It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rat Made SuperSmart: Similar Boost Unsafe in Humans?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


so you don't see any advantages in scientific advancement? i'm honestly surprised!! we're nowhere near the point of cosmetic genetic manipulation and, honestly, the beauty of blond hair and blue eyes is it's uniqueness. i can't see genetics being used for cosmetics in this way, perhaps to avoid aging.

there is one type of person who looks at the past through rose tinted glasses and draws lines in the sand while there's another type that has their mad bloodshot eyes so fixated on the future that they don't even notice the lines as they brush past them, i suspect society sits happily between the two.




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Interesting note on Eidetic Imagery... here

Interesting physiology, but I'm not sure that it's the same thing as modifying the NR2B gene in this test, which (as I understand it) has some form of control over the way in which brain cells communicate and that cell communication affects memory. I don't know, perhaps the two are different forms of memory related by similar genes (but not the same gene)...



[edit on 16-11-2009 by LadySkadi]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


so you don't see any advantages in scientific advancement? i'm honestly surprised!! we're nowhere near the point of cosmetic genetic manipulation and, honestly, the beauty of blond hair and blue eyes is it's uniqueness. i can't see genetics being used for cosmetics in this way, perhaps to avoid aging.

there is one type of person who looks at the past through rose tinted glasses and draws lines in the sand while there's another type that has their mad bloodshot eyes so fixated on the future that they don't even notice the lines as they brush past them, i suspect society sits happily between the two.


I never said I did not see advantages of scientific advantage, I said I see the negative uses far outweighing the positivity that can be gained from it, there's a subtle difference between not seeing an advantage, and seeing the negativity outweighing the positive outcomes.

You can't see the use of genetics for cosmetic uses, but those bastards in Washington D.C. can, and as well the vain types of Hollywood can, that would trade age and wrinkles for a permanent face-lift to look younger.

Before you know it, we'll jump from gene-splicing rats in a laboratory, into cloning humans.

Part 1 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Part 2 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Part 3 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Part 4 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Part 5 - Cloning the first Human - BBC Horizon


Then the next step will be cross-breeding species, like humans with chimps, to make them super strong for military purposes, or with whatever abomination to give longevity towards life and then we have The Island of Dr Moreau.

The Island of Dr Moreau


I do not see ethics coming into play, by scientists, who would act as madmen.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I suspect all religions will fight this vigorously as they rely on lower I.Q. participants for their base. If a drug can be created that increases intelligence there will be a massive holy war surrounding it.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Thank you for the videos, great information about cloning issues
and where the scientific community is, with regards to ability.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


Great point.
I never considered the religious angle.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
You can't see the use of genetics for cosmetic uses, but those bastards in Washington D.C. can, and as well the vain types of Hollywood can, that would trade age and wrinkles for a permanent face-lift to look younger.


i can see that, but a gene therapy that makes you look young would probably make you genuinely more youthful. this is no bad thing. you look old because your DNA is degrading. stopping this degradation returns us to our "normal" state. it would be a side effect of treating less cosmetic age related problems, like arthritis or cancer. i can't see the issue, it's got to be better than sticking toxins into your face.

cloning is a totally different issue to the one being discussed, cloning mammals is now seen as pretty easy. if humans haven't been cloned already i'll eat my hat, and it's a big hat.


I do not see ethics coming into play, by scientists, who would act as madmen.


who do you trust to be ethical? mankind already has the means to cause its own extinction, it hasn't yet, i don't see any reason to think this is about to change.


Originally posted by reasonable
I suspect all religions will fight this vigorously as they rely on lower I.Q. participants for their base. If a drug can be created that increases intelligence there will be a massive holy war surrounding it.


some people just can't bear to miss a chance at bashing religion. your post is off topic, ignorant, foolish and based entirely in your own prejudice.

holy war
, only if the athiests do their usual thing and try to stop it benefiting the poor.

[edit on 17/11/09 by pieman]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Thank you for the videos, great information about cloning issues
and where the scientific community is, with regards to ability.



No problem, LadySkadi.

Cloning to me is just as wrong as gene-splicing and genetic manipulation.

Glad I could add to the thread.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


I don't trust anyone in Government to be ethical.

Therefore, the scientists are not to be any more ethical.

There is a need for gene-splicing just as much as the need for a hole in the head.

Human's have been cloned, Dolly was not the first cloned mammal, I guarantee that.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Here's the thing... while gene therapy/manipulation may eventually lead to a better understanding of cloning, it's not there yet.

The experiments that this article describes has a potential impact for treatment that may help with some very serious and debilitating diseases, if science can establish a credible connection. The scientists and researchers are also arguing the point that gene therapy/manipulation at the embryonic stage is unethical in humans, but IF there is a possibility to take what is being learned at that level (in animals) and apply that knowledge to a drug-based treatment for humans, is it not worth exploring? Despite the potential for risk and misuse?

I will say that I was quite against cloning and gene manipulation, for a long time. However, I do see that there is a great deal of benefit that may come from this and I'm starting to warm up to it (gene therapy, not human cloning)... I have to ask myself if a drug can be produced, or if manipulating a gene can stave off extreme memory-loss in otherwise healthy people, would I be against using it?



[edit on 17-11-2009 by LadySkadi]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


LadySkadi, my biggest problem with gene-splicing, genetic manipulation, etc ad naseum, is that they will use whatever means, whether legal, or illegal, to get these experiments done.

I am having some of the same, if not similar disagreements over on the thread below.

Welcome to the Clone Farm

The thread above is about cloning animals, and eating the cloned animals, and how the F.D.A. approved, or sanctioned, if you will, the cloning and consumption of those animals and their offspring.

As well as my previously stated commentary on it being unethical on the stance of it possibly ruining society in breeding us into extinction, I see this as a cost barrier to any middle class citizen and the lower income citizen.

If it is not sanctioned in the United States, they take advantage of N.A.F.T.A. and outsource to another continent to bypass using American workers, to bypass American laws, and as well it's that it will only be available to those who can afford it, meanwhile they will be sucking money from us tax-payers for scientific experiments which lead to breakthroughs that anyone under the million dollar a year income mark will never get to see the benefit of these experiments, unless they have bogus health insurance which I see as a major scam of them screwing the people one way, and screwing them the other way as well.

I just see this as plain wrong, because if you look at cloning, and the consumption of cloned animals, and as well as the F.D.A.'s track record of allowing so much rat feces, and other un-natural elements into our meat and foods, then this itself shows a lack of ethics, standards, and as well morals in dealing with human consumption of regular food, let alone clones animals.

If I buy meat, I expect it to be 100% clean of animal excrement, period.

That is a byproduct, that is not meant for consumption, and neither to me is eating cloned animals, because of course these cloned rats in the original post would be seen as the ever so innocuous animal byproducts through the use of political and industry euphemism, and your next McDonalds burger may in fact be a rat-burger.

They will do any damn things they want, and cover it up, using cute euphemisms.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Too right on all you said, no scientist in government has any morals. They do horrendous things and always have done.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


I completely missed that thread you referenced above...
I am off to read it now. Thanks for posting it here.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I wonder if smart people are attracted to other smart people?

Is this a trait that is already being bred for in the human population just because of the attraction that people have for their own kind?

Think about many people meet in college and go on to have children. Does that not lead to yet smarter children?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


LadySkadi, here is another link on "lab-grown meat" I thought was relevant to this thread.

Lab-Grown Meat a Reality, But Who Will Eat It?

With the ethics of law being cast away like a hooker's clothing, the breeding of animals just for meat, in a petri dish takes the callous cruelty out of the farmers hand, and puts it instead into the scientists hands.

I am speaking of the slaughterhouses that rotate faster than a puppy mill.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Found this interesting, thanks. S&F.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with his hypothesis about not being able to forget bad memories. (Not that I'm a expert)

I don't think we "forget" bad memories, I think we "block" bad memories. Bad memories can easily be recalled during hypnosis for instance.

I think enhancing your ability to remember will do just that, you will remember all the correct answers (if you studied), you will remember lost ones faces, etc, etc, perhaps memorize different languages easier.

I think even with super memory, the human brain could still block the recall of a particular memory if it was so inclined.

Like the saying:
I have a great memory, its the recall that is flawed.

I wonder if they diferentiate between duration of memory & memory recall. I can forget something for instance, but recall it afterwards.

Anyway, thanks again.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   


"There is a reason we forget," he said. "We are supposed to leave our bad experiences behind, so they do not haunt us."


I must be an exception to the rule then. I remember every bad thing that has ever happened to me and then some.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ByteChanger
 

Glad you found it interesting, I do too!


I wonder if they differentiate between duration of memory & memory recall. I can forget something for instance, but recall it afterwards.


The scientists haven't gotten that far, there's no way to know. The tests on rats would suggest that memory recall is definitely used (otherwise how would they know to navigate the mazes?) but beyond that... anybody's guess.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join