PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Engineering, Selective Breeding, & Designer Babies.



motzart
19-10-14, 06:09
I think it is inevitable that the genetic engineering of human offspring will soon enter the mainstream of modern cultures. Limited genetic engineering is already available in the current trend of "Designer Babies". For a cost from a low of $2000 dollars parents can choose an embryo that has been screened for medical disorders and then go on to choose the sex of the baby. Some clinics even allow selection for traits such as hair color, eye color, and height.

Selective breeding has of course pre-dated the existence of homo sapiens and there are examples of selective breeding taking place throughout our entire history. A recent example would be Yao Ming (http://www.smh.com.au/news/basketball/yao-ming-the-basketball-giant-made-in-china-by-order-of-the-state/2006/01/18/1137553645228.html?3). Sperm Banks are another example, allowing women to positively select traits they deem desirable in a child. Realistically every instance of reproduction is an example of selective breeding however when factors such as "love" or other intangibles are removed from the equation selective breeding purely based on physical qualities becomes more pronounced.

I think that the next step for the near future will be allowing parents to select traits for their children that are artificially implanted and not inherited from either parent. DNA in an embryo could be modified to include traits for blue eyes for a Japanese child who's parents do not naturally carry the trait. Once this becomes common I think that new babies will probably become majority selected and minority inherited, parents giving their child just a few of their own traits as a signature on an otherwise purely engineered child.

Its a bit frightening to think that a great deal of parents could be creating children purely based on a passing aesthetic of no intrinsic value, allowing other traits to go extinct which may have been beneficial. These traits could of course be artificially re-implanted.

What do you guys think?

LeBrok
19-10-14, 07:40
There might have been thread like this in the past, I'm not sure though, it was some time ago.

Anyway, it is just a matter of time and technological progress. All parents want their babies to be smart, healthy and beautiful. According to these human longings, designer babies are our future. Of course many people will be against it, mainly because people are scared of new things and any changes. Once this technology becomes popular and widely accepted every parent will take part in it. Making babies in bad will be looked at as reckless behaviour and unnecessary risk to babies health. Unless governments will make it illegal on some religious/moral grounds. With only allowance to fix DNA for medical reasons. On other hand, in the future, bad memory, lack of logic or ugliness might be classified as genetic diseases.

When it happens we might see differences in look of every generation. Exactly what we see in fasion from decade to decade, or home designs. Babies of 2080s might be mostly blond, blue eyes and called John or Chris. 2090s generation might be mostly black with green eyes name Toby and Moses. All smart, beautiful and healthy.
Actually, genetic engineering will save our Healthcare System from collapsing, caused from saving future generations of weaklings, who shouldn't exist without technology saving their lives. If not today's medicine I wouldn't exist already, and many people that I know.

With technology we will fix god's screwups.

Maciamo
19-10-14, 08:43
Motzart, I agree with you that genetic engineering will become mainstream soon. I don't see it as frightening though. Once you get used to the idea it is the most sensible and logical thing to do, especially if combined with gene therapy to refine or modify potential errors during the trait selection phase. I have written two articles about all this.

Improve your health, looks and intelligence thanks to gene therapy (http://www.vitamodularis.org/articles/fix_diseases_and_improve_yourself_through_gene_the rapy.shtml)

What physical or mental enhancements are possible through gene therapy ? (http://www.vitamodularis.org/articles/what_can_be_improved_through_gene_therapy.shtml)

hope
19-10-14, 15:42
I believe, as I have always believed, that there are those things which we cannot ascribe to nature alone. Based on what we know today I feel we should take nurture into account with regards to certain aspects that make us who we are. Perhaps what we may learn tomorrow will make me feel different, but not today.
Consider certain diseases such as type 2 diabetes, this is linked to environment. Personality, this cannot be solely the product of genes, environment will play a role in this. Intelligence, whilst linked to nature, needs nurture to enhance and refine it. Thus,if possible, certain traits would, IMO not realistically benefit too greatly from genetic engineering.
As for physical features, based on aesthetic value, that is a different kettle of fish. Eye and hair colour could be chosen, etc but I`m not sure how wide a selection for features would actually be on the menu. Regarding these things, I wouldn`t place much interest.
I think the best area is regarding diseases that are genetic. This is where I believe efforts should concentrate. If we can birth healthier babies, free from degenerative and life threatening illnesses, then I cannot understand why anyone would object to this and not wish to see work in this field pick up pace. If we can alter those genes that cause these type of things, then we move in the right direction.

Aberdeen
19-10-14, 18:26
I believe, as I have always believed, that there are those things which we cannot ascribe to nature alone. Based on what we know today I feel we should take nurture into account with regards to certain aspects that make us who we are. Perhaps what we may learn tomorrow will make me feel different, but not today.
Consider certain diseases such as type 2 diabetes, this is linked to environment. Personality, this cannot be solely the product of genes, environment will play a role in this. Intelligence, whilst linked to nature, needs nurture to enhance and refine it. Thus,if possible, certain traits would, IMO not realistically benefit too greatly from genetic engineering.
As for physical features, based on aesthetic value, that is a different kettle of fish. Eye and hair colour could be chosen, etc but I`m not sure how wide a selection for features would actually be on the menu. Regarding these things, I wouldn`t place much interest.
I think the best area is regarding diseases that are genetic. This is where I believe efforts should concentrate. If we can birth healthier babies, free from degenerative and life threatening illnesses, then I cannot understand why anyone would object to this and not wish to see work in this field pick up pace. If we can alter those genes that cause these type of things, then we move in the right direction.

The problem is that you're looking at the situation logically, which is something that most people won't do. Most people will focus on trivial things that they think are important, such as wanting to have a baby with violet eyes. And in cultures that prefer males, very few girls will be born. I suppose in the long run that could change such a cultural preference. But never underestimate the ability of people to make terrible decisions.

LeBrok
19-10-14, 19:04
The problem is that you're looking at the situation logically, which is something that most people won't do. Most people will focus on trivial things that they think are important, such as wanting to have a baby with violet eyes. And in cultures that prefer males, very few girls will be born. I suppose in the long run that could change such a cultural preference. But never underestimate the ability of people to make terrible decisions.
I'm sure there will be some regulations and guidelines of what constitutes normal human being, just to make sure some crazy parents won't make kids with 6 arms or a superhero who blows fire, lol.

From natural selection we can end up with cultural selection like this tribe in South Sahara, Wodaabe, where men are tall and feminine acting.

hope
19-10-14, 19:58
Most people will focus on trivial things that they think are important, such as wanting to have a baby with violet eyes. And in cultures that prefer males, very few girls will be born. I suppose in the long run that could change such a cultural preference. But never underestimate the ability of people to make terrible decisions.
That`s a good point Aberdeen, and one, that among others, has been raised by those against genetic engineering of this type.
Such concerns will have to be addressed at some point and not left hanging. That said, I don`t think in honesty, your or my concern over such will have much impact. Certainly the world is not short of silly people and indeed silly people with money, who may indeed want a violet eyed child etc.
I think we can only focus on the positive possibilities these advancements could bring, regarding genetic diseases and what we might in reality, be able to do regarding them... I would not like to lose the chance of this, based solely on what the silly might do. Let us hope that good laws covering such will indeed be put in place and good ethics followed....with violet eyed babies not appearing.

motzart
21-10-14, 02:04
The problem is that you're looking at the situation logically, which is something that most people won't do. Most people will focus on trivial things that they think are important, such as wanting to have a baby with violet eyes. And in cultures that prefer males, very few girls will be born. I suppose in the long run that could change such a cultural preference. But never underestimate the ability of people to make terrible decisions.

I think the trend will function a lot like a queue, with the most trivial superficial genes being implemented first and the most significant last.

First people will select for traits that affect appearance.
Secondly I can imagine fitness related traits, Olympic gold medal winners could have their genomes sequenced and you could have some of their traits given to your child. "Give your child Usain Bolt's legs for $3000".
Lastly, widespread traits for intelligence will finally have been identified. Once this point is reached I can see the definitive departure from homo sapiens to a new race entirely. Creatures with their skulls removed so that brain capacity can be modified far out of the human spectrum, or creatures genetically modified for specific tasks.

LeBrok
21-10-14, 03:04
Creatures with their skulls removed so that brain capacity can be modified far out of the human spectrum, or creatures genetically modified for specific tasks. There will be no tasks for humans. We will have robots to do all the work and supercomputers for all the calculations. Do you have a specific task in mind?
With modification of human body you have to be careful too. Our sense of beauty of human body, the proportions, shapes, skin, texture, symmetry, etc is also genetic in nature. People with huge skulls heads will look hideous and unattractive to others. Would you want to be super smart but looking ugly with no chance for sex, unless you pay for it?

motzart
21-10-14, 03:30
There will be no tasks for humans. We will have robots to do all the work and supercomputers for all the calculations. Do you have a specific task in mind?
With modification of human body you have to be careful too. Our sense of beauty of human body, the proportions, shapes, skin, texture, symmetry, etc is also genetic in nature. People with huge skulls heads will look hideous and unattractive to others. Would you want to be super smart but looking ugly with no chance for sex, unless you pay for it?

I don't think robots will ever become more cost effective than organic beings. The most expensive super computer in the world has computing power that does not even match the computing power of a rat's brain(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2013/05/neurologist-markam-human-brain3_f.jpg). The gap between what we have now and a true artificial intelligence (real artificial consciousness) is a huge grey area of unknowns. A complete understanding of how a human brain works is not far away, likewise immortality is not far off (gene encoding for telomeres). Think of all the amazing things that savant geniuses are capable of and magnify this on multiple higher orders with none of the other disorders that savants face. I imagine giant brains floating in jars, leading the human race with thoughts incomprehensible to the rest of us :)

LeBrok
21-10-14, 04:00
I don't think robots will ever become more cost effective than organic beings. What about robots on assembly line in car factories or automatic trains? Are they used because they are more expensive than people?


The most expensive super computer in the world has computing power that does not even match the computing power of a rat's brain(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2013/05/neurologist-markam-human-brain3_f.jpg). What about supercomputer Watson who won Jeopardy game with best humans. It was communicating verbally with the host, listening, understanding, searching for answers in memory, and answering in english. Do you think a rat could pull it off, or perhaps chimpanzee if you will?



The gap between what we have now and a true artificial intelligence (real artificial consciousness) is a huge grey area of unknowns. It still is.


, likewise immortality is not far off (gene encoding for telomeres). Immortality is far off. You have to be careful with telomeres. Cancer cells can extend it indefinitely too. That's why they grow fast without restrictions killing people in the process. Telomeres is there for a good reason. We are just beginning to understand human body of tens of thousands different molecules interacting with each other. We are very complicated.
In far future however we should be able to extend human life dramatically, keep people young for most of their lives and regrow damaged organs right in our bodies.



I imagine giant brains floating in jars, leading the human race with thoughts incomprehensible to the rest of us :) Again, leading where? What is the task?

Aberdeen
21-10-14, 04:17
There will be no tasks for humans. We will have robots to do all the work and supercomputers for all the calculations. Do you have a specific task in mind?
With modification of human body you have to be careful too. Our sense of beauty of human body, the proportions, shapes, skin, texture, symmetry, etc is also genetic in nature. People with huge skulls heads will look hideous and unattractive to others. Would you want to be super smart but looking ugly with no chance for sex, unless you pay for it?

So, who decides what tasks the robots will engage in? The owners of the robots, perhaps? International corporations? And if the great mass of humanity becomes redundant, will the owners of the robots wish to be rid of the surplus? If a group of robots can build mansions for the rich and grow food for them and make clothes for them and all that, will the people who own the robots also be in a position to have the robots get rid of those not wanted for the voyage? I find the idea of a world full of highly functional robots very frightening but, sadly, probably inevitable.

LeBrok
21-10-14, 06:08
So, who decides what tasks the robots will engage in? The owners of the robots, perhaps? International corporations? To some degree they already have robots and many processes are so automatic that not many peeps are needed. One man loads raw materials to the drum, the second loads boxes full of cookies on a skid for transportation. In the future even ordinary people will have robots.


And if the great mass of humanity becomes redundant, will the owners of the robots wish to be rid of the surplus? I didn't realize we had higher purpose already. ;) We were always redundant and expendable like dinosaurs for "mother" nature.
Our government is in command of 50 thousand soldiers, therefore has physical ability getting rid of you. Are you threatened by this? I don't think much will change when government will command 50 thousand robots. Well, we just need to make sure we choose honest and good people to lead us.


If a group of robots can build mansions for the rich and grow food for them and make clothes for them and all that, will the people who own the robots also be in a position to have the robots get rid of those not wanted for the voyage? There will be no poor to get rid off. Everybody will have robots who build mansions for them. The communism will sneak in through the back door. The only way communism will exist is when robots work instead of people, producing plenty of goods for everyone to go around.
Not many people will work for money. People will be busy with hundreds of activities like, sports, hobbies, meeting friends for every meal, talking, traveling, playing games, exercising, being pampered, massaged by robots, dating and having sex for fun only, walking, hiking, playing with pets, building mensions and custom cars (by robots and 3D printers), gardening, cooking, watching, blogging, texting, etc, etc. They won't understand how people found spare time to work 40 hours of week in the past, lol.



I find the idea of a world full of highly functional robots very frightening but, sadly, probably inevitable. 100 years ago people were frightened by cars and airplanes. Old people are frightened by computers and internet these days. Robots will be nothing more than sophisticated tool you can talk to, the perfect slaves who will work for you 24/7 without complains and vacation time.

motzart
21-10-14, 08:08
What about robots on assembly line in car factories or automatic trains? Are they used because they are more expensive than people?

What about supercomputer Watson who won Jeopardy game with best humans. It was communicating verbally with the host, listening, understanding, searching for answers in memory, and answering in english. Do you think a rat could pull it off, or perhaps chimpanzee if you will?



Look at that image I posted, Watson is on there. An algorithm that parses data in a defined context is nowhere near as complex as a rat. Watson can be defined by a set list of mathematical algorithms and formulas, try to define a 'rat' in terms of mathematical formula.

LeBrok
21-10-14, 09:00
An algorithm that parses data in a defined context is nowhere near as complex as a rat. As long as we don't know complexity of rats brain and its all inner working, it is impossible to assess who is more complicated and more capable of, Watson or rat's brain. Regardless, I gave you an example how capable computers get today, in human like settings. It is short 70 years since first computer was invented. Extrapolate it on next 70 years or perhaps 7 thousand years.


Watson can be defined by a set list of mathematical algorithms and formulas, try to define a 'rat' in terms of mathematical formula. Neurons are logical gates (they behave like transistors in a computer) and we could recreate rat's hardware/brain in terms of mathematical formulas and algorithms. Rat's behaviour is rather simple and predictable. Throw it into water and it will swim to the closest shore. It won't dive, it won't do laps for pleasure or go fishing. Give it food and it will always eat till full. Put male with ovulated female and male will always try to have sex. Simple behavioral programs like rats life are not difficult to write for computer simulation. The biggest difference at the moment is that rat intelligence comes mostly from hardware, his brain, with almost no software. Our computer's intelligence comes mostly from software.
I'm actually astonished that you are not impressed with Watson. A computer which has beaten people in their own game! In something people are the best of all the animal kingdom. Game of talking, understanding speech of tens of thousands of words, remembering millions of details about the world, and coming up with the right answer. Should I mention again that it is only 70 years since first computer, or should I say calculator?

So, what is the task for people of the future?

Aberdeen
21-10-14, 10:03
...............................


So, what is the task for people of the future?

To boldly go where no one has gone before? To seek out new universes to explore?

The problem is that if we all stay on this planet, we are dependent on the finite resources of this planet, even with robots. Perhaps we can learn to live on artificial food produced in a lab, but we still need the energy and ingredients to make it, and we still need large amounts of water, and our environment will continue to become more polluted. Our world can't support billions of people all living a comfortable middle class life. There needs to be far fewer of us living here. But there are tremendous political and racial issues to be dealt with in deciding who gets to keep reproducing. So, who gets to make those decisions? I'm not so sure it will be done in a democratic and orderly manner.

hope
21-10-14, 15:21
.
I imagine giant brains floating in jars, leading the human race with thoughts incomprehensible to the rest of us :)
Why would they need to be large..and why would they be floating in jars? And how exactly and from where do these giant brains obtain these incomprehensible thoughts? I will not make light of any-ones thought regarding such, but I had rather thought if I were to give up my destiny to a hyper-intelligence [ which I think I might not] it would not be a brain in a jar...floating or otherwise.
I confess this thread has taken a slightly odd sort of turn since I last read it and commented on genetic engineering and it`s possibilities.

arvistro
21-10-14, 15:27
So, who gets to make those decisions?

Just put me in charge :) Fun times ahead!

Angela
21-10-14, 17:12
Aberdeen:But never underestimate the ability of people to make terrible decisions.

I like Einstein's formulation too. “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” :)

Or how about: “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” That's from George Carlin. Am I dating myself?

I'm in this camp. Will it be wonderful if we can get rid of genetic diseases and increase human intelligence and physical prowess? Yes, it will.

However, what are the ethical considerations? I'm not a moral relativist, so that's important to me. Some idiot parents shouldn't be allowed to create a fire breathing super-hero or a three armed child who will be better at juggling.:) Who says, as someone suggested, that the rich won't hog all the resources and make themselves a super race? In a capitalist society, why would the rich extend that capability to the poor? Even if the democratic process would in some measure create a more level playing field, what about totalitarian societies? What about the desperately poor societies of Africa, Oceania? What would be the incentive for the industrialized nations to give them the technology gratis?

Or, since disease has been on my mind lately, what if the rich, or, if we're optimistic about the democratic process, the industrialized countries in general make themselves super immune to disease? What a neat, scientific way to "cull the herd".

I guess you can tell that in addition to having doubts about man's intelligence, I have doubts about his "nature". In fact, I'm with Niccolo Macchiavelli on this one:
"It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope."

I'm not saying mankind is totally evil. I don't think Macchiavelli is saying that either. I think the point is that for good order if for nothing else you have to "presuppose" that they are evil, or to be less melodramatic, self-interested. That's why laws are so important. Without them, we're back in the jungle, even if it's a "high tech" jungle.

I also don't have as much regard as some posters do for scientists and their ability to know the consequences of all their "innovations" . I lived through the last hurricane in New York. The Army Corps of engineers is constantly trying to "protect" our lowland areas. Not only doesn't it work, often the things they do just makes things worse. I think we've all seen recently the surprising level of incompetence among epidemiologists and supposed infectious disease specialists.

Not, mind you, that I think any of this can be stopped. I don't think it can. I do think we should try to control it and guide it as much as possible, however.

Aberdeen
21-10-14, 20:50
I think you've summed it up very well, Angela. I don't know how anyone can look at the invention of the atom bomb and assume that scientists will use their abilities to guide us in the right direction. However, I unfortunately agree that the genie can't be put back in the bottle at this point. Genetic engineering will happen and while some of it will be good (i.e., those who can afford it will make sure their children don't have genetic diseases), some of it will be bad and some choices will just be stupid. Regardless of whether one believes that we're fallen creatures or whether one believes that our subspecies of ape have gotten too big for our britches, the end result is pretty much the same.

Angela
21-10-14, 21:52
I think you've summed it up very well, Angela. I don't know how anyone can look at the invention of the atom bomb and assume that scientists will use their abilities to guide us in the right direction. However, I unfortunately agree that the genie can't be put back in the bottle at this point. Genetic engineering will happen and while some of it will be good (i.e., those who can afford it will make sure their children don't have genetic diseases), some of it will be bad and some choices will just be stupid. Regardless of whether one believes that we're fallen creatures or whether one believes that our subspecies of ape have gotten too big for our britches, the end result is pretty much the same.

Is my "Christian Humanist" slip showing? :grin: Well...let's say sub-strata. Remember...if we have them till they're seven....:smile:

Most of it actually comes from having spent a good part of my professional life seeing people at their absolute worst. It can take the bloom off the rose pretty darn quickly to use a cliche.

motzart
22-10-14, 02:32
.
Why would they need to be large..and why would they be floating in jars? And how exactly and from where do these giant brains obtain these incomprehensible thoughts? I will not make light of any-ones thought regarding such, but I had rather thought if I were to give up my destiny to a hyper-intelligence [ which I think I might not] it would not be a brain in a jar...floating or otherwise.
I confess this thread has taken a slightly odd sort of turn since I last read it and commented on genetic engineering and it`s possibilities.

Everything else being equal, a larger brain of the same perfect quality as a smaller brain would simply be more powerful. Trying to genetically engineer a super intelligence would be made much more complicated if this being required a complement of functioning anatomy. Think of it this way, when engineers create an engine for a car do they design a unique engine for every car design or are engines reused? Think of your computer, your processor is an independent modular unit from the rest of the machine. Computers are essentially designed around a processor because it is the most complex piece, Intel made a decision not to sell pre-built computers along with their processors because it allows them to focus exclusively on their primary product. If scientists can encode DNA to create a very large powerful brain with only the other bare minimum requirements and provide nutrients and vitamins in an artificial environment, it will make the task of genetically engineering that brain much simpler; hence brains in jars.

motzart
22-10-14, 02:37
As long as we don't know complexity of rats brain and its all inner working, it is impossible to assess who is more complicated and more capable of, Watson or rat's brain. Regardless, I gave you an example how capable computers get today, in human like settings. It is short 70 years since first computer was invented. Extrapolate it on next 70 years or perhaps 7 thousand years.

Neurons are logical gates (they behave like transistors in a computer) and we could recreate rat's hardware/brain in terms of mathematical formulas and algorithms. Rat's behaviour is rather simple and predictable. Throw it into water and it will swim to the closest shore. It won't dive, it won't do laps for pleasure or go fishing. Give it food and it will always eat till full. Put male with ovulated female and male will always try to have sex. Simple behavioral programs like rats life are not difficult to write for computer simulation. The biggest difference at the moment is that rat intelligence comes mostly from hardware, his brain, with almost no software. Our computer's intelligence comes mostly from software.
I'm actually astonished that you are not impressed with Watson. A computer which has beaten people in their own game! In something people are the best of all the animal kingdom. Game of talking, understanding speech of tens of thousands of words, remembering millions of details about the world, and coming up with the right answer. Should I mention again that it is only 70 years since first computer, or should I say calculator?

So, what is the task for people of the future?

Algorithms that operate in 3d space are very complex, as are algorithms that require learning. I'm not as impressed by Watson as a layman because I have a degree in Computer Science and I work as a software developer. Computers are not as complex as one would imagine. Watson requires an entire data center to function (billions and billions of dollars and thousands of kilograms of materials) and still has less memory and computational power than a rat's brain which is the size of a marble, builds itself from DNA code, and only requires a trivial amount of organic compounds to create itself.

LeBrok
22-10-14, 04:01
Algorithms that operate in 3d space are very complex, as are algorithms that require learning. I'm not as impressed by Watson as a layman because I have a degree in Computer Science and I work as a software developer. Computers are not as complex as one would imagine. Watson requires an entire data center to function (billions and billions of dollars and thousands of kilograms of materials) First NASA computer was more expensive than this one and had computing power of a calculator. Do you see the progress during last 50 years? In another 50 years Watson and more will fit inside your phone. Heck, it can already fit inside your phone and million other users by cellular and network connection. The way we use a powerful Google search engine, located who knows where, but seems existing in our phones.



and still has less memory and computational power than a rat's brain which is the size of a marble, and yet it can't even count to ten unlike my calculator. Most of mammals brain is oriented and skilful in looking for food, sniffing, tasting, recognizing danger, mating, partner selection and raising kids. Would you just scale it up and expect miracles in creating new "tasks" for people? First you need to invent this monumental task, a new higher goal for humankind. Then you need to design brain structure, the hardware, being able to accomplish this task only and hundreds times better than humans (so the project is worth the billions spent), without being distracted by mating and food. Once you know the architecture of the brain you might start designing DNA which will grow this super brain.
The problem is that, this task is above ability of human knowledge and designing skills, so first you need to create supercomputer being able to understand and design such brain and run millions of simulation from DNA construction, through growth, to final product. Otherwise you need thousands of years of experiments on live brains using natural or breeder selection to get to your goal. Having such supercomputer able to create a new entity, this superbrain, why would we need this super brain at all? In other words, to build superbrain we need to build supercomputer first of similar computational power.
Oh, and don't forget to get rid of feelings, whichever way they exist in our brains. We don't want this superbrain to get angry at us. We would be doomed. It might actually get very angry, because it will be serving as one purpose slave for humankind.
I would rather stick to supercomputer without feelings, computer that doesn't care if it exists or if I exist, or if I throw it to the garbage.

PS. Did you have a chance to find out what the super task for humankind will be? It would be awesome, because the last time I checked the main human tasks were the same as chimps, ants and bacteria (all life forms on Earth); Eat, Survive, Multiply. Do you think we can escape it one day, and feel really special? Spirituality and religion was suppose to do the trick for us, and generally speaking it does for most.

hope
22-10-14, 20:03
Everything else being equal, a larger brain of the same perfect quality as a smaller brain would simply be more powerful. Trying to genetically engineer a super intelligence would be made much more complicated if this being required a complement of functioning anatomy. Think of it this way, when engineers create an engine for a car do they design a unique engine for every car design or are engines reused? Think of your computer, your processor is an independent modular unit from the rest of the machine. Computers are essentially designed around a processor because it is the most complex piece, Intel made a decision not to sell pre-built computers along with their processors because it allows them to focus exclusively on their primary product. If scientists can encode DNA to create a very large powerful brain with only the other bare minimum requirements and provide nutrients and vitamins in an artificial environment, it will make the task of genetically engineering that brain much simpler; hence brains in jars.
:laughing: No Mozart, you`re still not selling me the giant brain in a jar. [This is really off topic, so just this one post]
Forget the floating jar and I still ask ..why a giant brain? Think of it this way instead...I have a small gadget in my hand that can access me so much information on so many topics. This gadget would have at one time been bigger but with technological improvements, it has gotten smaller... yet more advanced. So why not go with technology..no need for giant brains in jars. You`re thinking inside the box [or jar.] Back to proper topic now....:)

motzart
23-10-14, 01:23
PS. Did you have a chance to find out what the super task for humankind will be? It would be awesome, because the last time I checked the main human tasks were the same as chimps, ants and bacteria (all life forms on Earth); Eat, Survive, Multiply. Do you think we can escape it one day, and feel really special? Spirituality and religion was suppose to do the trick for us, and generally speaking it does for most.

The super task for humankind will be to create the super intelligence, the meaning of a human life is to survive and multiply because we have feeble minds incapable of comprehending the true nature of existence. This is why we create the super brain, to lead us and guide us.