Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Scientists create the first synthetic lifeform
- Thread starter BassyBill
- Start date
When it come down to it, as far as new and emerging technologies go,
THERE'S NO GOING BACK!
Once the genie's out of the bottle, whether it be nuclear energy, computers, or the latest and greatest bass*, the technology is there for all to behold and use. We can only pray and hope that wisdom accompanies any new development.
*Well, you can always go back to the P-Bass!
THERE'S NO GOING BACK!
Once the genie's out of the bottle, whether it be nuclear energy, computers, or the latest and greatest bass*, the technology is there for all to behold and use. We can only pray and hope that wisdom accompanies any new development.
*Well, you can always go back to the P-Bass!
I'm not sure. I can't recall when the last time one of my relatives was eaten by a lion, when i had to run for my life from a peer or predator. Nor can i recall losing children friends and family to things like colds and diarrhea. Come to think of it, I'm already past my life expectancy by 12 years, still have all my teeth, and can expect many more years of life. Oh, and i sleep indoors. Just sayin', my modern life has not been "brief, brutish and nasty".
FWIW, we still have a long way to go before true abiogenesis, but i bet we get there in the next 20 years or so.
Gotta love science and technology, the shaper of history.
True, wants are not taken into account, but needs are. If society hadn't needed to develop a more reliable way to feed larger numbers of our population, we would have remained living in small groups as hunter/gatherers, and no one would be playing bass, on the internet, or really doing much else than foraging and hunting.
There goes my civil tone...
You have no idea regarding the level of understanding I have of Hunter Gatherer Societies, and the history of the evolution of Homo sapiens.
I stand behind every statement made, and think it is YOU that need to reconsider.
Yes, simple injuries turn septic in a primitive culture.
Yes, child mortality is high.
Yes, competition among predators and competitors is a significant factor.
You know what I have to say to that?
GOOD. We have removed the majority of selective pressures on our species (to our own, as well as the greater ecosystem's peril). This has helped lead to the very thought process that leads to your comments: That we are somehow entitled to a life profoundly different that 99.9% of the rest of the life on the planet. Life is hard, that is what gives it value. We have moved so far from the true concept of what life is that we can't recognize it from our anti-septic, creature comfort, plastic coated existence.
We are animals. We would be FAR happier living like the animals we are, instead of somehow thinking we are 'special' or 'divine' or something along those lines. Further, we are extremely successful animals, becoming apex predators without the benefit of claws, teeth, speed, etc.
I have no problem with you holding the opinion you have, I have a serious problem with your arrogance to insinuate that I don't have a VERY solid grasp on the subject matter.
I don't know what your level of understanding of paleolithic H. sapiens is, and I won't make assumptions. I would suggest that if you would like to learn more about my thought process, you research Paleolithic Diets for starters. It is a good 'food for though' (pardon the pun) topic that (IMO) lays a good foundation for understanding the differences in our life now, vs. our life then.
*Tries to resume civil tone*
There goes my civil tone...
You have no idea regarding the level of understanding I have of Hunter Gatherer Societies, and the history of the evolution of Homo sapiens.
I stand behind every statement made, and think it is YOU that need to reconsider.
Yes, simple injuries turn septic in a primitive culture.
Yes, child mortality is high.
Yes, competition among predators and competitors is a significant factor.
You know what I have to say to that?
GOOD. We have removed the majority of selective pressures on our species (to our own, as well as the greater ecosystem's peril). This has helped lead to the very thought process that leads to your comments: That we are somehow entitled to a life profoundly different that 99.9% of the rest of the life on the planet. Life is hard, that is what gives it value. We have moved so far from the true concept of what life is that we can't recognize it from our anti-septic, creature comfort, plastic coated existence.
We are animals. We would be FAR happier living like the animals we are, instead of somehow thinking we are 'special' or 'divine' or something along those lines. Further, we are extremely successful animals, becoming apex predators without the benefit of claws, teeth, speed, etc.
I have no problem with you holding the opinion you have, I have a serious problem with your arrogance to insinuate that I don't have a VERY solid grasp on the subject matter.
I don't know what your level of understanding of paleolithic H. sapiens is, and I won't make assumptions. I would suggest that if you would like to learn more about my thought process, you research Paleolithic Diets for starters. It is a good 'food for though' (pardon the pun) topic that (IMO) lays a good foundation for understanding the differences in our life now, vs. our life then.
*Tries to resume civil tone*
well, you have a serious grasp of your OPINION and THOUGHT PROCESSES...I'll say that. But I doubt you are the only one among us with anthropological knowledge, or biases I might add. Hmmm--I wonder what else is not being said about your stance re "happiness". Oh well, off to another forum.
/braces for impact
No, I don't, but I myself have a somewhat decent perspective on it since the evolution of our species, holds interest to me.
You know what I have to say to that? I'm glad we don't have to deal with it. I don't want to have both my wife and my child dying in childbirth. I don't want to have to wonder about where my next meal is going to come from, I have a hard enough time doing that already without having to go out and hunt for it.
I find this paragraph amazingly hard to decipher. You say we're animals. I agree, you say we are extremely successful animals, I agree. Why then should we forgo the one thing that has led us to be the apex predator as you call it, which is an agrarian society and the benefits associated with it. You say we should live like the animals we are. We ARE living like the animals we are. We have developed everything we have because we ARE the animals we are. You're asking us to live like the animals we USED to be. Big difference. There is a reason there is a very small population of the world that still lives hunter/gatherer.
Again, I still don't think you really know what goes on with a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. Reading about something like that does not really let you grok what it's like to do it. Now if you've been a hunter/gatherer for a year or so and lived that life first hand, then my apologies, but I must then ask why you're back, since in your opinion humans would be much happier that way.
I don't know what your level of understanding of paleolithic H. sapiens is, and I won't make assumptions. I would suggest that if you would like to learn more about my thought process, you research Paleolithic Diets for starters. It is a good 'food for though' (pardon the pun) topic that (IMO) lays a good foundation for understanding the differences in our life now, vs. our life then.
*Tries to resume civil tone*
I'll be honest, and you can take this how you want, but I have no interest in learning about your thought process. I've done my own research into what life was like for the neanderthals and cro-magnon man, as I'm sure you have, and I have no romantic ideas about what life was like, living in the woods, with a wood spear and flint spear head (which by the way, I do know rudimentary flint napping, as well as fire starting, gathering, and hunting, to which I owe my Grandfather) wondering about where your next meal would come from, moving into a new land and taking your life into your own hands with berries or roots you don't know if they're poisonous or not. Call me plastic coated, but that is not my idea of fun. If it is yours however, then find some people who think like you, meet up, buy some bus tickets, go out to the middle of nowhere with nothing but some shorts and a t-shirt on, and do it. If you care to and then decide at one point to come back, for whatever reason, write a book on it, and I'll read it.
Also I'll say this in general. The true concept of life, to me, is living long, happy, and healthy, knowing my grandparents, and hopefully, my great grand-children. Yours is different, and that's your opinion, but don't get pissy when some one disagrees with it.
Sloasdaylight- Again, my problem is not w/ your opinion or our difference in opinion. It is the presumption that irritated me. Think what you like....
I never implied that I was the only one with knowledge of the subject.
I never implied that I was the only one with knowledge of the subject.
Like Asimov used to say when folk said they wish that they lived back in (pick a time). "Oh really? Who's slave did you want to be?.....any particular diseases you wanted to be wiped out by?"
FWIW the murder rate amongst the HG societies remaining is amazing. Per capita they are multiples of our most dangerous cities. The !Kung San are remarkable people, and offer so many windows on our past, but I'm not gonna set myself up to insult my nephew and have him zap me with a poisoned arrow that would have brought down a giraffe. Just sayin'
FWIW the murder rate amongst the HG societies remaining is amazing. Per capita they are multiples of our most dangerous cities. The !Kung San are remarkable people, and offer so many windows on our past, but I'm not gonna set myself up to insult my nephew and have him zap me with a poisoned arrow that would have brought down a giraffe. Just sayin'
Then prove the presumption wrong. Honestly, have you lived life as a hunter/gatherer for a year or more?
You kind of did in your reply to me.
We took it. There is no such thing as "entitlement" in the manner you are bringing. We evolved to overcome the way we were. If we were happier being munched on, why did we advance to where we are now?
Have you ever gone and lived the hunter/gatherer life style? Sans any modern advances or outside help? And I don't mean a weekend, I mean taking a year of your life or something, going out to some remote forest and stripping yourself of all things modern?
(was actually beaten to this second point)
Yes, simple injuries turn septic in a primitive culture.
Yes, child mortality is high.
Yes, competition among predators and competitors is a significant factor.
You know what I have to say to that?
GOOD. We have removed the majority of selective pressures on our species (to our own, as well as the greater ecosystem's peril). This has helped lead to the very thought process that leads to your comments: That we are somehow entitled to a life profoundly different that 99.9% of the rest of the life on the planet. Life is hard, that is what gives it value. We have moved so far from the true concept of what life is that we can't recognize it from our anti-septic, creature comfort, plastic coated existence.
We are animals. We would be FAR happier living like the animals we are, instead of somehow thinking we are 'special' or 'divine' or something along those lines. Further, we are extremely successful animals, becoming apex predators without the benefit of claws, teeth, speed, etc.
That's something that I can't imagine Dawkins, Dennet, Gould, Asimov, Ruse, (pick your favorite pundit and insert here) agreeing with. The subject of where ethics comes from and how to improve on our own biological ethics is a good one. While natural selection is effective, it would be a stretch to call it "good". Natural, yes, but not "good". It's not feeling entitled to a life profoundly different than the rest of the life to want to mitigate suffering and death, even if it results in artificiality keeping inferior alleles in the gene pool, keeping the population in check (there are other ways of doing that), etc. I don't think any of the folk i listed think that humans are special, designed, or what have you. They may concede that we have partially removed ourselves from our original environmental stimuli, but remember, WE did it. we are natural, our nature compels us to act like this, invent new stuff, strive for improvement, ergo our current situation is somewhat natural by default. Great strides continue to be made in ethics and the philosophy of science and understanding human nature from many different viewpoints (genetic, biochemical, cultural, etc). Hopefully we emerge with a fuller understanding of what we have become and how we should act. Even game theory helps with this. Being too dogmatic about any viewpoint just puts on the blinders and leaves one unable to engage in reasonable debate.
This exponentially increases humans' ability to screw things up. Consider, as an example, the invention and deployment of drugs that ultimately are found to have dire side effects (e.g. thalidomide, fen-phen, etc.). Now we have synthetic organisms that, by definition, can self-replicate. How do you put the genie back in the bottle when one of these critters makes it into the genpop, and we find out it is worse than ebola in the long run?
I call bad karma. I'm not anti-techno at all, but humans have repeatedly proven that we get ahead of ourselves and bad things can happen. The technology of atomic fission held a lot of promise for beneficial applications, but its first use was the destruction of major cities. Then, it created the cold war and the proliferation of enough weapons to end society as we know it.
This one is even scarier, in my book.
I call bad karma. I'm not anti-techno at all, but humans have repeatedly proven that we get ahead of ourselves and bad things can happen. The technology of atomic fission held a lot of promise for beneficial applications, but its first use was the destruction of major cities. Then, it created the cold war and the proliferation of enough weapons to end society as we know it.
This one is even scarier, in my book.
but... I've always thought an "I am Legend" "Book of Eli" or Resident Evil type future might be kind of neat.
I'm going to stick by this still not being quite as impressive as the scientists are trying to make out (I'm also skeptical about what he is stating, especially considering there is no legit publication of this yet).
It's the nanobots we have to worry about, not cells like these.
However, if these are indeed as impressive as the guy is trying to make out. It could be a huge step forward in the possibility of terraforming if we can make some uber-extremophilic species!
we already have those! the discoveries of subterranean lithophiles has put the whole history of life back on the drawing board. All extremophiles are notoriously hard to culture, be they archaea or bacteria. perhaps we will be able to use or modify some of those for venus one day.
There goes my civil tone...
You have no idea regarding the level of understanding I have of Hunter Gatherer Societies, and the history of the evolution of Homo sapiens.
I stand behind every statement made, and think it is YOU that need to reconsider.
Yes, simple injuries turn septic in a primitive culture.
Yes, child mortality is high.
Yes, competition among predators and competitors is a significant factor.
You know what I have to say to that?
GOOD. We have removed the majority of selective pressures on our species (to our own, as well as the greater ecosystem's peril). This has helped lead to the very thought process that leads to your comments: That we are somehow entitled to a life profoundly different that 99.9% of the rest of the life on the planet. Life is hard, that is what gives it value. We have moved so far from the true concept of what life is that we can't recognize it from our anti-septic, creature comfort, plastic coated existence.
We are animals. We would be FAR happier living like the animals we are, instead of somehow thinking we are 'special' or 'divine' or something along those lines. Further, we are extremely successful animals, becoming apex predators without the benefit of claws, teeth, speed, etc.
I have no problem with you holding the opinion you have, I have a serious problem with your arrogance to insinuate that I don't have a VERY solid grasp on the subject matter.
I don't know what your level of understanding of paleolithic H. sapiens is, and I won't make assumptions. I would suggest that if you would like to learn more about my thought process, you research Paleolithic Diets for starters. It is a good 'food for though' (pardon the pun) topic that (IMO) lays a good foundation for understanding the differences in our life now, vs. our life then.
*Tries to resume civil tone*
I agree with the "Cave Man Diet" bit, but that's it. Now please turn in your computer and all creature comforts and pick up your loincloth and ticket to the Amazon rainforest at the front desk.
Ad hominem remark: Speculating about your opponent's thought processes and frame of mind. "Attack the argument not the person."
Evidence? Can you point to archaeological or biological data that determines the value of life? If a hard life is valued, why did prehistoric humans reject it by embracing technology?
Which "we" are you talking about? The earth can't support the entire human population without technology. What if I am among the 99% of people who face death if technology disappears? Is that good? Not for me.
