speed through several thousand generations of growing and breeding and failing, and see what emerges as the most effective life-form(s) in our virtual terrarium.  This way we get to see the good, the bad, and the awesome, and avoid horrifying our employer with flesh and blood mad science.  We finish the project, get our bills paid, a nice success story to put on the resume, good references, and possibly some "deleted" horrifying monster plans to use later.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

I like the idea, and the aversion to the mad science, (in an aw, cute kind of way), but it assumes we have a computer of near-infinite processing power. Also: that simulation would test for an entire ecosystem; we only need one organism.
Perhaps just run a simulation of the different critters in a homologue of this planet?

(btw, NO computer will ever be able to do what you just described. Dwarven fortress wise. It just won't, ever, happen.)

Oh derp, btw @loki
Welcome good sir! Pro tip: change your forum theme to darkling.

[weenog]

We don't need near-infinite processing power.  You can do simplified forms of this right now, today, with a cheap laptop and a few days to let it sit and run.

Depending on how much processing power we actually have, compared to how much we need, it might be best to test both ways: individual species, and the whole set of ideas simultaneously.  Individual species would give us a better idea of how any one critter would perform as-is, but using the whole gang and allowing for crossbreeds might reveal for us a superior genetic recipe we hadn't considered.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

You'd be running many, many, many genetic algorithms all at once, and that simplified version is truly that: simplified. If we want to see any real actionable results, we'd have to run the thing for (virtual) ages. And, because of that, if it's simplified pretty much at all, we can't expect accurate results.
So we'd need the power to run a hyper-detailed, hyper-process-intensive simulation in hyper-speed.

Meh, running them together only adds the competition variable to the equation-- something we don't need to test for. The only competition out there is grass, so we just need something that focuses on man-versus-elements. Cross-breeding is the exception, so, I dunno. Don't see why it would hurt to try it.

[weenog]

I just think we need to start implementing our ideas to find out what works and what doesn't, but without wasting material, or otherwise ticking off our employer so that we lose opportunity and funding.  After we've built our own foothold, then we can get into the mad science, and start making critters that poop to see for the lulz.

Creating critters as data only and simulating their introduction to the environment seems like the best way to get started, safely.

[RAM]

I am happy to run a simulation instead of producing them, but I want something to happen, so I still want my arbitrary creations to be tested somehow...

[10ebbor10]

Another note on the carbon nanofiber bones. They won't work. Roughly you got 2 types of carbon nanofibers. One is known for it's high tensile strength.(So unless you want to torture them on the rack, rather useless). The other is known for high stiffness(Yay), and very high thermal conductivity (ohh).

Also, the last is created at temperatures of 2800 degrees celcius.