humans are still evolving...

[Photonic]

And this.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

 

[waitasec]

And this.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

this is an interesting thought....
but i am thinking about the notion that if everyone is healthy while our planet is being depleted of it's natural resources because people are living longer...presents a problem for the survival our species.
for instance the collapsing bee colony phenomenon...if we don't have bees we don't have pollination and no antivirus will mean anything. or if drought should happen the mass exodus would be detrimental to the survival of our species...we've also become so dependent on electricity that if anything were to happen, no one would be able to debate on RF

 

[painted wolf]

Because our average life span is more than twice what it once was, because humans have existed beyond technology, and can only be furthered BECAUSE of it (or destroyed, if you're that kind of pessimist).

And our "average life span" is actually going down in the USA and several other parts of the world. The global average is 67.2... not much higher than the life expecancy of people who made it past "the critical stage" (age 15 for paleo/21 for med.) then life expecancy in the Paleolithic is 54 and Medieval Europe 64.

All this means is that we put greater strain on our ecological carrying capacity than ever before, especially now with 7 billion people.

ps... worse than the bees thing is the fact that we are now well past peak production of Phosphorus and supplies globally are in serious decline.

And because Moore's Law.

I counter with Moore's second law (aka. Rock's Law). It will be economically and environmentally impossible to reach your hoped for future.

The fact that we are already seeing shortages of key materials like rare Earth metals and know why exponential growth never continues unabated.
It's a system based on always taking more and more out of a finite resource... eventually you can't sustain demand with the supply and the edifice crumbles.

Which is why, if technology is going to save us... it's not going to be by producing magical supermachines, but by helping us manage our dwindling resources more sustainably.

Unfortunately that doesn't sell and everyone wants the shiny new gadget to display their social/breeding status.

wa:do

 

[Photonic]

And our "average life span" is actually going down in the USA and several other parts of the world. The global average is 67.2... not much higher than the life expecancy of people who made it past "the critical stage" (age 15 for paleo/21 for med.) then life expecancy in the Paleolithic is 54 and Medieval Europe 64.

All this means is that we put greater strain on our ecological carrying capacity than ever before, especially now with 7 billion people.

ps... worse than the bees thing is the fact that we are now well past peak production of Phosphorus and supplies globally are in serious decline.


I counter with Moore's second law (aka. Rock's Law). It will be economically and environmentally impossible to reach your hoped for future.

The fact that we are already seeing shortages of key materials like rare Earth metals and know why exponential growth never continues unabated.
It's a system based on always taking more and more out of a finite resource... eventually you can't sustain demand with the supply and the edifice crumbles.

Which is why, if technology is going to save us... it's not going to be by producing magical supermachines, but by helping us manage our dwindling resources more sustainably.

Unfortunately that doesn't sell and everyone wants the shiny new gadget to display their social/breeding status.

wa:do

What has technology done to you that you hate it so much?

If we become advanced enough in genetics, we could simply modify the bee's genetic structure to be tougher. Plants have also existed much longer than bee's. I'm fairly sure they would survive if bee's went extinct.

 

[painted wolf]

What has technology done to you that you hate it so much?

I don't hate it...
However, I also know the difference between respecting it and worshiping it.

If we become advanced enough in genetics, we could simply modify the bee's genetic structure to be tougher.

Doesn't really work like that. I know it does in the books and movies, but in reality... not so much.

Plus, it does nothing about the issue of running out of biologically usable phosphorus... or arable land.

Plants have also existed much longer than bee's. I'm fairly sure they would survive if bee's went extinct.

"Plants" is a stupidly broad subject you are talking about. Plants are more diverse than "Animals" and yet, are still evolutionarily younger than they are. :sarcastic

I'm talking about our crops, which belong to an extremely narrow category of insect pollinated angiosperms (all crops not members of the "grass" family)
And no... "flowers" have not been around longer than the "bees", they co-evolved, without one you don't have the other.

wa:do

 

[Photonic]

I don't hate it...
However, I also know the difference between respecting it and worshiping it.

Doesn't really work like that. I know it does in the books and movies, but in reality... not so much.

Plus, it does nothing about the issue of running out of biologically usable phosphorus... or arable land.

"Plants" is a stupidly broad subject you are talking about. Plants are more diverse than "Animals" and yet, are still evolutionarily younger than they are. :sarcastic

I'm talking about our crops, which belong to an extremely narrow category of insect pollinated angiosperms (all crops not members of the "grass" family)
And no... "flowers" have not been around longer than the "bees", they co-evolved, without one you don't have the other.

wa:do

If genetics didn't work it wouldn't be a science.

 

[painted wolf]

If genetics didn't work it wouldn't be a science.

Oi vey...

I said it was more complex then you realize, not that it doesn't work. There is a world of difference there. :tuna:

It's not like swapping parts in a computer you know. Genes interact with each other in very complex ways, that are not fully understood.

The other problem is the fact that Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is not a simple issue that can just be fixed by waiving a magic wand.

1) we don't know why it's happening.
2) we don't have the political will to fund the research into the cause like we should.
3) when and if we find the cause... we need to research if it is a "simple" cause or if it's a "synergistic" cause. Given how quickly and devastatingly it's working it's not likely to be a "simple" cause. (ie. just a disease/parasite/toxin)

If this is a "simple" problem you can keep going down the list, if it's not a "simple" problem ...then a designer gene isn't going to help.

4) once we know how CCD works we need to research other bee species to see if they have resistance to CCD. (again, you need for fight to have this research funded)
5) If we find a resistant species, we then need to run genetic tests comparing it to the domestic bee and sequence as much of their genomes as possible.
6) Once we have genomes to compare then we can start with the comparative genomics to see what of the potentially hundreds of different genes are the ones we are looking for. (this means running hundreds to thousands of trials with E.coli and other model organisms checking for gene expression and what they produce)
7) Once we know what the gene we want is... we then need to make sure it isn't a gene that requires other genes to function in it's natural species... so we need to do dozens to hundreds of other experiments to see how the target gene is activated in the wild bee.
8) Once we know how the gene works in the wild bee we can then consider putting the gene into the domestic bee. (and begin the fight with anti-genetic modification groups.)
9) Assuming we can get the gene to work in the domestic bee (that could also require dozens to thousands of experimental instertions itself... this technology has a high failure rate in multicellular animals) we then have to try to produce a fertile queen and drones from this.
10) Once we have our genetically altered bees we need to test them to see if the gene works. (it may not, just because you have a gene doesn't mean you will express the gene)
11) Assuming you get everything right the first time and you have indeed produced a genetically modified bee that is immune to CCD... now you have to start the safety tests. This itself can take decades.

Even if you get all the safety tests perfect and you get the approval of the FDA to introduce your "super bees" you then have to fight with the EU who has a stringent "No GMO's" policy... you still can't introduce your bees because of politics.

Because the political obstacles are so high, good luck getting funding for the previous work.

Just to illustrate the point... the "super salmon" that was approved by the USDA/FDA is still not available in the market due to social/political pressure, the company has been working on getting this fish to market for over fifteen years.

You can't just invoke "science" to fix the problem when you don't understand how the science you are claiming will solve the problem works. :sarcastic

wa:do

 

[Photonic]

Oi vey...

I said it was more complex then you realize, not that it doesn't work. There is a world of difference there. :tuna:

It's not like swapping parts in a computer you know. Genes interact with each other in very complex ways, that are not fully understood.

The other problem is the fact that Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is not a simple issue that can just be fixed by waiving a magic wand.

1) we don't know why it's happening.
2) we don't have the political will to fund the research into the cause like we should.
3) when and if we find the cause... we need to research if it is a "simple" cause or if it's a "synergistic" cause. Given how quickly and devastatingly it's working it's not likely to be a "simple" cause. (ie. just a disease/parasite/toxin)

If this is a "simple" problem you can keep going down the list, if it's not a "simple" problem ...then a designer gene isn't going to help.

4) once we know how CCD works we need to research other bee species to see if they have resistance to CCD. (again, you need for fight to have this research funded)
5) If we find a resistant species, we then need to run genetic tests comparing it to the domestic bee and sequence as much of their genomes as possible.
6) Once we have genomes to compare then we can start with the comparative genomics to see what of the potentially hundreds of different genes are the ones we are looking for. (this means running hundreds to thousands of trials with E.coli and other model organisms checking for gene expression and what they produce)
7) Once we know what the gene we want is... we then need to make sure it isn't a gene that requires other genes to function in it's natural species... so we need to do dozens to hundreds of other experiments to see how the target gene is activated in the wild bee.
8) Once we know how the gene works in the wild bee we can then consider putting the gene into the domestic bee. (and begin the fight with anti-genetic modification groups.)
9) Assuming we can get the gene to work in the domestic bee (that could also require dozens to thousands of experimental instertions itself... this technology has a high failure rate in multicellular animals) we then have to try to produce a fertile queen and drones from this.
10) Once we have our genetically altered bees we need to test them to see if the gene works. (it may not, just because you have a gene doesn't mean you will express the gene)
11) Assuming you get everything right the first time and you have indeed produced a genetically modified bee that is immune to CCD... now you have to start the safety tests. This itself can take decades.

Even if you get all the safety tests perfect and you get the approval of the FDA to introduce your "super bees" you then have to fight with the EU who has a stringent "No GMO's" policy... you still can't introduce your bees because of politics.

Because the political obstacles are so high, good luck getting funding for the previous work.

Just to illustrate the point... the "super salmon" that was approved by the USDA/FDA is still not available in the market due to social/political pressure, the company has been working on getting this fish to market for over fifteen years.

You can't just invoke "science" to fix the problem when you don't understand how the science you are claiming will solve the problem works. :sarcastic

wa:do

Interesting that you claim I don't know how it works. I'm a physicist, I understand how it works from top to bottom. Your field fits nicely in with mine. And you are bound by the same laws as I am.
Our limitations may or may not have a human component to it, but it is within the laws of this universe. It CAN be done.

Whether humans will do it or not is another thing altogether.

Or are you in another universe?

I can and will "invoke" science if it is within the realm of the possible.

 

[painted wolf]

Interesting that you claim I don't know how it works. I'm a physicist, I understand how it works from top to bottom. Your field fits nicely in with mine. And you are bound by the same laws as I am.
Our limitations may or may not have a human component to it, but it is within the laws of this universe. It CAN be done.

Whether humans will do it or not is another thing altogether.

Or are you in another universe?

I can and will "invoke" science if it is within the realm of the possible.

Bwahahaha.... :biglaugh:

Knowing physics doesn't make you "master of all science". :slap:

Why don't you explain how to do it since you know genetics from the top to the bottom. (And apparently better than geneticists do)
Just saying "genetically engineer it" doesn't fly either.

wa:do

 

[Photonic]

Bwahahaha.... :biglaugh:

Knowing physics doesn't make you "master of all science". :slap:

Why don't you explain how to do it since you know genetics from the top to the bottom. (And apparently better than geneticists do)
Just saying "genetically engineer it" doesn't fly either.

wa:do

Is biology bound by some separate universe's laws that I am unaware of?

 

[painted wolf]

Do you understand how genes work?

wa:do

 

[lunamoth]

Do you understand how genes work?

wa:do

He appears to have many of the same misconceptions creationists do.

 

[Photonic]

Do you understand how genes work?

wa:do

Believe it or not, I do. Quite well in fact.

Now feel free to show me the research that says genetics aren't bound to the laws of physics.

Or have properties that lie outside of capability.


Also, for your reading pleasure: Saying cannot has never solved anything.

 

[lunamoth]

Believe it or not, I do. Quite well in fact.

Now feel free to show me the research that says genetics isn't bound to the laws of physics.

Or have properties that lie outside of capability.


Also, for your reading pleasure: Saying cannot has never solved anything.

Our knowledge about how genes interact with each other in any single organism, much less how genetic changes impact biological interrelationships at the level of ecosystems, is no where near far enough along to make the kind of controlled genetic changes you suggest.

What you propose is similar to saying that changing one of the constants in the physical laws of the universe would have only one small impact and not effect anything else.

 

[Photonic]

Our knowledge about how genes interact with each other in any single organism, much less how genetic changes impact biological interrelationships at the level of ecosystems, is no where near far enough along to make the kind of controlled genetic changes you suggest.

What you propose is similar to saying that changing one of the constants in the physical laws of the universe would have only one small impact and not effect anything else.

What I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with changing the laws of physics, but ADHERING TO THEM.

Lacking the knowledge is one thing, but it being possible to do is the argument here.

Why don't you get that?

Is it really that hard to grasp?

 

[lunamoth]

What I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with changing the laws of physics, but ADHERING TO THEM.

Lacking the knowledge is one thing, but it being possible to do is the argument here.

Why don't you get that?

Is it really that hard to grasp?

And what you are talking about is completely a red herring.

PW's point remains quite valid - we are going to have to deal with issues of sustainability long before our knowledge of genetics can accomplish the kinds of genetic manipulation you suggest.

Technology has a role in this, but more importantly we need to get serious about using our resources wisely.

 

[Photonic]

And what you are talking about is completely a red herring.

PW's point remains quite valid - we are going to have to deal with issues of sustainability long before our knowledge of genetics can accomplish the kinds of genetic manipulation you suggest.

Technology has a role in this, but more importantly we need to get serious about using our resources wisely.

So we should sit back and wait to die off?

 

[lunamoth]

So we should sit back and wait to die off?

Um, no. We should work on changing our habits toward those that are more sustainable.

Making these kinds of changes are viable right now. As much as I love the space program, colonizing space is not the answer to this.

Any way technology can be used to improve sustainability is great, including the use of GMOs to expand the amount of farmable land and increase productivity and nutrition of foods.

 

[Photonic]

Um, no. We should work on changing our habits toward those that are more sustainable.

Making these kinds of changes are viable right now. As much as I love the space program, colonizing space is not the answer to this.

Any way technology can be used to improve sustainability is great, including the use of GMOs to expand the amount of farmable land and increase productive and nutrition of foods.

I would say colonizing space and allows humans to expand IS the answer.

I would argue that that is possibly the single greatest means of ensuring survival of the human species.

 

[lunamoth]

I would say colonizing space and allows humans to expand IS the answer.

I would argue that that is possibly the single greatest means of ensuring survival of the human species.

Right, because we are likely to be so well fit for life on other planets where we have not spent billions of years adapting.

Wherever we go, we take ourselves with us. Why not learn to reign in our appetites and wasteful ways, and improve our life here on Earth.