World, Writing, Wealth discussion

41 views
The Lounge: Chat. Relax. Unwind. > Prospective improvements of humans or can supermen become real?

Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 19850 comments Humans are considered (by some) the crown of creation. Nevertheless, scientists and all work on further improvements whether through genetic modification or otherwise.
It so happened though that some 'inferior' species have remarkable capabilities that we can only envy. We can hardly regenerate skin, for example, while salamanders - limbs. Some try to replicate the same 'skills' in humans: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130... .
If this may be possible, can we then borrow and adopt all the advances the nature allocated to other species, like amphibian living, gliding, flying and all?


message 2: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan Once you factor in high levels of nanotechnology and genetic 'in situ,' controls then anything that is compatible with physically possible becomes an option.


message 3: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 1857 comments I am not sure that anything physically possible becomes an option because there are issues of control. I am not sure why you would want to evolve to glide when gliding is quite plausible now with mechanical assistance. A more interesting question is whether we can regain some abilities that we probably have stored there somewhere. For example, the one thing we can't repair is teeth, yet when we are around 6 we get a new set. Why can't we get further new sets? T Rex apparently grew them "on demand" when an old one broke or got pulled out.

From a personal point of view, repairing arthritic joints would be good. When young, we seem to be good at repairing things. As we age, not so good. Such repair would be good.


message 4: by Vince (new)

Vince Loggia | 52 comments Interesting topic that Nik posits. As for medical science they are, in fact, using some of the things mentioned. For example the University of Pennsylvania has a new cancer treatment wherein your own cells are genetically modified to fight the cancer cells in your body...great stuff when you stoop to think about it...instead of putting poisonous chemicals into you which kill as many good cells as bad they use your own immune system to do the fighting for you. Why it took so long to get to that I have no idea. My thought would be to work on the mind as the future of targeted evolution. We have all seen or heard of stories of heightened strength in times of extreme provocation....i.e. the mother who picks up a car off of their child. On the flip side stress can do amazingly bad things to your body....high blood pressure, stomach issues, headaches, etc, You can even become hysterically blind due to stress. OK so why then can we not use the powers of the brain to achieve extra strength when we actually want it or to achieve extreme calm when we are stressed. It is said that we only use a very small percentage of our brain's power so why aren't we trying to harness some of the rest? As for Ian's desire to treat arthritis that is a good idea and they are doing such things right now with injectable products that are designed to regrow deteriorating joints. I think that the major problem is the lack of creativity amongst the scientific community....everyone wants to take baby steps trying to slowly advance someone else;s work without trying for any quantum ;leaps.


message 5: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 1857 comments I think Vince is a little tough on the scientific community. The reason it is taking so long is it is just so damned difficult. Taking the new cancer treatment, which is sprouting up in different places. The problem to getting the immune system to attack the cancer is the immune system attacks "foreign" cells, but cancer cells are actually the cells of the person, that have mutated so they reproduce uncontrollably. Thus the cancer that spread and killed my wife were basically Claire's breast cells, even when the turned up elsewhere. The differences between "normal" breast cells and these ones were just that they did not behave properly on reproduction, and were not removed by the immune system when they were replaced. That makes it difficult because the proposed treatment has to persuade the immune system to attack and ruthlessly eliminate "Not quite proper Claire's cells" but leave "Claire's cells" strictly alone, otherwise you have a treatment that just eats the patient from within. It is not the easiest thing to do. Also, when these super killer cells (because they have to be modified, because the originals don't do it) are finished, they have to be turned off, or guess what? This is really difficult, and I can only admire the people that have achieved it.


message 6: by Vince (new)

Vince Loggia | 52 comments I'm not saying that it is a walk in the park all I'm saying is why did they not get to that approach sooner? When, even a layman thinking logically, might say to themselves, "Since our own bodies fight off just about everything bad that nature throws at us why not see if we can't stimulate our body's own immune system to do the work for us"? That is what I mean by a quantum leap in the thinking....beyond just creating chemo drug after chemo drug that are also poisonous in their own rights why not go a different direction....it just seems to me that most of the scientific community is afraid to take radical approaches probably because they need funding and it is easier to get funding for something that is already tried and true so to speak. I don't want to get hung up on the cancer issue alone. like Ian I lost someone very close to me due to pancreatic cancer (my mother). But that disease really really troubles me in that of all the billions raised for such research it seems to me we should have something of a "cure" by now.


message 7: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 1857 comments Vince, they thought of the approach a long time ago. It is just that until recently they made no progress.


message 8: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 19850 comments So, would you rather outsource flying to external devices, like drones, or levitate on your own? :)


message 9: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 8071 comments There's only one answer to that, but how to do it?


message 10: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 19850 comments How far, if at all, would you go to become a superman/woman?


message 11: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 1857 comments If it meant perfect health, no cancer, I would go quite some distance. If it meant flying, being bulletproof and having xray vision, nah, not interested.


message 12: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 8071 comments If I had to merge with a computer or AI, I wouldn't go that far.


message 13: by [deleted user] (new)

I'm with Scout on this. Got to be honest, I think these people who dream of superpowers, want to merge with AI, or be frozen so they can be brought back to life in the future, need to see a psychiatrist.


message 14: by Lizzie (new)

Lizzie | 2057 comments I am with Ian on this one. No pain would be nice for a while.


message 15: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 8071 comments Willing to merge your psyche with a computer, Lizzie?


message 16: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 19850 comments Cyborgs are coming 🦾🦿🤖


back to top