PDA

View Full Version : Genetics or Robotics?



The Vorpal Tribble
2007-12-03, 10:31 PM
Ok, had a discussion with my Dad earlier and it's an odd thing. He loves computers and is fascinated by things that can be done with robotics, nanotechnology, etc. He is intrigued by people with cyborg bits and loves his robot stories (big Asimov fan).

Me, I couldn't care less about this stuff. Bores me to death for the most part, and I just use computers because they are convenient. I don't particularly care for them though any more than I do my fridge. It's just a very useful appliance.

No, me, I've always been fascinated more with biologically enhancing or evolving folks. Eugenics and the like are what interest me. Do away with computers and technology for all I care and breed the stuff we'd want cybernetics to accomplish. It's more my field of interest at any rate. I'm more into Heroes and X-men type stuff where we evolve than where we strap on machinery.

He says computers in the brain, I say lets get some psionics being evolved.

Which one do you go for?

13_CBS
2007-12-03, 10:33 PM
I say neither. We have more pressing technological needs at the moment, and I don't think we should be funding, IMO, sci-fi fantasies when other problems are about.

Setra
2007-12-03, 10:35 PM
I prefer genetics myself.

How ELSE are we going to make catgirls real?

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-12-03, 10:42 PM
I say neither. We have more pressing technological needs at the moment, and I don't think we should be funding, IMO, sci-fi fantasies when other problems are about.
Yeah, because genetic studies allowing one to possibly cure diseases wouldn't be of any use.

As for technology, without it we'd have a stinkin' lot more to be worrying about than we do now. Things like iron lungs and pace makers and the like. Cybernetic equivalents here.

*rolls his eyes*

[Insert Neat Username Here]
2007-12-03, 10:45 PM
I prefer genetics myself.

How ELSE are we going to make catgirls real?

Catgirl robots.

captain_decadence
2007-12-03, 10:45 PM
I think that we will need advancements in both and that advancements in one will help out with the other.

But specifically, my interest is in the biological, I guess. I don't find machines interesting at all.

13_CBS
2007-12-03, 10:47 PM
Yeah, because genetic studies allowing one to possibly cure diseases wouldn't be of any use.

As for technology, without it we'd have a stinkin' lot more to be worrying about than we do now. Things like iron lungs and pace makers and the like. Cybernetic equivalents here.

*rolls his eyes*

Advancements of genetics to cure diseases? Oh yes. New technology to solve upcoming ecological problems? Oh yes.

Advancements of genetics for the purpose of gaining super powers? Advancements in technology for Halo-esque power suits? Eh...

edit: Ok, to not be an arse here...both. :smallamused: Psionics while in a powered exosuit, baby.

wadledo
2007-12-03, 10:47 PM
This makes me feel special.
(reason being:
I has a small non-metal plate in ma head from when I was 4, conked me noggin on a door and had to have it repaired,
And
I have extra fingers that didn't turn out right during birth, so now all I have is some small wart sized skin folds right at the first pinkie skin joint.)
>.> <.<........ Continue.

Copacetic
2007-12-03, 10:52 PM
Genetics, Robot parts are just silly.

Setra
2007-12-03, 10:54 PM
;3609893']Catgirl robots.
Can't compare with normal catgirls..

Then again I could probably BUY a catgirl robot.. hmm

Genetics still though.

averagejoe
2007-12-03, 11:05 PM
I find both topics to be of extraordinary interest. Then again, I find most things learnable to be interesting.

@Setra: You need genetics for catgirls, but you need robotics for mecha. Even if you don't like mecha in and of themselves, they make picking up catgirls easy. The catgirls dig giant robots.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-12-03, 11:23 PM
It would be fun to have both, gills and robotic optic implants. Awesome.

Rare Pink Leech
2007-12-03, 11:36 PM
This is funny, my friend and I had the same discussion while watching Bionic Woman the other week. I'd prefer to be genetically modified, whereas he'd rather have the cybernetics. Not sure why I prefer genetics, but I just do. Probably because I'm really into Heroes and X-Men as well.

evisiron
2007-12-03, 11:52 PM
Probably genetics on my side. Hero-wise, I would prefer something that would not rust or get knocked out by an EMP.

Reality wise:I think a mix of the two would be needed. Genetic changes to make people 'better' overall (ie: Less prone to disease), but cybernetics for when problems do happen.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-12-03, 11:55 PM
As a somewhat dedicated proponent of philosophic transhumanism...I would have to say 'niether', but I lean toward bio-technologies.

On the other hand, any mechanical system is vastly less complex (in some respects) than a body.

So technology is less inherently dangerous.

Lykan
2007-12-04, 12:21 AM
Okay... Here we go:

Pros to Robotics
- Robots can take on hazardous jobs in place of humans, thus reducing death toll. (this includes soldiers, law enforcement, mining, etc.)
- Robots can serve as servants to take on menial tasks that no one has to do, so mankind can (hopefully) instead work on expanding their own unique skills.
- Robots can work longer and on a more constant basis than humans can.
- Creation of personalized "family" robots. (see AI)

Cons to Robotics
- The ever classical concept of "Rise of the Machines"
- The idea that mankind will become dependent on robots for everything, which could only end in disaster.
- Robots can become unreliable if not monitored for bugs and the like regularly.

***

Pros to Genetics
- Elimination of hereditary disease.
- Creation of immunities to most diseases on genetic level.
- Personalized appearance, on every level. Don't like brown eyes? Turn them green, blue, red, purple, yellow, glow in the dark, whatever. Want to be part cat? Done. Transgendered? They'll clone you a body with the opposite sex chromosomes.
- Genetic modification of he body so the standards of human strength, intelligence, and hardiness are all increased.
- Creation of personalized servants/pets. (ethics could be questioned, but what the hell)
- Cloning body parts for amputees and those in need of transplanted organs

Cons to Genetics
- The ever classical concept of genetic mutants taking over the world.
- Creation of genetic monstrosities.
- The possibility of elimination of physical identity if everyone just switches their appearance to something more along the lines of the stereotypically "beautiful."
- Production of viruses which could wipe out everything on the planet.
- Possible increase in division of social status due to various genetic modifications.

***

That's all I can think of now.

Out of both of these, I prefer genetics. But you can't rule either one out if you want to try to create a better future.

***

What about cyborg stuff? Is that its own thing, or would you fit it in with one of those categories?

Cuz I can think of a couple pros/cons to that, too. Especially in conjunction with the two ideas above.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-12-04, 12:42 AM
I'm a fan of robotics and AI.

Bring on singularity!

Don Julio Anejo
2007-12-04, 12:46 AM
Well Russians have nothing better to do with oil money (like raising the standard of living) so they dump it into nano research... In billions..

Lykan
2007-12-04, 12:54 AM
Well Russians have nothing better to do with oil money (like raising the standard of living) so they dump it into nano research... In billions..

And they're doing well in it.

I'm going there if I get sick. >.>

Vella_Malachite
2007-12-04, 12:58 AM
Yay, genetics!!:smallbiggrin:

I have seen AI and the ending is horrible:smallfrown: ! The poor little robot:smallfrown:...

Genetics means you get awesome people, not people dependant on a man-made object...I dunno...Just doesn't seem smart to me. But that's just me.

Genetics, you get (questionable ethics)
People with awesomely interesting psychological issues that I can study and analyse...muahahaha:smalltongue:
Not really. I'm not that cruel.

In short, genetics are cooler.

Leper_Kahn
2007-12-04, 12:59 AM
Wow I can't believe someone actually posted this. I've been wondering about this for a very very long time. When I was younger I loved the sci-fi idea of being able to hook up to a computer and become more and more mechanical. Not anymore though...

These days I'd far prefer to be able to evolve on command than be able to make a computer/machine part interfaced into my body on command. I'm not sure what changed my opinion, but I just feel that machinery is cold, while evolution is exciting. (Plus I can't help but feel like circuitry in my body would be uncomfortable.)

P.S. I'm surprised that so many people like the idea of genetics. I would have thought that people liked machines.

Don Julio Anejo
2007-12-04, 01:17 AM
Although I have nothing against genetics, there's a big problem with ethics there. First, there's cloning, killing "babies" (embryos) to get stem cells, killing cloned "babies," etc. Then there's also that line - where do you stop making humans better and start manipulating them for your needs, like altering personalities in unborn children or making them well suited to a certain task, which turns them into a sort of slaves?

Endeavourl
2007-12-04, 01:35 AM
Both are very interesting, though I am more inclined towards studying robotics and letting others take care of the biological side of things.

I wouldn't harbor too many doubts on having bioengineering done on myself for improvement, but cybernetics is a different question. I'd much rather use the robotics without having the robotics being implanted into me :smallyuk:

Icewalker
2007-12-04, 02:16 AM
Interesting, considering that what your father is talking about is exactly what I plan to study during college. Nanotechnology and Neuroscience, for the purpose of combination. I just hope nobody beats me to it.

The Orange Zergling
2007-12-04, 02:58 AM
Genetics, evolution fascinates me. Even controlled or accelerated evolution. Not to say robotics and machinery don't have their place, but still.

sun_tzu
2007-12-04, 06:14 AM
I'm a robotics major.
I don't think I need to say more.

loopy
2007-12-04, 06:22 AM
I'm personally of the opinion that humanity in general shouldn't advance into those sciences too deeply until we've advanced socially as a species.

Having said that: I wouldn't mind either of the two. I want a data-interface port.

Saithis Bladewing
2007-12-04, 06:56 AM
I can't say I can choose between them.

SMEE
2007-12-04, 08:10 AM
Genetics can help me achieve my dream of pregnancy, so it takes my preference here. :smallredface:

The Vorpal Tribble
2007-12-04, 08:20 AM
Although I have nothing against genetics, there's a big problem with ethics there. First, there's cloning, killing "babies" (embryos) to get stem cells, killing cloned "babies," etc.
I hope this doesn't start an argument, but embryonic stem cells aren't even needed. You can get cells from elsewhere that are just as good without having to kill a thing.

Kaelaroth
2007-12-04, 08:26 AM
Genetics. The body is incredible and intricate, and powerful. Once we could utilise that, we could change the world we live in. :smallamused:

Oh. And superpowers! :smallsmile:

BlackStaticWolf
2007-12-04, 08:40 AM
Both, in equal measure. The benefits to be hand in each field are amazing.

Plus, I want telepathy and a cannon arm.

13_CBS
2007-12-04, 08:55 AM
[QUOTE=Don Julio Anejo;3610522] First, there's cloning,[QUOTE]

Aren't identical twins clones? :smallconfused:

Trog
2007-12-04, 09:25 AM
Robotics. I wouldn't be surprised if our role in spreading life to the universe is to create robotic life. Which is FAR superior to organic life in adapting to zero G, surviving intact for years during space travel, etc. For example: sending a human to Mars is possible, yes, but when that human returns he will have the equivalent bone loss of severe osteoperosis. Plus solar cells to create power vs. some fragile garden or something.

Let the machines rise I say! Er... <.< >.> as long as I'm gone first. :smallwink:

Leush
2007-12-04, 10:50 AM
I am a fanatic of genetics. Robotics may be useful and have more potential for 'superpowers', but then you have the whole problem of interfacing the human body and more importantly the mind (which is reliant on the body) with the machine, which I think makes that approach more difficult- why make something new when we already have something here?

Since all medicine is basically heading towards enhancing human lifespan, we should just cut the cow pat and go straight for immortality by way of genetics.

Did you know that the logarithm of longevity of a species is proportional to the activity of the DNA repair enzymes?

And that is only the beginning... To be fair I couldn't give two monkeys about the ethics of it all, since civilisation is literally built on questionable ethics, but rather limit it to the argument: It makes me live longer? Yes please.

loopy
2007-12-04, 11:31 AM
I hope this doesn't start an argument, but embryonic stem cells aren't even needed. You can get cells from elsewhere that are just as good without having to kill a thing.

But killing babies is more amusing. :smallbiggrin:

Good point with the genetics Kaelaroth (and others). Once we have the human mind working at +X% efficiency, our technological increases should come at a faster rate anyway.

Aereshaa_the_2nd
2007-12-04, 11:56 AM
I don't like either very much.

Robotics is kinda dangerous, because of the danger of them being used for war, and if a robot got a virus, It could kill quite a few people before being destroyed. For the same sort of reason, I'm distrustful of genetics. Sure you could make a spider-man, but what if he goes insane?

The problem is that our technology has far surpassed our empathy and morality. Genetics gives us creative power that we were never meant to have, and if an evil person or terrorist get hold of such power, then he could create a virus or illness beyond anything we can control. Given a psychotic programmer, a mecha-type robot could be made a near unstoppable killer of millions. Trust me, this sort of thing can only end in death.

Don Julio Anejo
2007-12-04, 12:36 PM
The problem is that our technology has far surpassed our empathy and morality. Genetics gives us creative power that we were never meant to have, and if an evil person or terrorist get hold of such power, then he could create a virus or illness beyond anything we can control. Given a psychotic programmer, a mecha-type robot could be made a near unstoppable killer of millions. Trust me, this sort of thing can only end in death.

Well, given an insane physicist, some C4 and some plutonium and you can achieve the same effect, although a lot faster - in under a second.

Arioch
2007-12-04, 12:48 PM
Genetics. Its just cooler. Robotics is intersting, but mutants are more so.

Besides, how am I supposed to take over the world without my armies of mutant animals?

CrazedGoblin
2007-12-04, 02:03 PM
Psionics while in a powered exosuit

you get my vote :smallbiggrin:

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 02:03 PM
Genetics are more likely to pay off in the near future, as opposed to to robotics, since everything we could want to do with genetics has already been invented- we just need to figure out how to use it.

Cuddly
2007-12-04, 02:06 PM
Although I have nothing against genetics, there's a big problem with ethics there. First, there's cloning, killing "babies" (embryos) to get stem cells, killing cloned "babies," etc. Then there's also that line - where do you stop making humans better and start manipulating them for your needs, like altering personalities in unborn children or making them well suited to a certain task, which turns them into a sort of slaves?

Since I started adopting children to work in my coal mines?
Oh wait....

SDF
2007-12-04, 02:11 PM
Well right now I'm double majoring in biochemistry and molecular biology, so I naturally prefer working in the genetics side of things. But, I am also getting a biomedical engineering minor and classes like bioinformatics and biomaterials have gotten me liking a good mix of the two.

MrEdwardNigma
2007-12-04, 02:57 PM
Everyone knows computers could never hope to surpass the human brain, so it's genetics for me.

You know, that's why some day computers are going to feature a mixture of technology and biology in their design. I've even heard rumors of a synergy between the two being in the works right now. It's quite scary, really, when you think about it.

SDF
2007-12-04, 03:00 PM
Everyone knows computers could never hope to surpass the human brain, so it's genetics for me.

You know, that's why some day computers are going to feature a mixture of technology and biology in their design. I've even heard rumors of a synergy between the two being in the works right now. It's quite scary, really, when you think about it.

Yeah, the concept of a wetware processor has been around for a while, but we are getting closer and closer to actually creating something like that.

Cyrano
2007-12-04, 05:27 PM
Genetics, mainly to piss off all the people who go up to me when I jokingly debate eugenics in class and scream their beliefs in my face.
Also, because I don't wanna deal with problematic children, but I DO wanna have children that take care of themselves as soon as they're outta the womb.
Actually, I DON'T wanna have children, but the premise is the same.

High-Chancellor
2007-12-04, 05:31 PM
Genetics.

That way in the post-apocalyptic future my descendants will still be able to pwn bigtime without relying on shady backyard "doctors" to give them scavenged "implants" and such.


Unfortunately people are always abject to experimentation with life... so cybernetics are a lot more likely.

Tyrolin
2007-12-04, 05:51 PM
You can get cells from elsewhere that are just as good without having to kill a thing.

Millions upon millions of stem cells are throw away every day at (scary!) liphosuction(sp) facilities.

"Want to be skinnier? Go get the fat sucked out! Then use your own stem cells to modify how fast your metabilism works so you never get fat again!" - advertisement

Plus, I really want to be able to pull bones out of my body and make them into weapons, without harming myself (go Naruto!).

Maryring
2007-12-04, 06:59 PM
Neither. For me it is computer technology. I want a netnavi like the one they got in the Megaman Battle Network series.

Jack-In. *insert cool name here*. Tranmission! :smallbiggrin:

Though for the sake of discussion I'll say Genetics, because genes are interesting.

Don Julio Anejo
2007-12-04, 07:03 PM
I actually would have no problems with being a cyborg. Implants are just machines we can take out and/or replace whenever we feel like it. Heck, we have primitive implants now in the form of artificial hearts, pacemakers, robotic arms, etc. For now they serve purely medical purposes, although enhancements are probably on the way.... They're no worse than say, using a knife to cut stuff instead of trying to tear it up with your arms. With enough advancement we may be able to get a person to put them in and take them out whenever and however they feel like.

Genetic modification on the other hand... There's way too many ethical problems arising from it and a decision to get mods chances are isn't one to be taken lightly.

Biological technology on the other hand... I have no problems with as it doesn't have as many ethical problems arising from modifying living beings (especially if you create new ones).

Hylleddin
2007-12-04, 07:38 PM
Can I have both? :)

I'd probably take robotics over genetics. Messing with genetics is a lot harder. Also, I'd feel sort of like I was forcing modification upon my descendants.

Plus, mental iPhone would be COOL.

thorgrim29
2007-12-04, 07:54 PM
Hell.... as far as I'm concerned.... both I'd say. With robotics you can fix people and let robots do the menial work instead of exploiting your fellow man, while with genetics you can fix unborn people, increase the life span, etc... I dont know for you, but i would'nt mind having a sane mind in a healthy body for the next couple hundred years..... Then again, humans being the primitive cavemen that we are, it'll probably end in disaster.... Frankly I'll take my chances, right now the only thing that can avert major disasters in the next hundred years is the advance of technology, so go for it "white coat heroes" (cookie for that quote).


Plus, superpowers man! I'd like shapechanging, that way you can get superhuman strenght, flight, and a lot of **** and not look like a monster all the time.

Copacetic
2007-12-04, 07:58 PM
On the debate of " Oh no! Gentics will led to terrists of unstobbable proportions."

Well, Terrists have been around for centries. And even wth the changes in tecnology, civilzation is still around. nventon of the machine gun? still here. Invention of the nuke? Still here. Sure, they can create pwerful dieses. But we can make the antidote. Sure, they can make super-powerfull crazy augments. But we out-number them 7,000 to 1. Technology should make life easier, not enchance it.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-04, 09:52 PM
I'm going to go with cybernetics:

Upgradeable. If you've got inborn superpowers, there's nothing you can do to change that. If you've got a chip in your head that connects you to the internet or somesuch, you can swap it out for a better one next year.
Feasible. I love Heroes so very much, but I can't watch the show without blocking out Mohinder. Seriously, his pseudoscience causes me physical pain. I now just hear a Peanuts-esque "Wa wa waaa" whenever he talks. Sorry for the tangent. Anyway, it's like a quote I once heard: You can't just pull out the genes for an elephant's trunk and stick them where the genes for your nose are to get a trunk. You've got to figure out how the various proteins will interact to create a new being. Cybernetics are much less risky: We've been building computers and robotics for some time anyway.
Ethical. See "feasible" above, but it's more than that. If you genetically alter a child, and something goes wrong, you're going to be responsible. If your cybernetics end up harming someone, on the other hand, you just point to the waiver they signed when they got it installed.
Far less risky. I'm not just talking about "feasible"; this is more a subpoint under "upgradeable." If you go through all the trouble of retroviral engineering or something like that to get superpowers, and something goes wrong, you've basically got to get to the hospital to get it undone (if it even can be undone: GM's going to start out with stuff you're born with). If your cybernetic arm malfunctions, on the other hand, odds are you'll end up with a useless left hand... until you go to the machine shop and get it replaced, that is. Cybernetics that directly messes with the endocrine system is a bit riskier, since you could wind up dropping dead from an overdose if something goes wrong, but at least you'll know what to do when the product recall comes.

Kneenibble
2007-12-04, 10:04 PM
I guess it boils down to which member of The Pack from the second season of Gargoyles yous find the least disturbing.

AtomicKitKat
2007-12-17, 11:00 AM
Bah. Setra already stole most of what I wanted to say. However, I will one-up him yet! Neko-Kunoichi.:smallamused:

Prophaniti
2007-12-17, 01:12 PM
have you learned nothing from the worlds of Halo and WH40k? The most powerful superhumans are a combination of genetic manipulation, cybernetics and kick-@$$ power suits. We need both if I am to achieve my dream of being a 7ft tall supersoldier who can fight in any environment, crush skulls with my hands and dodge bullets even though I weigh as much as a car!

Now, split into teams and get to work!

Seriously though, no field should be ignored or researched any less than another. Knowledge is an end in itself and I don't think it really matters whether we can find an immediate application for it. The one field I think we're not spending enough time/money on is space travel. We have the tech level to have permanent outposts on the moon, possibly on mars, but no one wants to foot the bill. We should be out there among the stars! Come on! Follow me to glory! Let's find some pointy-eared/wrinkled-forhead aliens to hate so we can stop hating each other!:smalltongue:

sikyon
2007-12-17, 02:51 PM
I am in nanotechnology engineering right now.


There is ultimately little difference between robotics and biology when you boil it down to the smallest bits - cells are just robots that use organic compounds. You can design new genes, proteins, enzymes. You can adapt existing biological structures to mechanical systems, even (motors that run off ATP exist naturally in the cell, though actual turning isn't their primary function they can adapted to do so (F1F0 ATPase)).


What you are talking about, really, is:

Bottom up design (robotics)

V.S.

Top down design (eugenics)

Both have their merits.

Telonius
2007-12-17, 03:27 PM
I was about to say, both (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2004/05_27b_04.html), but looks like I've been beaten to the punch.

Admiral Squish
2007-12-17, 04:20 PM
Robots, all the way. Who doesn't want weaponry in their arms or legs that can run at 70 MPH? Genetics? Nothing major and good comes of them. You end up with more problems than solutions. If there's a problem with robotics, you get a machine that doesn't work. With genetics, you get a twisted mockery of humanity and life, trapped in a swirling abyss of pain and sorrow.

Grey Paladin
2007-12-17, 06:30 PM
Man and Machine are one, Bioengineering is merely using parts from a more familiar system.