G'day guys,
You've probably put this one to bed already too, but here's my razoo's worth
anyway.
** WTF is a razoo?
Cloned replacement parts I can believe, cloned bodies with memory implants
nope. The following points have a fair bit to do with this opinion, yeah I
know we can't imagine the leaps we'll make (I'm a strong advocate of that
claim), but somethings just don't gel.
They have already mapped an entire chromosome (complete DNA strand) mind you
that's the shortest of the 25 or whatever it is humans have. They have
bio-frames upon which to grow organs that work and we'll have clone
organs within the next couple of decades probably, so organ even limb
transplants
by 2180 I can believe. However, ethcal issues aside, it would take 6+
years
to grow a human clone to adulthood safely - faster than that and
there's mammoth tissue problems.
** You seem to believe there is nothing we can do to accelerate the process
while ameliorating the effects of tissue damage. I merely suggest (not from
expertise, merely from the wonderment of science and progress) that such a
technique or technology may evolve. That changes the rules.
But that clone won't have the skills to survive in society that's why
evolution has broken our growth at 4 and given us an
extra 10+ years of slow physical growth so our brains can take
everything in we need to be adults before kicking back in onto normal
mammalian growth curve to finish us off to adult size.
** Again, I was sort of looking at the brainless or at least
virgin-brain style of clone... such that the brain's neural pathways
would be remapped to match that of the overlay being installed.
There's also the issue of experience making the man (so to speak), identical
twins are clones, how many of them think exactly alike...none! Clones also
recieve the cellular age of the individual their cloned from...
** Clone them at 20. If we have a high level of anagathic tech, we could well
have a clone soldier useful for 60 years... Make two or three when a promising
soldier is twenty, with all development of muscles and such and brain
pathways, make sure the mapping is reasonably accurate, and cold sleep them.
Then revive and overlay as required. Periodic update periods would help lessen
the transition shock.
Dolly is suffering hyper aging - she was
cloned from a middle aged sheep and her cells are aging as if they started
from middle-age not from birth, accelerated aging on that scale isn't
something I'd look forward too! Add to that a lot of the things you'd guess
are purely gene related aren't, handedness is actually related to the amount
of testosterone you recieve in uterine (in mum),
** Seems like if you could quantify enough of a human to build a clone, you
could control the development by matching parameters so it
came out like the one you were cloning from - this isn't purely
genetics, it might well include controlling in utero chemical environment, and
post uterine development as well. Not a trivial feat perhaps. Perhaps even
impossible. I just suspect we *might* be surprised.
for instance. As for imprinting brains with captured memories, that's going to
be VERY difficult
** As a comparison, I don't think it would be any harder than harnessing
gravity. This is the pipe dream of physics and is a staple of the GZGverse.
Are the GZGverse bioscientists second rate? I think not. If the phys geeks can
solve FTL and gravity control, then I think we should give the bioscience guys
some magic too!;)
given we think they use quantum properties and no two brains are
exactly the same shape - you go trying to put my memories into Los and
they're not going to fit - you'd run out of room in the math area and
have extra in the motor skills area = square peg, round hole!
** Assumes we can't control development at that level and that such a level of
detail is actually required. Keep in mind, you only use a small chunk of your
brain.... seems to me the overcapacity might let you handle some of these
differences, even if you allowed them during growth.
Brain-trasplants
are being discussed even now, but the patient ends up as a quadriplegic as you
simply can't realign all those neuronal connections, though I guess we may get
around that eventually.
** Sort of my point. Imagine what they were talking about in 1880 and what we
could do in 1980... I'll bet they would not even have come close.... we're in
the same boat. How many things thought impossible would we have actually made
easy? How many things they thought were rules or laws of the way humans were
put together have we broken and ground into the dirt? A fair few.
Tom has a point, medicine will be streets ahead by then - nanites in
the
blood stream, cloned parts (if/when you get to a medi-point) will see
our prospects increase (even with better weaponary I think the soldires would
still end a little better off), but I doubt it'll get to the point this
discussion did;)
** Perhaps not, and again, it boils down to PSB. I started this as a small
point about recovery rates for wounded. It just kind of mushroomed.... which
makes it fun!
:) Tom
> kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca wrote:
> ** Again, I was sort of looking at the brainless or at least
I think your possible missing something. To remap a brain to a virgin brain so
it will function like the old one requires phyiscal alterations to the brain
itself to represent the strengthened neural pathways which have been firing in
certain patterns for decades. (partly this is enhanced chemical links between
specific neurons built up over years and years.)
A poor analogy is that you can map someone's "strength" to another body
without physically altering the muscle tissue in he new body.
Of course all this assumes that what goes into making a "character" or "you"
can simply be distilled to technical remapping and is not in part made up of
processes unmeasureable (spirit?).
> ** Clone them at 20. If we have a high level of anagathic tech, we
You seem to assume that making soldiers of great experience will somehow
overcome the effects of modern and post modern warfare. I think there is a
point where having a guy with a dozens (or 60) years of experience stops
buying you anything. In high intensity combat quality and experience takes you
a good way, but not much further.You still have to have numbers particlaulry
on the lethality of the modern battelfield. Without numbers you have NO
susutainability. (And it's pretty clear from even a cursory study of the
cannon GZG timeline that numbers are still a factor in any of
the big "real" wars of the future.) If you are trying to find work
arounds to having "numbers" in the future I think it's realistically not
going to get you far. I'd rather have 30-40 guys of medium training that
work well together (Say a current well oiled infantry platoon from a top
regiment, non elite) than 6 "super" soildiers. (say SAS or delta) weapons, and
tactics, and equipment being what they are, each loss of those 6 guys becomes
exponentially more severe and impedes mission success that much more.
Especially since training and experience acquired the good old fashioned way
through a military establishment that values the dissemination of lessons
learned and training, ca ensure more guys have that experience even if not as
as deep a level as our 6 heroes.
> kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca wrote:
> You've probably put this one to bed already too, but here's my razoo's
A Brass Razoo is the Oz equivalent of a plugged nickel. As in "It's not worth
a Brass Razoo."
G'day guys,
> ** You seem to believe there is nothing we can do to accelerate the
You're right, in 30 years we can all sit back and have a good laugh at what
we thought was impossible/implausible/nonsense ;)
> ** Again, I was sort of looking at the brainless or at least
There is a problem with this in that even with the over capacity you mention.
We don't know what that over capacity is for, it definitely
doesn't seem to be for anything the other bits do - you can't just stuff
it
all in and say the over-capcity will fix her up, it doesn't - that why
strokes are so devastating.
> ** Clone them at 20. If we have a high level of anagathic tech, we
One thing though OK, explain one tiny detail to me here, skipping the ethics
of creating virgin brain clones, how the hell do you get one? People who are
cerebrally dead waste away in beds in hospitals all around the world;
microcephalic foetus have a 99.99% abort rate etc etc. So how the heck are you
going to get a clone to the size of a 20 year old (even if you do it damn
fast) without it having any cerebral function at all? Guess this is another
one I'm going to have to put down to future science hey?
> ** Seems like if you could quantify enough of a human to build a
> surprised.
I doubt it somehow. Like I said how many identical tiwns are exactly identical
in every way and every attitude? None, they're close alright, but not exact
matches otherwise twin experiments would be of moot value.
> ** As a comparison, I don't think it would be any harder than
Bioscience guys are also 2000+ years behind the physics guys and work in
areas that I've seen leading physicsts say would make their hair curl! But I
guess we all need a good challenge;)
> ** Sort of my point. Imagine what they were talking about in 1880 and
We haven't had much of a chance in bioscience as yet as we haven't nailed
down any laws - Darwin ain't that long dead (in the rand scheme of
things) and most of the founding fathers of ecology are still walking the
planet
;)
> ** Perhaps not, and again, it boils down to PSB.
As usual!;)
Hope you all have a fun (but blessedly uneventful) new year;)
Cheers
Beth
> >** Clone them at 20. If we have a high level of anagathic tech, we
People
> who are cerebrally dead waste away in beds in hospitals all around the
Especially since the establishment of neural pathways have nothing to do with
cloning. regardless of what age they are. those come from
doing/experience.
Unless they are confusing cloning (where you grow a new person from scratch,
makes no differnce at what age you sample the original it could be 90.) with
replicating ( where you would, say, put Mr Spok through the teleporter and
save a back up of him and rematerialize it so that you have two of exactly the
same.
> >** Sort of my point. Imagine what they were talking about in 1880 and
This argument always gets tossed out in these types of debates like it's teh
final word which should end all skepticism. .Of course in 1945-55 it was
a given
in most all sci-fi that we would be doing all sorts of wazoo stuff in
1990-2001
like flying pan am clippers to space for business/vacation, having a
functioning moon base (with Martin Landau in control), operating a the vaunted
International Rescue, blah blah blah, your arguments are just as easily turned
on their head with the same number of supporting arguments that we can look
back and laugh at what we though was possible and we're still no where near
accomplishing. In fact it seems that most sci fi or future history prediction
seems to be wildly off base.
> One thing though OK, explain one tiny detail to me here, skipping
Guess this
> is another one I'm going to have to put down to future science hey?
Actually, I can tell you an easy way: you don't. Just round up enough healthy
young people who fit your profile, and download your
preferred neural pattern over the one they already have. Make it a
sentencing option for some crimes, like homicide, drug trafficking...or drunk
driving, depends on how large an army you want to "recruit"...and you're
ready.
I didn't say it was a _nice_ way--just easy.
Like the computer game SYNDICATE.