Altering humanity - what's the mental block about?

[GreyICE]

I gave your "problem" all the time and attention it deserved. I may have given the poster of it a tad much though.

[Eriku]

Surely human bodies are so fundamentally derived from our current circumstances, allowing us to change over the period of geological time, that any radical alterations would have serious knock down effects to all sorts of other processes and whatnot. Have we mapped everything going on in our bodies? Do we know where all the strings are attached? I'm merely asserting this, but I believe it to be true that we don't... Would it not be very likely that things go wrong?

Our mental block probably has to do with our new-found scientific tendency not to gratuitously experiment with humans... Do it successfully and ship them to Mars to get started... then what? Considering how weird the lunar participants were after their events (nothing being able to measure up to that experience, several making their own cults, etc... from what I understand it goes for ALL of those who went to the Moon...) what would be the psychological ramifications of chucking these people onto Mars?

Not feasible at present.

[GreyICE]

Ah, the human body is too complex for us to really understand what is happening, so we should hold off on sending people to Mars? Probably a good idea. I'd suggest undersea or other harsh environments as good testing spots for adaptions to be tested.

As for biology being irreproducibly complex, no it's not. It's just a system of components, you can alter them and not have horrible ramifications. We stick fake hips in people, make the deaf hear, we're giving people fake eyes and fake limbs, we give them fake heart valves and fake organs that keep the heart running steadily, we are already changing human biology.

Gratuitous? I'd rather like to be able to live for an hour after my heart fails, would give me some serious time to restart it. I'd love for most of these upgrades. Biology got us to a decent template, we can take it farther. We don't use horses for transportation anymore, and this is the same.

[Eriku]

Ah, the human body is too complex for us to really understand what is happening, so we should hold off on sending people to Mars? Probably a good idea. I'd suggest undersea or other harsh environments as good testing spots for adaptions to be tested.

As for biology being irreproducibly complex, no it's not. It's just a system of components, you can alter them and not have horrible ramifications. We stick fake hips in people, make the deaf hear, we're giving people fake eyes and fake limbs, we give them fake heart valves and fake organs that keep the heart running steadily, we are already changing human biology.

Gratuitous? I'd rather like to be able to live for an hour after my heart fails, would give me some serious time to restart it. I'd love for most of these upgrades. Biology got us to a decent template, we can take it farther. We don't use horses for transportation anymore, and this is the same.

Fake hips and whatnot are a different proposition to altering us to be able to survive on an alien planet... Surely you recognise that?

Fine! If you can find funding and volunteers, have at it for all I care... I'm just saying it's outlandish and nobody in their right mind would volunteer to be augmented to that extent.

[mistermack]

Altering humanity, no problem. Altering in a predictable viable way? Not a chance. But it's a nice idea. But the problems that humans experience now in space will apply to any genetically modified human. They apply to nearly all organisms, except maybe some spores.
But we will have found technological ways to survive in space long before we could do anything like that, so there will never be a need for it.
And if you propose making technological changes to humans, why not just use technology to enable a normal human to operate and survive?

A human brain needs most of the body, to keep it healthy and useful, so what's the advantage of replacing bits?

[Trolldor]

Dumping 15 ccs of engineered blood cells into the body would have a reasonably dramatic effect on our metabolism.

We have enough bleeding resources to outfit most of the humans in America with an automobile and we can't give some people 15ccs of engineered blood? I don't think so.

But how often? I confess to knowing little about human biology, but I'd imagine the trick is to get the human body to generate its own modified blood cells.

Assuming you could, the brain would have to be essentially left 'as is' meaning maintaining temp while at the same time raising it.

Very precarious, aye?

[GreyICE]

Fake hips and whatnot are a different proposition to altering us to be able to survive on an alien planet... Surely you recognise that?

Fine! If you can find funding and volunteers, have at it for all I care... I'm just saying it's outlandish and nobody in their right mind would volunteer to be augmented to that extent.

No, I don't recognize how implanting a fake hip in our body or a pacemaker in our heart is a totally different thing from implanting hardened covers on our eyeballs or rebreathers in our lungs.

There's a lot more that has to be done, certainly . A whole list of things. But that's just a matter of testing and degree, not radically redeveloping technology. One gets to where one wants to be

Altering humanity, no problem. Altering in a predictable viable way? Not a chance. But it's a nice idea. But the problems that humans experience now in space will apply to any genetically modified human. They apply to nearly all organisms, except maybe some spores.
But we will have found technological ways to survive in space long before we could do anything like that, so there will never be a need for it.
And if you propose making technological changes to humans, why not just use technology to enable a normal human to operate and survive?

A human brain needs most of the body, to keep it healthy and useful, so what's the advantage of replacing bits?

I have no idea what the advantages of having a perfect memory archive, access to the entire electromagnetic spectrum from our eyes, the ability to modify and modulate our hearing, run faster, jump higher, and generally operate on a different level would be.

You know what? Lets leave it at the 15cc of artificial blood. What's the advantage of having an hour before your organs start to turn off when your blood isn't moving? How many people die of a heart attack again? That's nevermind the small advantage of being able to swim a mile underwater, or have a large buffer in the Martian atmosphere.

As for using the technology to make the environment better for humans, there's huge inefficiencies there. We currently use vast sections of the fossil fuels we remove from the ground to heat and cool ourselves. Yes, to make ourselves comfortable. Millions of BTUs, billions, more. When we could dynamically adjust the heat transfer rate of our body and do the same thing using watts. Dunno why I think that's an improvement really, we all know the Model T is a good comparison to the Audi R8.

Assuming you could, the brain would have to be essentially left 'as is' meaning maintaining temp while at the same time raising it.

Very precarious, aye?

Are you confusing heat and temperature? Heat is not temperature, temperature is not heat. I will not say the two are unrelated, but they are rather less related than many think.

Why would we be raising the temperature?

[mistermack]

Greyice, we can do all those things now. Why would we need to alter our bodies?
Subs can stay submerged for a year. Machines mean we can do far more than the things you listed, without any weird surgery.
But you don't seem to have any idea what you would need to do, to a human body, to enable them to survive on a planet like mars.
How would you inulate it from the cold? Or cosmic radiation? Or solar flares? Or stop it's fluids from boiling? Let alone persuade someone to go for it.
Maybe they might do it to criminals, like we did with transportation to Australia.

[GreyICE]

Greyice, we can do all those things now. Why would we need to alter our bodies?
Subs can stay submerged for a year. Machines mean we can do far more than the things you listed, without any weird surgery.
But you don't seem to have any idea what you would need to do, to a human body, to enable them to survive on a planet like mars.
How would you inulate it from the cold? Or cosmic radiation? Or solar flares? Or stop it's fluids from boiling? Let alone persuade someone to go for it.
Maybe they might do it to criminals, like we did with transportation to Australia.

Um, mack, are we reading the same thread? I already calculated how to insulate it from the cold. Reduce the emissivity to 0.15 or so. Not like there's fucking convection with THAT atmosphere, and do you really think conduction is a big deal? It's not.

Cosmic radiation can be dealt with, we've been dealing with radiation for a while. It's mostly protons and alpha particles, with some beta thrown in, that's all deflected by magnetic fields. Solar flares are just more of the same.

Fluid boiling is not nearly the problem that movies like Event Horizon make it seem. It looks all messy on the big screen. You do not automatically explode in low pressure/vacuum environments. Eyeballs are a problem, breathing is a problem, your skin does start to bruise, but it can all be dealt with.

As for someone to go for it, wow. Money and opportunity, there's plenty of people who would love to go to space.

P.S. Bigger issue is using machines on Mars or in the asteroid belt. Lets invent AIs now? Or do you think its feasible to control them from earth? Hint: It's not, for MUCH bigger reasons than some technological drawbacks.

[charlou]

I've noticed the terraforming thread has gone on for pages about how we could spend vast amounts of resources to make planets and environments that are completely unsuitable for sustaining earth-normal life somehow habitable for us.

Isn't it infinitely easier to just use cybernetics and alterations to make humans who can live in those environments?

Why not just do this for our own future uninhabitable environment, right here on the pale blue dot? This, plus strict population control of course, just like we'd need in any artificial envirionment.

[GreyICE]

I note that the population appears to be controlling itself thanks to education, technology, and basic economics. And the planet is, in most respects, in at least the same condition it was in the 1970s - some places are much worse, but some places are actually improving. The global warming issue is a problem, but not insurmountable. The future, on the whole, is cautiously bright if we're smart and don't underestimate the challenges.

[ScholasticSpastic]

I agree with GreyICE that physical and genetic alteration shouldn't be ignored as reasonable expectations for the future. The most basic and important components of our definition of what it means to be human are not, after all, structurally dependent. Arguments that genetically altered progeny wouldn't have a choice about being born that way are silly: did YOU have a choice regarding the structure of your body at birth? No, you did not. None of us do. It's impossible to take away what one does not possess.

The next argument to knock down is argument from peer-identification: That genetically or otherwise physically altered humans would feel like outcasts due to their differences; thus raising ethical issues. This is also an invalid argument from a planetary colonization perspective. All of the colonists would benefit from the same set of alterations and thus there would be a strong correspondence with their peers despite any deviation from accepted norms on Earth. They could not be outcasts if they shared "deviant" traits in common.

From a cost perspective, I favor a biotechnological approach over a retrofitting approach. Engineered biological systems have the advantage that they'll propagate themselves through future generations of colonists at no additional cost. Retrofits don't offer the same advantage.

[GreyICE]

Retrofits offer huge advantages in terms of dealing with advancing technology though. Remember, each generation has non-linearly superior technology to the last generation. Shackling multiple generations to a single upgrade pattern means you lose out on all of the advances that occur inbetween each generation. With generations coming farther and farther apart (average age a couple has kids is now 27, and its rising) there's no reason to cripple ourselves. Even 30 year jumps inbetween upgrade systems are just too long at even our current rate of technological growth (which will be exceeded, obviously).

[ScholasticSpastic]

Retrofits offer huge advantages in terms of dealing with advancing technology though. Remember, each generation has non-linearly superior technology to the last generation. Shackling multiple generations to a single upgrade pattern means you lose out on all of the advances that occur inbetween each generation. With generations coming farther and farther apart (average age a couple has kids is now 27, and its rising) there's no reason to cripple ourselves. Even 30 year jumps inbetween upgrade systems are just too long at even our current rate of technological growth (which will be exceeded, obviously).

Biotech for baseline survival- free, but similar upgrades for every generation that follows.

Retrofits can, assuming we continue to advance surgically, be treated as supplemental. Like clothing.

I stand by my assessment that positioning following generations for survival in a different environment for free exceeds the potential benefits of incrementally improved survival capabilities at a cost. Especially as cutting-edge technology tends to be quite costly, indeed. It also precludes the extent to which lower social strata risk indenture in the event of an emergent technocracy and enhanced stratification.

Consider that we've managed to improve our standards of living on this world almost exponentially while using the same basic wetware as our benighted predecessors.

[Clinton Huxley]

I, for one, would not welcome our cybernetic overlords.