Bio-Engineering: The Future of everything we make, page

Science Daily

ScienceDaily (Nov. 21, 2010) — Researcher Jean-Paul Meijnen has 'trained' bacteria to convert all the main sugars in vegetable, fruit and garden waste efficiently into high-quality environmentally friendly products such as bioplastics.

There have been many successful experiments done with bacteria to convert all kinds of things into usable materials and fuels. I believe the future of plastics, hydrocarbon fuels, and other synthetic materials lies in bio-engineering.

Example:
BIOENGINEERED SPIDER SILK

AMHERST, Mass.(1/6/96)- Scientists have long envied the strength and elasticity of spider's silk, but have been unable to synthesize it. Now researchers at the University of Massachusetts report progress in creating spider's silk using genetic engineering techniques.
Dragline silk is the fiber from which spiders make the scaffolding of their webs. It has been estimated by scientists to be at least five times as strong as steel, twice as elastic as nylon, waterproof and stretchable.

"Dragline spider silk is actually stronger than Kevlar synthetic fiber- and Kevlar is several times stronger than steel," says polymer scientist David Tirrell who wrote a review for the journal Science describing the current research of several groups around the country trying to replicate the properties of spider silk. Tirrell is well-known for his research in "bioengineered materials," a new area of polymer research involving the creation of synthetic proteins to make materials with advanced properties.

This is just another facet of how bio-engineering can work. Imagine these bioplastics and bio-engineered fibers, like the one above, can create super strong yet super light body armor, windows, sunglasses, clothing, safety equipment...A whole slew of possibilities are available to us via this great technology.

"Training bacteria," now there's 2 words I wouldn't expect to be so close together in one sentence.
Man, this tech coupled with nano-tech is really going to change our world.
Found an interesting paper on the potential uses of bioengineering, very cool!

Cool new ideas in biotech and bioengineering

• Brain-machine interfaces
Remote control rat

• Artificial organs
Using integrated circuit technology to print neural circuits

• Diagnosing diseases by smell
Artificial nose

• Cell therapy
Bacteria and viruses genetically engineered to poison cancer cells

• Nanotechnology
Self-assembling tubes that kill bacteria by poking holes in their membranes

www.stanford.edu...

The advancement of tech these days is amazing and makes for exciting times. Throw in the singularity principal and wow, get ready for some hyper leaps into our future.
Cool stuff projectvxn

Peace,
spec

reply to post by projectvxn

---

Oh yes, I completely agree. This really is the way forward.

Materials science and mechanical engineering will one day be regarded much as we do alchemy today--a blundering and hopeless attempt to replicate the apparently miraculous work of nature, doomed to failure but containing within it the germ of a future science that actually works. As alchemy was to chemistry, so materials science and engineering to the bioengineering and 'biofacture' of the future.

reply to post by CharlesAustinMiller

---

I think we have less to worry about in contained bacteria farms whose sole function is to convert waste matter and other organic materials to products we can use, than a programmable robot with the ability to cause damage at the cellular level, or be used by (PDF)governments or terrorists as weapons, or even one day create a Grey Goo scenario.

The point is, there are risks to all technologies.

reply to post by CharlesAustinMiller

---

There must be a difference. There is an insistent question at the core of robotics and bio-engineering: Should we build them to execute programming, or build them to think like a living creature?

You think there's a difference?

You state this with such assurance an uninformed person may actually be convinced. But you are wrong: there is no such question.

Whatever 'thinking' is, the overwhelming majority of living things don't do it. Unicellular organisms, bacteria and the like, don't think. Neither do plants or most of the so-called 'lower' animals. Do insects think? Fish? Chameleons? Snakes? Octupuses are said to be fairly intelligent (whatever that means) but what about snails?

Only a relatively small number of fairly complex animals do anything that could be regarded as 'thinking'. Most living things merely execute genetically inherited programs peculiar to their species.

And even animals that may be said to possess some kind of cognition function mostly through the running of autonomous programs. Do you think about your digestion, your sense of balance, your immune system, your breathing? No--they all function according to programs built into your genes.

Beyond that lies the question of what thinking actually is. Is it anything more than really complex and sophisticated programming? That is a real debate, and it has been going on since the ancient Greeks.

Your 'insistent question at the core of robotics and bio-engineering' doesn't exist.

It's just that stark difference that we should be pondering right now.

What is the difference? Can you define it in scientific terms?

Science has paced around this table for decades — How can we bioengineer the extant beasties to do our bidding without calling it slavery? You know that discussion is going to come up. It's the barnyard debate.

We have been doing this since the beginning of agriculture. Selective breeding is genetic engineering. Every crop and breed of livestock we eat has been heavily 'bioengineered'. If you want to know just how heavily, consider the difference between wheat and emmer, corn and teosinte, or 'barnyard' animals and their wild ancestors. All these creatures have no option but to serve us, because they have been bred to do just that. Dogs are purpose-bred general-purpose animal slaves. We put yeast to work making bread, wine and beer. Apart from a few tender-hearted people (the ones you characterize, wrongly, as 'liberals'), no-one worries about all the animals, plants and microorganisms we have 'enslaved' to serve our ends.

reply to post by CharlesAustinMiller

---

Then I may assume you're a very young person?

You may certainly do so if you wish. Making assumptions based on egotism and ignorance is, however, a stupid and dangerous thing to do.

The question of should we or shouldn't we "play God" and create autonomous lifeforms to do our bidding has been the fodder of science fiction for well over a century.

I believe the first novel to address these issues was Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. In his magisterial history of of the genre, Billion Year Spree, Brian Aldiss nominates it as the first science-fiction novel. It was first published in 1818, so 'well over a century' is right. More like two.

Too bad that you're not up on the literature.

See my earlier remark about assumptions.

Science fiction is not science.

My point is that plowing into genetic research and GM "biobots" is going to, eventually, lead to a debate of the ethics of forced labor on sentient organisms.

You don't even understand what is being discussed on this thread. We aren't talking about your precious biobots. We are talking about things like vat-cultured filet mignon, houses and household appliances grown from seeds, living toilets that eat human excrement and convert it to energy and useful raw materials, clothing that adapts by means of biological processes to protect the wearer from changes in the weather and environment, bioengineered insects used as household cleaners and a myriad other things we heven't even envisioned yet.

See, you're not looking at the big picture.

Actually, the picture you are looking at is only a fragment of the picture the OP is looking at. My post should have made you realize that, but you were so inebriated with the exuberance of your own verbosity you failed to catch my meaning and have continued along your the well-trodden path of synthetic tabloid moral concern.

I urge you to withdraw from this gracefully, while you still have the chance. No-one will think the worse of you for having made a foolish mistake.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by CharlesAustinMiller

---

I think we have less to worry about in contained bacteria farms whose sole function is to convert waste matter and other organic materials to products we can use, than a programmable robot with the ability to cause damage at the cellular level, or be used by (PDF)governments or terrorists as weapons, or even one day create a Grey Goo scenario.

The point is, there are risks to all technologies.

edit on 22-11-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Hopefully these risks will change the approach scientists will take when dabbling with nanotech. Refering to the weapon scenario: I would think that it would be too expensive to use. And what if they unknowing inject into themselves somehow? Besides, I'm pretty sure there would be nanotech to fight that nanotech anyways, kind of like the immune system.

Also speaking of materials, check out carbon nanotubes.

reply to post by CharlesAustinMiller

---

Your post barely deserves a reply, but I have five empty minutes to fill.

You're sputtering about goo

Where did you see me use that word? Bioengineering is about making things using processes that are essentially biological in nature. Wine-making is an ancient example. My original response to you--which you still haven't understood, quite clearly--is that, to paraphrase the late Sir Arthur, any sufficiently advanced nanotechnology is indistinguishable from biotechnology. Get it now?

I'm talking about more imaginative things.

Repeating artificial tabloid hysteria about grey goo and slave clones is imaginative?

Trying to BREATHE LIFE into a dead thread, you see.

By dragging it off topic? Oh, well done.

Besides, the thread seems alive and well to me--despite your antics.

Oh, but no, you wouldn't see, because you're the reason the thread is dying. Try less nitpicking and more imagination.

Is that a beam in your eye, or an entire sequoia?

The seaslsug was found recently to have adopted its main food sources ability to photosynthesise and is now able to feed on algae and use the sun to generate energy.

part plant part animal

I we use synthetic biology to take the gene coding sequence from this part animal part plant creature.
we can then use the same gene and place it into human cells on the surface of our skin
then by simply standing in sunlight our bodies would be able to generate energy which we can use in replacement
or to supliment our dietary requirements, and since sunlight is an abundant source of energy in itself
we would therefore be required to eat less , and farm less.

this could also help world food shortages in poor countries

Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says
  Posted 14 days ago with 77 member flags

TV Networks Say You\'re Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
  Posted 2 days ago with 39 member flags

Schoolboy \'genius\' solves puzzles posed by Sir Isaac Newton
  Posted 2 days ago with 21 member flags

I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?
  Posted 17 days ago with 20 member flags

World’s longest-running experiment now with webcam
  Posted 15 days ago with 19 member flags

Bye Bye Co2 and global warming
  Posted 7 days ago with 16 member flags

Big Oil Vs. Plasma Battery Technology - Guess who is winning?
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags

Quantum Gravity Model "Loads" "Programs" from NON-PHYSICAL DIMENSION with INVERTED PENTAGRAMS!
  Posted 0 days ago with 12 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: