Print

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

[G-Flex]

despite how batshit insane replacing your whole bloodstream with compressed oxygen tanks made of tiny carbon sphereoids is.

I reiterate: Your blood does a lot more than deliver oxygen. You aren't going to replace it with anything, ever, unless it replicates the probably-dozens of other functions your blood is used for.

[Eagleon]

Yeah I shouldn't have said the whole bloodstream Specifically it's designed to replace the oxygen-carrying cells, which already have decent substitutes, without need for recycling or production of more red cells - you could essentially disable red cell production if they were good enough. There are also artificial platelets in trial as we speak.

In case you couldn't tell, I don't think it's a good idea until it's been thoroughly tested by people oblivious or comfortable with the fact that this stuff will be interacting with your brain and keeping you alive, with failure meaning painful death.

[Vactor]

Your rat-race style video game is no better or worse way of frittering away your time than a sandbox type game, the only difference is that you're satisfying different hardwired desires, nothing you do in either of these games is bettering your position outside of it.

Categorically wrong. Even non-human animals play, and for good reason. We play games, and play with toys, in order to develop skills, including abstract skills such as problem-solving, hand-eye coordination, organizational thought, reacting to new situations, and so forth. Playing games is useful outside of the context of the game, unless you're playing the game past the point where you're getting anything new out of it and you're just doing it as an addictive/compulsive behavior, which was exactly his point.

I for one have never played a video game because I thought I would improve my organizational thought, or to increase my hand-eye coordination, It has always been because i derive some pleasure or satisfaction from doing so.  This is something that over millions of years has been selected for, as those who did not derive satisfaction from said activities died out.  Video games are slightly insidious (but very enjoyable) because they tap into this same mode of practice, the desire to improve/alter your environment(sandbox games) and the desire to better your station/skills (rat-race games), or your desire to explore and develop social relationships(rpgs) and fit in nicely with our desire to pose challenges to ourselves in the form of play. 

Looking at children playing in the woods, they have an eternal tendency to build, making shelter from found objects, defining factions, and simulating conflict.  After this type of play is finished they have real world experience doing these things, they will know how to better build a fort next time, this is the foundation that human housing is built upon.  Video game experience (while immensely satisfying) generally doesn't translate into real world skills.  There are of course benefits that can be reaped, but that is skirting my larger point of these all being things that are satisfying because of the way that our brain is set up to find pleasure in certain activities.  I still hold that removing the parts of a person that cause said satisfaction will leave something that finds no reward in its life, however eternal it is.

[Eugenitor]

it would be flat-out irresponsible to start widespread human experimentation on the genetic level at this stage.

But without experimentation, how do you discover anything? Nobody's going to start with humans, they'll start with mice. Then larger animals, then human embryos, then humans who will live past the early fetal stage. Genetics is a very young science indeed, which is why we need people and organizations investing time and money in its development without worrying about irrational shit.

Do you actually want to see the upper classes, or indeed entire nations, become genetically superior to others? Do we really need that?

I mentioned this far earlier. Any genetic modification should be available to everybody, flat out. We have foundations working to distribute AIDS treatment, for example, to the poorer regions of the world. Same thing should happen here.

[sonerohi]

Should but won't. We can crush malaria within a relatively brief time if we felt like it. But we don't.

[nbonaparte]

Should but won't. We can crush malaria within a relatively brief time if we felt like it. But we don't.

Welcome to capitalism.

[G-Flex]

Vactor: There are probably many reasons why we find playing games pleasurable in the direct reward-pathway sense, and in fact, I do feel different after playing a mind-numbing, repetitive game vs. one that's somehow challenging and novel. Aside from that, the issue is less why you think you're doing it, and more an actual analysis of why you do it, and what is/isn't healthy. A dog will drink antifreeze for the same reason he thinks he's eating anything else (it's tasty), but that doesn't mean he gets the same thing out of it, or that he'll be neurologically rewarded/conditioned in the same way.

But without experimentation, how do you discover anything? Nobody's going to start with humans, they'll start with mice. Then larger animals, then human embryos, then humans who will live past the early fetal stage. Genetics is a very young science indeed, which is why we need people and organizations investing time and money in its development without worrying about irrational shit.

I wasn't arguing against controlled study and experimentation. I was arguing against letting it into the free marketplace unopposed and unregulated.

I mentioned this far earlier. Any genetic modification should be available to everybody, flat out. We have foundations working to distribute AIDS treatment, for example, to the poorer regions of the world. Same thing should happen here.

"Should" does not mean "will", and people have a right to be afraid until they can be damn sure that this will be the case. Oh, and genetic modification of other organisms (plants, microorganisms, animals) is relevant to discussion and not without its own ethical questions.

[Earthquake Damage]

Do you actually want to see the upper classes, or indeed entire nations, become genetically superior to others? Do we really need that?

I mentioned this far earlier. Any genetic modification should be available to everybody, flat out. We have foundations working to distribute AIDS treatment, for example, to the poorer regions of the world. Same thing should happen here.

Do you have a plan to fund this, or is it just a "boy wouldn't this be nice" sort of deal?

[sonerohi]

Should but won't. We can crush malaria within a relatively brief time if we felt like it. But we don't.

Welcome to capitalism.

And Eugenitor has thus been rebuffed.

[nbonaparte]

Should but won't. We can crush malaria within a relatively brief time if we felt like it. But we don't.

Welcome to capitalism.

And Eugenitor has thus been rebuffed.

I didn't say it was a good thing. Socialism is the midpoint between the poor examples of capitalism and communism. Scandinavia's got it right.

EDIT: Perhaps we should keep off politics, actually.

[Eagleon]

The equipment for genetic experiments is getting cheaper, not more expensive, even as it's becoming more sophisticated. I suspect (though I might be wrong) there will be more of an element of the DRM debate than economic inequalities, when it comes down to it. Just saying. Know-how will likely be the most valuable missing resource here for third-world countries, not lab equipment or materials.

[Earthquake Damage]

EDIT: Perhaps we should keep off politics, actually.

Economics is not politics, though there is plenty of overlap.

[Eugenitor]

Dunno where you're getting the "no regulation" line, G-Flex. It's already regulated (in the US) by the FDA and CBER.

Animal testing is always done first, but someone has to be the first person to be on the business end. These aren't fly-by-night companies pushing untested snake oil, and if any of those companies start popping out of the woodwork, they're practicing medicine without a license.

But nothing's ever perfectly safe, even when done by the most careful people. Shit is going to happen, just as it always has.

Do you have a plan to fund this, or is it just a "boy wouldn't this be nice" sort of deal?

Who funds existing NGOs? Who funds the UN's aid programs? Where do we get the money to do everything else? Of course it depends on how difficult the therapy in question is. One injection, or weeks in the hospital?

Oh, and the WHO says that malaria eradication is not currently possible and will require a very long-term commitment. It's not something we can just do.

Although we lack sufficient knowledge, systems and tools to eradicate malaria today

[Criptfeind]

Who funds existing NGOs? Who funds the UN's aid programs? Where do we get the money to do everything else? Of course it depends on how difficult the therapy in question is. One injection, or weeks in the hospital?

Those programs are massively underfunded and save lives, do you think something that saves no lives is going to do any better

[sonerohi]

Ah, I stand corrected. Although there is still much that could be done for malaria that isn't done, simply because it is the least profitable of actions for those in a position to benefit the areas facing malaria.