Captain america's formula?

[kkck]

Ok, I was reading the newspaper and I found this which I find quite remarkable (well, I saw it on a newspaper and then found in on the net to see if somewhere else said the same thing).

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpps/new...11-fc_15906889

Basically scientists found a gene that when removed promotes muscle growth. Rats twice as strong as normal rats? Ok, we don't really need that but if applied to other beings, in particular humans we could be talking about the start of new breed of people with superior physical capacities much in the same manner as captain america. In the article I originally read this it even went as far as saying that no side effects whatsoever had been detected in either the mice or worms on which the experiment was made (I did not post the original article because it was in spanish). What does everyone think?

[segua]

Man can play god all they want but they can't ever be god.

Anything that has to do with genetically modified/manipulated doesn't bode too well. It reminds me of the story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil alongside Pandora's box. We are dealing with something we don't even know what kind of consequences might take place. Even if we assumed we do, I'm afraid that these genetic manipulations might lead to an unstable genetic makeup which is irreversible. Of course the supporters of transhuman might champion such GM, I personally won't.

My motto is, if it works, don't fix it. As of right now, humans, for the most part, work just fine with whatever genetic make-up they inherited.

[kkck]

What in the hell did you just smoke? For one thing, humans have been doing genetic manipulation of species for millenniums. Thanks to it we have cows with soft meat, chickens who have no other purpose in nature other than to become our food (seriously, they don't belong to any ecosystem to the point where if they were to be released they'd die helplessly or destroy entire ecosystems), pretty much every vegetable we eat on a regular basis, dogs which won't hunt us down and take us back to the pack to eat us(let alone the sheer number of dog breeds there are) and who knows what else. If people back in the day would have had your motto we probably would not even have corn lol. The only difference between then and now is that we are more technical about it. Of course, there is still a lot about genetics that people don't know about however that is the whole point of making research of it. Its not like a movie and there is a chance for these guys to create angry rabid x-men who crave for brains.

Now, this is just my own humble opinion but as far as I know obesity, alcoholism, heart desease, cancer and a number of other diseases (which can or cannot be genetic) don't work. Heck, if things were peachy then there wouldn't even be any such research to begin with. In this particular case we are talking about the possibility of keeping people physically fit (and healthier) with considerably less exercise, prevention of muscular atrophy and a number of other benefits.

Genetics are not particularly my area but what is an unstable genetic makeup? I actually googled that and all I got is that that is the stuff which makes evee evolve into 10 different things however I doubt we are at risk of spontaneously turning into fire or water spitting people.

Genetics research does have a risk (realistically speaking it is plausible to develop weapons with the appropriate research) however the benefits could easily outweight the risks. We are talking about the possibility of treating diseases before they ever appear and even treat genetic defects such as down syndrome. I don't particularly think this is significantly different from studying chemistry, physics or biology, it is simply a newer science of which we know less since it was discovered not that many decades ago. Fortunately, the "new" aspect of it is easily cured with time and research.

[Jorge D. Dragon]

That's an interesting topic. Would be also glad if you post spanish link if it's posible kkck.

I'm actually somewhat interesting in the topic. The thing is that such a research can be interesting for the humans in different ways.
1. It can be made in order to resolve problems with feeding people in different parts of the World. Now we know that there are plenty of zones, where people don't have enough food to it, because of different reasons, but still such problem can be resolved if we use such a method to increase muscle mass in cows, bulls and other domestic animals in order to feed people. The thing is it is totally natural, because such animals won't have any sintetical bodies that can provoke problems with human health. Of course different researches should be made in order to totally understand all the after effects that can be produced on body structure, but I believe that it's clearly the thing that will help and develop the future of humanity.
2. With this discovery we can make humans who will be able to fullt work in different conditions of high gravity, where other humans won't survive. Such humans can work in different fields. Also it will help humans in elder age in order to maintain their body and health in better form and also it will help people to reach new potential in every sense and I obviously don't see any problems with it, cause I know that plenty of people worldwide would have liked to uses such a technology.

segua
Actually once I saw a program in spanish and it was about different types of genetical modification. Ok, it was about different types of animals that are selected in special way to fullfil special conditions like cows and bulls who have twice more muscles that normal (but they were actually mostly natural, because it was a special type of cows that is called Blue Belgian and it has quite a long history. If I'm not mistaken since 19th century ), chickens without hair or whatever it is called (they are designed to live in countries with high humidity and temperature). Also there was an interesting discovery in which scientists used a gene from a type of medusa that produces special type of light (green). This medusa is totally natural and lives if I'm not mistaken in Pacific Ocean and so scientists put its gene in rabbits and thus rabbits started to produce green light in darkness. The thing is that first I didn't get for what purpose they made this, but then they explained that it can be used in medicine. For example when you make surgery you don't need to worry when you try to get out something like malignant tumor or cancer, you don't have to worry and rely totally on rentgen or luck. You can insert this gene in this type of cells with malignant tumor and then you will clearly see with your eyes the cells that produce light and then such type of surgeries will become way safer for people.

P.S. Most types of even basic ingridients we use in preparing meals in our normal life are modfied long time ago (vegetables, fruit), but we know that it won't harm our health, so I don't see any problem with this until it makes only progress for humanity.

[kkck]

Not sure what the link was lol, long time ago. It shouldn't be difficult to find on the net though.

Another interesting thing I reading about a buffed baby that was born in germany. Basically he was born with a genetic thingy and he had overdeveloped muscles for his age. Doctors have o idea whatsoever if he will have problems in the future but the kid could be key in figuring out how to use genetic research to promote muscle growth and a number of other things.

Genetic research is in fact as old as mankind, that much is an indisputable fact (unless someone actually knows what a chicken's or a cow's natural ecosystem is). Getting technical about it does not make it evil. Obviously it could be used as a weapon too however if that was a reason to not do it then we might as well stop all forms of scientific research.

[Jorge D. Dragon]

I totally agree on your last point. Today we have really big disputes about the posibility of genetic researchs, but I believe that it will be good for people, cause with every research of such a kind scientists get closer to resolve problems with our health and how to cope cure cancer and other severe illnesses.

Any knowledge is like a double-edged sword, but only those who know how to use it can make it good or bad because of how they handle it.

Also I saw some time ago (in previous year) that scientists discovered a gene that make the cells get older and by removing this gene from the rats scientists stopped the visual process of ageing of the rats. Thus in not that distant future such a process can be used on people in order to make people's life a bit longer and a bit younger. The thing is that mostly this discovery is related with appearence. The person will young (or way younger than his age. That thing is still not totally confirmed, cause it was handled on the rats) , but still will grow older and die.

P.S. Would be interesting to discuss things of such a kind in this thread.

[kkck]

Well, I would love to be 120 and look 20 lol. One thing is not quite clear to me, would the person maintain physical fitness once old or would you be young looking while actually having the deteriorated body of an old dude? Or would there be a sort of middle ground? In the end, I would value physical health over appearance (even if most people wouldn't lol).

[Jorge D. Dragon]

That's still unknown. As experiment was conducted on rats, we can't predict the aftereffects on people, but as I understood it even if the person would look young he or she would still be not as fit as he would have been in his prime, even though still he or she would be way better than an actual person of their age without such teraphy.

[segua]

What in the hell did you just smoke? For one thing, humans have been doing genetic manipulation of species for millenniums. Thanks to it we have cows with soft meat, chickens who have no other purpose in nature other than to become our food (seriously, they don't belong to any ecosystem to the point where if they were to be released they'd die helplessly or destroy entire ecosystems), pretty much every vegetable we eat on a regular basis, dogs which won't hunt us down and take us back to the pack to eat us(let alone the sheer number of dog breeds there are) and who knows what else. If people back in the day would have had your motto we probably would not even have corn lol. The only difference between then and now is that we are more technical about it. Of course, there is still a lot about genetics that people don't know about however that is the whole point of making research of it. Its not like a movie and there is a chance for these guys to create angry rabid x-men who crave for brains.

Now, this is just my own humble opinion but as far as I know obesity, alcoholism, heart desease, cancer and a number of other diseases (which can or cannot be genetic) don't work. Heck, if things were peachy then there wouldn't even be any such research to begin with. In this particular case we are talking about the possibility of keeping people physically fit (and healthier) with considerably less exercise, prevention of muscular atrophy and a number of other benefits.

Genetics are not particularly my area but what is an unstable genetic makeup? I actually googled that and all I got is that that is the stuff which makes evee evolve into 10 different things however I doubt we are at risk of spontaneously turning into fire or water spitting people.

Genetics research does have a risk (realistically speaking it is plausible to develop weapons with the appropriate research) however the benefits could easily outweight the risks. We are talking about the possibility of treating diseases before they ever appear and even treat genetic defects such as down syndrome. I don't particularly think this is significantly different from studying chemistry, physics or biology, it is simply a newer science of which we know less since it was discovered not that many decades ago. Fortunately, the "new" aspect of it is easily cured with time and research.

First, you are confusing genetic manipulation with genetics. Two different discipline and field. One is direct human manipulation of genes while the other one is the study of the characteristics of genes.

There is a difference between hybridization, cross-breeding and GM. What's being talked about is forced genetic manipulation at the lowest level, genetic level. Hybridization and cross-breeding are processes where desired traits of source/parents of different stock are passed down into product/child through natural means of reproduction. There are no direct manipulation at the lowest level but these days, I'm unsure how the process works. Hybridization is best known to be used in agriculture. And yes, that's how we got our corn as it is today and etc. Cross-breeding gave us the different types of dogs and cats we have today.

From corporations like Monsanto, it's clear that the dangers of GM-anything far outweighs the benefits.

Here's some stories from what I would say reliable sources:

Huffington Post:
Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals

Green Peace: Genetically modified crops: No solution to hunger, climate change and biodiversity loss

On the flip side, GM is being hailed and championed to do away with food crisis, curing cancer and all sorts of miraculous feats. Perhaps GM has done some good but there needs to be boundaries. This is awfully getting close to an ethical discussion.

Cancer? Do a research on free-roaming radicals and how these free radicals causes cellular and even genetic damage. Anti-oxidants neutralizes free radicals. Guess where anti-oxidants can be found? The stuff we eat but mainly in fruits and vegetables. In addition, anti-oxidants has been able to turn off damage DNA. I might have to re-look this up. It's been awhile since I took a look at anti-oxidants on their effects.

Diseases? Could also be battled by stuff we eat. Chicken soup is one example.

Obesity? Yup, the stuff we eat; change your diet though. Perhaps cut the gluten products?

Drug addiction? Well, that's a different topic because it deals with substance abuse, but I was informed of an herb that might help with people with addiction. Look up the herb kudzu.

@Jorge D. Dragon: I saw a clip of Blue Belgian. From what they presented, Blue Belgians aren't genetically modified by were breed where they were able to isolate a specific gene to allowed them to be so beefy, no pun intended. In this case, I don't consider this genetically modified because I define GM as humans directly modifying an organism at the cellular/genetic level.

[kkck]

Under your logic there simply aren't any problems in the world. Hunger in africa? The solution would be to make them eat (holy shit, why didn't scientist think of that one?). Diseases? Hell, people just have get better (why in the hell do we need doctors). Obesity? Easy as pie, lets just have millions of people not eat lol. Aids? Lets give them all chicken soup, damn those evil multinational companies who kept the cure from us all along. People with cancer? I bet a bunch of apples and chicken soup will cure them, damn those narcissistic, selfish, asshole doctors who insist on chemotherapy, stem cell treatments and radiotherapy. Seriously, why are there starving people in the world? Eating is soooooo easy (its like they are stupid or something)

And breeding is a form of genetic manipulation, there is no way around that. How can it not be? Are we not selecting traits we want? Isn't the result something different from before? Being more technical about it does not mean it is not in principle the same. I am not saying there aren't any risks involved in the whole thing, obviously they should be extremely careful about it as the risks are very real (not "unstable genetic makeups though", we are not close to creating spontaneously evolving critters) and controls should indeed very strict. I don't deny there are inherent risks however that is still not a good reason to not learn how to do this stuff.

[segua]

Under your logic there simply aren't any problems in the world. Hunger in africa? The solution would be to make them eat (holy shit, why didn't scientist think of that one?). Diseases? Hell, people just have get better (why in the hell do we need doctors). Obesity? Easy as pie, lets just have millions of people not eat lol. Aids? Lets give them all chicken soup, damn those evil multinational companies who kept the cure from us all along. People with cancer? I bet a bunch of apples and chicken soup will cure them, damn those narcissistic, selfish, asshole doctors who insist on chemotherapy, stem cell treatments and radiotherapy. Seriously, why are there starving people in the world? Eating is soooooo easy (its like they are stupid or something)

And breeding is a form of genetic manipulation, there is no way around that. How can it not be? Are we not selecting traits we want? Isn't the result something different from before? Being more technical about it does not mean it is not in principle the same. I am not saying there aren't any risks involved in the whole thing, obviously they should be extremely careful about it as the risks are very real (not "unstable genetic makeups though", we are not close to creating spontaneously evolving critters) and controls should indeed very strict. I don't deny there are inherent risks however that is still not a good reason to not learn how to do this stuff.

Stop making assumptions on what I think. Firstly, the world is in a chaotic mess. Secondly, I don't reject the medical and scientific professions. What I do reject is a lack of better understanding and very expensive methods of treatments.

As far as food stuff are concern, by studying the chemical make-up, one could learn how beneficial the foodstuff we consume naturally are. For example, vegetables and fruits that are commonly found could prevent all sorts of cancer. This is truth. Doing a quick search on the internet would yield results. For instance, broccoli could fight off cancer. How? Broccoli, itself, contains anti-cancer properties.

Another one is that elderberry has properties that could fight off influenza. Check out this article: Wikipedia: Elderberry or Sambucus Medicinal Usage

That does not mean that I reject or dismiss synthetic drugs. Only that the usage of synthetic drug not be on a long-term basis.

In addition, it's also dangerous for a person who lack understanding of nutrients to become a strict vegetarian. Without eating the right combination of vegetables, a person is at risk of developing protein deficiency. Those who eat meat don't have to worry about this.

And don't discount the powers of chicken soup. One day, food scientist might develop a chicken soup recipe that could cure cancer and HIV.

But seriously, you are still confusing "genetic manipulation/modification."

Genetic manipulation/modification is defined as altering or making changes to the DNA itself. Usually, this is defined in positive light as in making improvements or corrections to short-comings. Basically, there's manipulation at the genetic level. Therefore breeding is not genetic manipulation by definition.

Pounding away at some girl or being pounded by a guy does not magically allow access to some sort of character creation mode. If it did, that would be genetic manipulation.

[faintsmile1992]

Under your logic there simply aren't any problems in the world. Hunger in africa? The solution would be to make them eat (holy shit, why didn't scientist think of that one?). Diseases? Hell, people just have get better (why in the hell do we need doctors). Obesity? Easy as pie, lets just have millions of people not eat lol. Aids? Lets give them all chicken soup, damn those evil multinational companies who kept the cure from us all along. People with cancer? I bet a bunch of apples and chicken soup will cure them, damn those narcissistic, selfish, asshole doctors who insist on chemotherapy, stem cell treatments and radiotherapy. Seriously, why are there starving people in the world? Eating is soooooo easy (its like they are stupid or something)

This is pretty much a straw man and you're tone shows it.

And the need for things like cancer treatments and cures for obesity really would be much less in the first place, if people had a good diet and lifestyle. There's no need to fix that which is already preventable, so why should people be treated for the medical problems they caused themselves, when they failed to be responsible for their own welfare in the first pace? "Just have millions of people not eat" is actually the best way to cure the obesity epidemic, because the food didn't force itself into their mouths, and you can't even blame corporations like McDonald's Murder Burgers for an individual's obesity, even if they shouldn't be allowed to advertise their poison.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

Pounding away at some girl or being pounded by a guy does not magically allow access to some sort of character creation mode. If it did, that would be genetic manipulation.

Well, you must admit that mate selection is at least an attempt at influencing the genetic code of the potential offspring even if the principles behind sexual attraction work subconsciously.

[kkck]

Well, I was obviously being horribly sarcastic.....

I don't quite agree with the notion that breeding is not a form of genetic manipulation. My first issue with that notion is that we are assuming things made by nature are inherently better than artificial things. I would rather argue that we simply are not that good at certain things yet rather than arguing an inherent goodness on part of nature. breeding implies a natural process over time which tries to modify the offspring at the genetic level to have certain traits. Genetic manipulation uses advanced technology to implant specific genomes into a gene (the exact terminology might escape me but I think I made my point). I don't see why one being natural or artificial or why how technical it is would influence whether it is a form of genetic manipulation.

Now, being less horribly sarcastic the fact of the matter is that people won't do what they are supposed to. People could in theory easily google how to keep a better diet but an actual expectation for people to do this is borderline absurd. Even if we assume people would use the almighty google, it is not certain that the objective of health and fitness would be reached. There are many factors to consider here.... Heck, in a extreme case changing your diet with a particular goal can harm you without specific and technical knowledge of how your body is currently working. Working out is not as easy as merely doing pushups or going to the gym, you can easily end up horribly hurt without even doing anything stupid. Ultimately changing a lifestyle is absurdly hard and would require technical knowledge (either from nutritionists or guys who actually know about the body and can help you develop a routine with specific goals and time-frames to gain adequate physical fitness). It is also unquestionable that things like alcoholism, obesity and many other diseases depend heavily on genetic predispositions. It would be far better for everyone -and perhaps even cheaper- if those predispositions could be dealt with as early as possible and in time that would be a very realistic possibility.

its not like all things natural are all that fantastic in the first place. How many instincts, predispositions or reflexes do we have which are leftover from pre-historic times(I don't recall any specific examples at the time but I have read plenty about that)? Many of the very processes which go on with us are part of survival mechanisms which simply serve no purposes these days due to how society has changed...

[segua]

This is pretty much a straw man and you're tone shows it.

And the need for things like cancer treatments and cures for obesity really would be much less in the first place, if people had a good diet and lifestyle. There's no need to fix that which is already preventable, so why should people be treated for the medical problems they caused themselves, when they failed to be responsible for their own welfare in the first pace? "Just have millions of people not eat" is actually the best way to cure the obesity epidemic, because the food didn't force itself into their mouths, and you can't even blame corporations like McDonald's Murder Burgers for an individual's obesity, even if they shouldn't be allowed to advertise their poison.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

Well, you must admit that mate selection is at least an attempt at influencing the genetic code of the potential offspring even if the principles behind sexual attraction work subconsciously.

Thing is that sexual reproduction is not genetic manipulation, by definition, because there are no direct human manipulation/modification at the genetic level. But I do agree that it is "an attempt at influencing the genetic code of the potential offspring." This goes into genetics and mate selections and so forth be it instinctively selecting based on a variety of factors or intentional selection.

Well, I was obviously being horribly sarcastic.....

I don't quite agree with the notion that breeding is not a form of genetic manipulation. My first issue with that notion is that we are assuming things made by nature are inherently better than artificial things.

I would rather argue that we simply are not that good at certain things yet rather than arguing an inherent goodness on part of nature. breeding implies a natural process over time which tries to modify the offspring at the genetic level to have certain traits. Genetic manipulation uses advanced technology to implant specific genomes into a gene (the exact terminology might escape me but I think I made my point). I don't see why one being natural or artificial or why how technical it is would influence whether it is a form of genetic manipulation.

Now, being less horribly sarcastic the fact of the matter is that people won't do what they are supposed to. People could in theory easily google how to keep a better diet but an actual expectation for people to do this is borderline absurd. Even if we assume people would use the almighty google, it is not certain that the objective of health and fitness would be reached. There are many factors to consider here.... Heck, in a extreme case changing your diet with a particular goal can harm you without specific and technical knowledge of how your body is currently working. Working out is not as easy as merely doing pushups or going to the gym, you can easily end up horribly hurt without even doing anything stupid. Ultimately changing a lifestyle is absurdly hard and would require technical knowledge (either from nutritionists or guys who actually know about the body and can help you develop a routine with specific goals and time-frames to gain adequate physical fitness). It is also unquestionable that things like alcoholism, obesity and many other diseases depend heavily on genetic predispositions. It would be far better for everyone -and perhaps even cheaper- if those predispositions could be dealt with as early as possible and in time that would be a very realistic possibility.

its not like all things natural are all that fantastic in the first place. How many instincts, predispositions or reflexes do we have which are leftover from pre-historic times(I don't recall any specific examples at the time but I have read plenty about that)? Many of the very processes which go on with us are part of survival mechanisms which simply serve no purposes these days due to how society has changed...

The argument was never about what was better or worse. The argument was about safety especially long term safety concerning genetic manipulation in relation to the chemical make-up of an organism. Second, it's also an ethical issue.

[ashher]

The idea is cool and exciting.

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------

@ Segua what's so objectionable about making ppl physcially strong? Yap this could turn out to have terrible side effects or other bad outcomes, in which case we can just discard it later. At this point all we know is that it might come out fine too. So why not try and see the outcome?