About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aging is what happens to people after they have passed the point of maximum fecundity.

Mike, Deinococcus is an interestingly named bug, if you know the Greek and Latin. The problem is that having such a DNA repair gene (1) only works at the moment of damage, since otherwise a misrepair is inevitably made, leaving what might be looked at analogously to a smooth scar which leaves an underlying flaw in the record, (2) any mutations not caused by radiation, such as mismatches during cell division, and congenitally inherited mutations are not touched, and (3) such mutations in DNA are only a small portion of aging in humans. Basically, this gene can be seen as one that fixes fraying strands, but doesn't reattach ropes, rewind misbraids or untie knots, or shorten or lengthen planks. Only the boy Jesus did that in Joseph's workshop.

Much of aging is caused by damage to structural substances, almost all proteins, and some sugars. These "gum up" the works. These items are usually replaced over time by cell death and replacement and by other mechanisms, but at an always diminishing rate. Remember how a cut at age six healed in days, but now takes weeks? Sagging body parts have nothin to do with mutations per se. Fixing mutations (like correcting blueprints) does nothing to replace rotten timbers, or fix cracked windshields already in place. Bacteria are in a sense immortal, since unless they are destroyed, they continue to split and to go on ticking. But this type of immortality is analogous to the immortality of the human bloodline. If you have progeny, then your gametes and their progeny lucky enough to become fertile parents themselves will be immortal. Your brain is part of the husk, it does not split and follow the bloodline, and souls are not the sort of things that will ever be downloadable. I am sure that we could make replacement machines that would be convinced that they were us. But just because I am convinced that I am Napoleon doesn't make Napoleon immortal.

The best I see people hoping for is a slow down of aging due to eugenics, (if only men over 90 could sire children, we could double the lifespan in three generations,) gene therapy, stem cell research, and medicine inspired thereupon, as well as the regrowth of certain body tissues, and the "cloning" of organs, which will be hard to do without the cloning of entire pesky individuals.

Aging is what happens to people after they have passed the point of maximum fecundity. At that point, nature gets a better return on children then on fixing obsolete models.

People fixated on Ray Kurtzweil's fantasies are in for disapointment. And none of this will help when the mullah beheads you, unless the marines break in an save the brain within about 120 seconds.

Ted

Post 61

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The show Heros has some truth to it !

In my study I was asked to wear electrical probes all over my body and go about doing my normal routine until I found camera crews following me from a distance so I removed the equipment and then they asked me could they do a movie for a well known public broadcaster and it was to be titled a day in the life of Silas Sconiers I refused and went into hiding and would only come out at night.

It's suspect when I go to the doctor or hospital for examinations and they draw blood they take a lot of it.

I guess they have my DNA

My Brothers and sister laugh and tell me there going to dig my body up and steal it.

I said that to say this Dr. Frankenstein still exist

___________________________________________________________________________________

I have had cabs pick me up at my front door all expense paid to River City in Chicago where doctors have examined me. I have had some neurologist and  neurosurgeons call me and tell me don't let those people touch you they have ulterior motives. 

What is it that they want and why?

I have had other doctors tell me to watch myself and we know and the medical community talks.

(Edited by Silas Geronimo Sconiers on 2/23, 11:07pm)


Post 62

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Yeah. I understand all that stuff.

"At that point, nature gets a better return on children then on fixing obsolete models."

I very glad nature made me. But if I could figure out how to make myself better, stronger, smarter, and live indefinitely I would. I would be happy to coexist with nature. I'm sure human cells with better repair mechanisms will eventually be engineered. That is, if our culture of science and experimentation and technological growth lasts long enough.

Some very old men have sired children who were completely normal. Doesn't that suggest that the DNA in the gametes that made the new infant had all the information needed to produce healthy young cells? So, this information had passed from cell division to cell division for the entire lifetime of these very old men. If that information could be used to repair the rest of the cells in these old bodies, they could become "young" again.

Just dreaming.

Post 63

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 9:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm with you Mike.  I think they'll do it - eventually - but no where near in time to help us. 

And I do so want to see what comes next.


Post 64

Friday, February 23, 2007 - 11:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not made of glass come on with it!

My skin is thick!  

For the professional reader only H89-429 Northern District of Indiana Hammond division.

(Edited by Silas Geronimo Sconiers on 2/23, 11:36pm)


Post 65

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As to Ted's remarks about Kurzweil's so called fantasies. He never stated any of it was guaranteed, but he did say it was inevitable since our technology is making us live longer. He also never claimed it promised true immortality, but it does promise longer, healthier lives. And it may promise such spans that are undefined in their total span, which could be assumed from a mathematician's point of view as infinite.

Also, cloning individual organs has already been done, it's old hat. Stem cells used to regenerate organs are on-going. In fact Science Daily reported that one corporation is doing a study using stem cells found in the fat of patients to repair their hearts from near-terminal heart failure and heart disease. So, that means Kurzweil has been on the right track all along.

Enjoy a long span of life, Ted, because you, like me, will be living long enough to make more mistakes or more successes even past 60. :)

-- Bridget

Post 66

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


even past 60
whoah - try 90 lass - planning on being around awhile......;-)


Post 67

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     This 7-part op-ed series is mainly a cursory bio of a Chinese researcher in cloning, and is in a relatively 'local' newspaper's web-site. It primarily covers his origin, his vision, his academia probs (funding, competition, controversy, etc.), but also delves into the expectations from cloning itself...including its apparent self-programmed demise due to knowledge re gene-engineering; but, this shows up only in the last 2 segments.

     Though centered around cloning, much seems relevent to this thread.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-yang1.artfeb18,0,3942499.story

LLAP
J:D


Post 68

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

A 90 year old man who reproduces is necessarily a living 90 year old man, so he must not have too many post-reproductive lethal genes, such as those that make women better milk producers in their child-bearin years, and then kill them of breast cancer at menopause.

Successfully fathering a child at 90 also doesn't necessarily mean that one has good DNA repair mechanisms, or at least not especially good ones. If the man lived a "clean" life without to much exposure to free-radicals and so on, his DNA might not have been damaed in the first place. Also, it only takes 1 sperm, out of millions that might be too damaged to figure out how to get upstream in any case.

Bridget,

I refered to Kurzweil's "fantasies" only to express my strong skepticism about his overly optimistic claims. I also find his AI theories utterly flawed, as usual, based on dualism, the floating abstraction model of concepts, and a variant of the primacy of consciousness. But I have not read any of his books, I have only seen his three hour talk on BOOKTV. I am not in a position to express more than my own educated skepticism about his claims. I have no problem with his goals - I just don't think that the standard AI theories are going to et us there, and I didn't hear anything from him that made me think that he understands the difference between consciousness and data manipulation (i.e., computer programs).

=====

As for repair mechanisms, nanobots are a speculation, and one, that if feasible, seems like a terribly dangerous two edged blade. I expect more people will be liquified by nanobot weapons than will be made ever young by them. I will be happy to be proven wrong. In the mean time, don't grow old waiting for the fountain of youth to be discovered!

Ted

=====

Silas, a sci-fi show (and a good one) is evidence for what now? I personally am kept up nights worrying about Jon Crichton's wormhole technology...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 2:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, in other words, the reason I suested a program of breeding 90 year old men is that they will be carrying fewer lethal genes, and that they might , be carrying superior DNA repair genes. But repairing DNA that codes for motile sperm and lethal prostate cancer at the same time shows that DNA repair alone is not all we need.

As for nature, f*ck her! She may have made us, but she doesn't care about us, except as vehicles for the germ line. Her ends are her own, not ours. I am with Bridget on not caring too much whether or not something is "natural." Death is natural.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Hound Dog" Taylor, American blues musician - born with an extra finger on each hand. Taylor, while drunk, amputated the extra digit from his right hand with a razor blade. His left hand had the extra digit for the rest of his life, and allegedly contributed to his distinctive electric guitar playing style.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polydactyl_people

Would it be "fair" for Hound Dog to enter a Blues musician contest?

;-)

Ed
[from The Princess Bride:
Inigo Montoya: I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?
Westley: Do you always begin conversations this way?]


Post 71

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 10:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The issue with Kurzweil is that he does not see a difference between cognition and data manipulation, which is a drawback for him because he's ignoring Natural Computing and other Super-Turing/Non-Turing paradigms. I happen to be focusing on those paradigms as part of my AI research and I think they will have the best possibility of success in the next ten years, but along the way it will probably pose more questions than answers as to the nature of consciousness, primarily in the specific mechanisms involved.

As for his optimism, I tend to agree with his point of view only because I've seen way too many successes in medicine in the last two years not to consider that life extension as very probable ( Note: I emphasize that I said probable, not possible, meaning I do think it will happen. ).

-- Bridget

Post 72

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 9:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed

I had an extra toe as a child and cut it off with a razor blade when I was around 12 years of age when it started growing I did not let it fully develop before cutting it off. 

I often think back about it what makes the body grow another digit so long  after birth?

I'm sure this has happened to other people.

My next door neighbor had the coolest hands they were webbed like a duck but he was born that way but later on in life he had the skin removed.

That sixth toe of mine had to go it was causing me pain and dad was not buying me any new shoes to accommodate that toe (Cheap , Stingy , Miser )


Post 73

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The chimeric animal shown below is a baby "geep", made by combining a goat and sheep embryo. Notice the chimerism evident in the skin - big patches of skin on front and rear legs are covered with wool, representing the sheep contribution of the animal, while a majority of the remainder of the body is covered with hair, being derived from goat cells.
 
 
 
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/genetics/medgen/chromo/mosaics.html 
 
 
 
 
The boy, who was otherwise healthy, is one of only a handful of known true human chimæras - people carrying tissues that originated in two separate embryos.  More common are mosaics, who have patches of tissue that differ genetically from the rest of their body, thanks to a mutation or chromosomal anomaly that arose early in embryological development.


 



 


?


Post 74

Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chimerism in humans is probably no more rare than in other animals, adjusting for the fact that multiple conceptions in humans are themselves more rare, so there are fewer chances of twins becoming fused. Human Chimerism is probably only recognized very rarely. There was a case of a mother possibly being denied custody of her own children, whom she had born, since her blood and theirs did not match. The mother was a chimera, and her ovaries and blood had different genomes. Of course, while interesting, this is off topic, since chimerism and hybridism, etc., are quite different beasts altogether.

Post 75

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see something else brewing and this is a component of a much bigger picture once the procedures of animal -human hybrid experimentation and the human genome project is finished and the collection of DNA of certain humans and creatures and it's genome is deciphered the bigger picture will become very clear.

Chimeras experimentation is all part of the equation and the bigger picture.

If you can't see it then lets leave something for the imagination. 


 




Have you ever seen a big dumb ox get all the women and you wonder why? Could it be in the genes?

(Edited by Silas Geronimo Sconiers on 2/26, 12:22pm)


Post 76

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Back to the original question: What is the Objectivist Position on Animal-Human Hybrids?

In short, one should judge the chimera as an individual. If a reasoning, talking parrot, for example, can express his/its opinion on national defense, justice and law enforcement, i.e. those areas where objectivists agree are legitimate purviews of government, then he/it should have the right to vote on those issues. Objectivists will agree that no body/thing should be able to vote on other issues anyway because they are not legitimate.

The intelligent parrot should be allowed life, liberty and self determination such as supporting him/it self and associating with whoever he/it wishes ... and so on.

Sam

(I chose a parrot as an example because Michael Crichton's novel, NeXt, had one as a principal character)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     I agree with Sam, with a caveat concern: how to identify bona-fide 'intelligence' AND sentience, and maybe even sapience. To be sure, this prob applies more to experiments on apes/dolphins than parrots or human gene-combos, but...
     I find this prob totally applicable to our ever meeting 'E.T.'s elsewhere. Are they more than merely a plant, animal, fungi, 'hive-mind' grouping, etc, whether naturally or 'artificially'...produced/created? HOW to determine?This is the biggest set of questions coming down the line. --- Rationally, a difficult territory, but, as I've said, not really a set *we* have to worry about...now.
LLAP
J:D


Post 78

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 11:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What legal rights if any will anyone have if they discover that there DNA has been harvested to produce  animal human hybrids or used in any experiment that one has not consented to .

If one finds out a Human or Animal Hybrid has been produced with his/er DNA without consent do they have parental rights? 

You got to wonder with the limitless possibilities what are the goals of such research ?

It's very suspect.


Post 79

Thursday, March 8, 2007 - 12:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     "What are 'the goals' of such research?" For those directly motivated to be directly involved (ie: the field scientists), I'd say it's the same as the goals of mountain climbers: Because it's-there/we-can/to-discover-more.

     It's 'the goals' of others who fund such that are worth being suspicious about...you know, the corporate-CEO and politician/govt-favor-giving funders. It's they who make the decisions about how they will use (and prevent others from using) such discoveries.

LLAP
J:D


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.