GM Human Embryo That Will Dramatically Alter The Human Race!

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizziedame
How about our esteemed scientist find a cure for Type 1 diabetes, the common cold, Ebola, and many other diseases before they change humans to androids or Lord knows what we would create.

Discover a way to eliminate drug and/or alcohol addiction. Create a magic potion to fight obesity or skin diseases.

When scientist can do all I mentioned above I will be favorably impressed.

As we can see gene manipulation is not too difficult. Curing the ills of today's people is a much more complicated process.

Lets fix the humans we have before we create super humans.

Should we not allow humans to evolve at the preprogrammed time?



Keep in mind, in this world, diseases are looked to as helpful by the higher-ups... The top of the pyramid as some may call it.




posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
gattaca


lease avoid using "TXT Messaging Shorthand" for words when posting on AboveTopSecret.com and AbovePolitics.com, such as "4" for the word "for" or "u" for the word you. Common "Internet Slang" acronyms such as "LOL" and "ROFLMA" are acceptable, but should still be used sparingly.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
if there saying the could do it now but they arent aloud because of ethics
what do you think the goverments of the world have allready done



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Nice story.

The 10 percent figure for brain usage is bogus though. We use practically every area, different areas according to the given set of tasks (as the above poster mentioned).

There may be 10 percent in use at any given moment, or thereabouts, but such a sweeping generalization seems fairly useless.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Call me stupid but I am for this stuff...

The pros and cons are limitless, so I will take both rather than none.

My philosophy is the "Go big or go home"....this could be the bridge to the future, or the bridge in the water. Either way, its more fun than looking across to the other side.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I am all for eliminating diseases in utero but on the other hand, when we get into discussions which pertain to the insertion of favorable traits that are already present in the general population at lower levels (i.e., high intelligence, recessive eye/hair color, physical strength), we haven't always acted responsibly.

Perhaps the most obvious example pertains to intellectual giftedness. In modern society, all children are thrown into an academic melting pot because we want so badly to believe that everyone is "special"; every child is "gifted". The result is that the most talented among us do not ever receive opportunities to reach their full potential. I don't think we're ready to handle a sudden onslaught of geniuses until we have learned how to nurture those who are already among us. When these children stop falling through the cracks, then we'll be ready for more like them.

However, this isn't to say that I support the propagation of traits deemed "favorable". In actuality, any manipulation which limits diversity could be deleterious to the survival of our species. When environmental change exerts selection pressure on a population (disease, natural disaster, etc.), members of that population are barred from contributing to the gene pool which defines the characteristics of future generations. If we limit diversity to such a degree that everyone becomes vulnerable to an unforseen threat, we could all become extinct. No matter how beneficial a trait seems to be, it is always associated with some kind of cost.

Again, I would use intellectual giftedness as an example. Being brilliant can limit opportunities to socialize with like-minded people. In turn, this could have a severe impact on the probability that one will be able to find a compatible "mate" and procreate. If an individual dies before it has the opportunity to pass along it's genes to future generations, it is deemed less "fit" than those who have. Evolution is not so much about being smarter, faster, stronger, as it is about reproductive success and diversification.

In summary, I don't believe we have the capacity to envision the consequences of our actions where genetic modification of human beings is concerned unless we restrict our activities to the eradication of certain (select) heritable diseases. Since there are beneficial traits associated with some "disorders" (e.g., sickle-cell trait and resistance to malaria), I would not go so far as to eliminate everything-- at least not until we have had the opportunity to conduct the appropriate studies (risk assessment).



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   


The fear with germline engineering is that since it is inheritable, offspring and all succeeding generations would carry the modified traits. This is one reason why this type of engineering is currently banned- it could lead to irreversible alteration of the entire human species.


I think this is, by and large, a very temporary concern. Most Genomic scientists I hear speak, talk of creating not just designer babies, but designer baby boomers. The problem is finding a vector to spread the modified DNA strain. We're currently considering retroviruses, but it's difficult getting them to insert the new gene into the proper coding sequence. Since we're pretty much 95% junk DNA, that means 95% of the places that gene could be inserted would be in non-coding regions. However, this could potentially cause a frame shift and produce deleterious effects in other traits. Another solution would be precision nanomachines, but I'm not sure how close or far we currently are to creating a molecular assembler.

In either case, traits passed on though lineage would be rendered moot by malleability.

There would be no run-away Frankenstein scenario of damaged genes propagating across the species, because we would be able to modify our genetic code several times throughout the course of our lives. Errors could be dealt with as they arise. It's interesting to note, however, that humanity will not be free of Evolutionary process. First off, so long as replication, modification, and selection remain - we will continue to be subject to natural evolution. However, this process would be augmented by a form of directed evolution via genetic modification.

I can easily see humanity "evolving" new and novel genes artificially via Genetic Algorithms and simulation.




Looking far, far into the future, could post biological entities have no form, but exist only as pure forms of energy? Is this our final destiny, millions of years in the future?


Energy is a bit of a misnomer. While tautologically correct, it overlooks a co-requirement. Information. Could we one day abandon physical reality to meld into the aether of our distributed networks? Possibly. We're already starting to take that step with online games and social networking. Indeed, the fantasies presented in these mediums are so compelling that they often can cause psychological addiction and personal problems a result - be it poor hygiene or divorce settlements. Even death in certain rare cases.




It would be great if everyone had the same memory as our parents and all the generations before them.


I actually think that's quite dangerous. It would stymie the growth of a unique personality and identity, eventually leading to less variability and diversity. Appreciation of diversity is not just a PC PR movement, but it's a good policy to hold since diversity is one of the greatest strengths a system can posses. It's why life is so resilient and robust - and why the Internet is the longest running machine in the history of mankind, having never broken down even once since it's inception.




Maybe that's evolution. We have selected ourselves out of evolution by creating this race of souless biological machines and they only allow humans to go so far in evolution and technology.


I rather see these developments as the next grand step in evolution. Evolution has had several "stepping stone" moments. The introduction of oxygen, the first multi-cellular life forms, the invention of sex, etc. These new technologies could simply herald a paradigm shift in life from decent with variation, to organisms which can adapt extremely quickly or take a constant and active hand in shaping their genetic fitness.

Machines will not replace humanity. There will be no disconnect between man and machine, organic and synthetic, because the two will merge. Our technology is already augmenting human abilities far beyond our inherent talent. The only difference between yesterday and tomorrow, is their proximity to the body. We are literally seeing the birth of humanities integration with our technology.




I also wonder if we create these beings, will they have a soul or will they be souless and extremely smart biological machines.


I don't see why not. I think that in-so-far as consciousness goes, structure matters far more than composition. There's nothing specifically unique linking Neurons to Consciousness on the synaptic level. If a soul can rest between the Neurons, why can it not also rest between the transistors?



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
I really doubt if a superior human species would evolve out of this. In today's world physical strength really does not matter, since we use weapons to fight and dominate.


You obviously never served in the military, physical strength is ESSENTIAL for current battlefield operations, we carry 90lbs of gear(!!) on a daily basis downrange in Iraq or Afghanistan, many people get back problems and joint problems due to this.

Imagine a soldier that could flip a rolled-over HMMWV (Humvee).

Transhumanism while not my cup of tea because I enjoy the biological activities and i'd feel hessitant to replace my brain with a computer system, the realm of the soul is not fully explored and we don't know if this will take away our soul so to speak, and the soul in my perspective is what EXPERIENCES life, I think we should investigate the soul more before we radically alter our nervous system.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
This is to those(the one) who think(s) that we need GE to use 70-90% of our brains. This isn't true. Our lifestyles from day one prevent us from using our brains effectively. Many people are left not having a chance to find a fulfilling and challenging path in life. Many of us go somewhere, pick something up, eat, sleep, and do it all over again everyday. Why would someone like that need to use 70-90% of their brains if food, mates, and safety are usually attained without the need for a brain at all. If we could fit humans with ant brains, we'd be better off in this society. Then we would actually use 90-100% of our mental capacity.

You can start working right now to use more of your brain by meditation. I believe that organisms with large brains are capable of higher level awareness than those with smaller brains. That is, the more you can be conscious of at one point in time, the more of your brain you are using. Engineers often have a high level of consciousness because they need to be aware of many things at once, for example, the interrelated mechanisms of mechanical systems that make up the technology we use today. A change in one part of the system needs changes in the other systems based on a near infinite number of variables. Science allows us to discover those variables

This is how you unfortunate people were lead astray from your true selves, your soul, and your divinity--reducing your mental capacity possibly to a point of lethargy and constant sleepiness. All humans are emotional beings, and it is that emotion that enables us. If we live lives that are not in accordance with our soul and emotions we will wither shrink and die. If we live a life where we can work towards our individual life goals everyday, we grow and become stronger to achieve it. Fear is usually caused by a lack of understanding or knowledge. A state of fear also prevents growth.

-From day one, you are over feed--digestion uses up to about 50% of your energy. This leaves the other 50% for the rest of your body including the brain.
-From day one you are poisoned, Fluoride, mercury, lead, irradiated food, etc. all lead you down a path away from growth.
-The human body is not healthy when it has to digest food 24/7/365 year, after year. It takes over 10 hours for an average meal to be digested. The stomach is never allowed to cleanse itself of the gunk that accumulates-leading to cancer causing toxicity. The body is always trying to work toward health, but when energy is diverted from the right places because of danger, fear, food-it leads to illness. Do you remember catching colds when you were little? Did you want to eat a bunch of food then? The answers to your own health lie in the mentality you were born with, not that which you were taught from people, including family.

I have so much to say against artificially manipulating evolution because I know that we can be charge of our own evolution. This is only if you make the choice. I have meditated and the experience of hearing your body is like hearing your community of cells asking for oxygen, asking for water, and if you really knew what true hunger was you would know exactly what food you needed to eat, before taking a look at your menu. Because taking a test that isn't a multiple choice test would require to much awareness, they give us easy tests. I didn't take a single multiple choice test in Germany and Japan. I went all the way up to 5th grade in Japan. Not one multiple choice test. We are what we make of ourselves. Consumption is just one part of what makes up the sum of parts that make up the human body.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I am against modifying our genes.

We do not know enough about ourselves as it is to go messing around with our genetic makeup. That would be like a four year old trying to fix a supercomputer.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I think it has it's pros and cons.

Imagine going to the Doctor and saying I have brain cancer and he does a procedure to not only rid you of the cancer but remove the genetic markers for cancer.

I think this alone will naturally jumpstart evolution and we will get more aggressive when it comes to terraforming planets, better space stations that may house cities or cities that float on the water because of the population growth.

I think trying to jumpstart evolution through genetics by creating superhumans is a bad idea. Humans will change naturally once we began eradicating disease through things like genetics and nanotechnology.

We also have to look out for Governments. All it will take is a paper that says superhumans will give one government a military advantage then the race to create an army of superhumans becomes like the race for nuclear weapons.

Technology truly has our species at a tipping point and it can go either way. When I see some of the technology and science on the horizon I think it's wonderful but a little scary when you think about what man is capable of.

We will see.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Its very obvious that we can advance the human race with regards to genetic improvements, disease reduction, longevity, health, beauty and psi abilities, and enter into the cosmos as a race, however, in order for this to truly benefit us, we must rid ourselves of the corrupt renegade enki group cartel at the top. They're not even really truly our race, and they don't want us to grow and advance, but wish to continue to manipulate us. So, if we ask for help from the cosmic visitors, and the federations get involved, then they can even ignore the illegal contracts that don't benefit the human race in the least, and we will get that help. If we ask, then their help will be available. We just need to kick the cartel in their pants and hopefully have some galactic help.

The merging of human with machine is far more dangerous. Some elements may be advantageous, improved neurological connections, etc etc, but we cant cross the line and become machines ourselves. We don't actually wish to become cyborgs. That very idea is being promoted by the enki renegade group, who would like nothing better than to do this to us. They won't. Hopefully they'll be facing some galactic justice soon.

In that area we need guidance from wiser cultures.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by mystiq]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarminer
Also, our science has not advanced to the point where we can guarantee that we dont' produce dangerous side effects. It is very disturbing to me that scientists are willing to proceed anyway, fully aware that their work may be damaging to the society.

I do agree that genetic manipulation could result in major breakthroughs for the human race but like most technologies, there are many dangers as well. We cannot move ahead until we know more and are able to eliminate the most destructive side effects.


I agree. There is the question about ethics and morality not to mention the dangerous application of this technology in the military sphere. But this is already happening!



Could such almost indestructible killer androids become the weapon of choice of terrorists sooner than later? I shudder to think at the possibility! Here's more to wake us up from our slumber...

Pentagon: Our new robot army will be controlled by malware:
Open-source hax0r IP-deathware apocalypse imminent.


Killer robots pose latest militant threat: expert

Robot wars are a reality


Now this is just the beginning! It's started to happen. What of the future? Armageddon?



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
How this turns out on the purely biological front, without the cyborg aspects, is a common discussion point in the "grey aliens are actually time travellers" meme.

Yes, we figure out how to use genetic modification to create a better, smarter human race that commands physics, energy and space -- but end up breeding out emotion, and lose the ability to sustain ourselves on diverse sources of sustenance, and get kind of short, spindly, and pasty grey looking. Next thing you know we're travelling back in time, mutilating cattle for a specific lost foodsource we need, and probing the locals for the DNA threads we messed up...



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
My experiences with greys is actually more akin to a race of highly intelligent, scientific, telepathic, highly principled, race of beings that are possibly related to dolphins, or at least one of their communications suggested that, as well as having a great deal of integrity. These ones seem to be in confederations with nordics and other races, and are not renegade factions.

I know there may be renegade groups of them as well. I understand that some cyborg or mechanization of living forms may also be involved in both sides. But my experience was not with robot races from our future. Though there may be timline differences involved.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son Of Liberty
I am against modifying our genes.

We do not know enough about ourselves as it is to go messing around with our genetic makeup. That would be like a four year old trying to fix a supercomputer.


I disagree.

Trained people who are doing TESTS...errors COULD occur, but I doubt any wide spread type deals of genetic engineering would ever happen before many tests and the results were certain.

Just because the example you gave is true, doesn't mean it applies to this.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
DNA is not a toy! Mankind hasn't learned to live within it's own species and now you want to create a supra-human??? We're just beginning to figure out the dangers that we're going to deal with for hundred or thousands of years from things that you don't even recognize as technology; dioxin, bisphenol A to name two. How about EMF and ELF... we're pumping the air with these things and now reports are surfacing that these things aren't just dangerous, they are potentially deadly - gee, wish I've known that 20 years ago when I started using a cell phone!


No, you guys don't get it... 20 years from now they'll crying about how nanotechnology is killing people because companies were more interested in making money off the "technology" than they were about safety. This will be no different. There are just some things that should never be toyed with - at least not until you fully appreciate the implications of what you're doing. Clearly, we as a race, do not!



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Advancing trough bio engineering ? That's sad.

We have all the advancement we want right here. We know how to behave but we don't do it.

We can be whatever we want to be. Look around, think about the environment that shaped you. Your family ,your city, what you have read and so on. Imagine then who would you be if you were born somewhere else. Would you be the same person ? Probably not


So forget about all these, find out what you are beyond this exterior you - that comes from outside factors, where you are born, what family you have and so on. Go beyond that, you are not that. Find out what remains after finding out you are not what you know, what you wear, and so on.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Do you honestly believe that these guys were the first ones to do it?
I have my doubts honestly.
This will be done eventually, (if it hasn't been done already) except we will never hear about it.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Humans are pathetic. We have a genetically encoded desire to harm everything around us to further our own goals. The fight for survival has embedded many features into humanity that have now become either obsolete, or worse, downright dangerous to all mankind.

We could effectively cure humanity of its violent tendencies if we reprogrammed our DNA so that humans only used force in the most extreme circumstances. Imagine if we only felt aggressive when we were truly in danger. Imagine if our "fight or flight" response only kicked in when we actually needed it, instead of every time a remotely challenging situation were presented.

Our children could be exponentially smarter. If the next generation of humans were outfitted with genetically enhanced brains, then by the time my generation retires we could easily be a space faring civilization. Overpopulation could be answered not by death, but by expansion.

We could retool future generations to have more efficient bodily functions. Digestion, respiration, blood circulation, and immune system activities could all be enhanced. Humans could survive on half the amount of food they need now, striking a blow to world hunger. We wouldn't get sick. Pandemics would no longer threaten us.

And people ask, "What about population? Wouldn't the human race become too hard for nature to control?"

I say, no. Think of how much money the human race devotes to fighting each other. Now imagine all that money being devoted to making the planet a more sustainable home for humanity. And, imagine the people spending that money where twice as intelligent as we are. And consider that the humans working on that would have less downtime due to the many, many problems our flawed design presents us with.

If we continue on our current path, natural evolution will destroy us. As a species that has evolved to destroy rather than to coexist, we cannot hope to remain the "fittest" species that survives. As a species that has evolved to be frail and weak, we will eventually succumb to something that we consider "lower." As a species whose DNA is riddled with cancer, birth defects, and imperfections, we are in dire need of fixing.

In spite of our flaws, we've found a way to fix our DNA and improve our human race. We've stumbled across a new way to survive and adapt as a species. If we turn it down, we might as well get to work turning ourselves back into apes.

Imagine where birds would be today if the first of their kind had flapped their wings, lifted off, and promptly said, "Flight is unnatural and unethical, we should ban it and never try it again!"

They'd be in extinction, waiting for the silly humans join them after saying the same thing about genetic modification.





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join