Genetic Engineering

[Ilena]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-mouse-that-shook-the-world-744870.html

found this website about super mice ... anyone have any other stories on genetic engineering? or maybe about the goodness and falts of it and so forth?

(also please no religous or political stuff on if its good or bad or if you agree with it or not please)

[SDF]

I'm a biochemist (or at least working on finishing my degree) so I do a lot of genetic engineering research. Many of the medicines you take and food you eat is genetically modified, the only real fault lies in what we haven't discovered yet.

[Arioch]

I don't think we can talk about this too much without entering into politics.

[SDF]

I don't think we can talk about this too much without entering into politics.

Sure you can, I could go on for hours about genetic engineering without getting a bit into politics.

[Arioch]

Sure you can, I could go on for hours about genetic engineering without getting a bit into politics.

But the OP asked about the good/bad aspects of it. As soon as you get into that, you're into religion/politics area.

[hamishspence]

Science version: discuss how much effort it took to get to Dolly, how many failed results there were. Example of bad effects from a scientific point of view: clones can have genetic damage. I'm not sure how much has changed since then.

It is possible to focus on the scientific difficulties, number of failures and successes, etc.

[Ilena]

Well by good and faults i was more refering to chances of genetic virus that destroy the human race for example, or things that turn out to be real helpful, but if you want we can cut that part out, id really like to see what else is going on out there for genetic engineering,

[Dallas-Dakota]

Don't mess with it unless you know what you're doing.

[Dr. Bath]

Don't mess with it unless you know what you're doing.

Except that it's what the human race has been doing since they stopped being hunter-gatherers. They knew what they were doing. Not. But then that's how learning works, you work with what you know and see what else you can work out.

If you confined scientific endeavour to things we already knew about it would get us nowhere.

I'm all for genetic engineering, it's the only way to feed our ever growing population in my opinion. :smallcool:

[Semidi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmVbmcp52ZU

Glow in the dark kitty!

Behold the wonders of science. All hail science!

[CrazedGoblin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmVbmcp52ZU

Glow in the dark kitty!

Behold the wonders of science. All hail science!

cor now thats what you call to much time

[SurlySeraph]

I have no objections to genetic engineering, as long as GE foods are fully tested before being consumed by the public at large. Oh, and if they make horrible chimeric monsters, they should just make sure they can't reproduce in the wild. :smalltongue:

[Fri]

Or have enough firepower to blast the reproducing chimeras.

[Collin152]

now I need to steal their research and put that mutated gene in a human.
For Science.
And World Domination!

[Thes Hunter]

It is easy to have a discussion of the good and bad without going anywhere near politics.

The political discussion normally centers around the use of a certain tissue source, and generally has things to do with cloning. Cloning and the use of stem cells is a very different field of research than genetic engineering.


@Crixon, I am a bit curious as to what your specific worries in regards to 'genetic viruses'

Yes viruses are rather simple particles that contain DNA or RNA, and as such it is theorically possible to construct a virus with the purpose to inflict mass causalities. It would very likely have to be on purpose because viruses contain a very small genome and therefore don't have room for much excess. They only have room for what is needed to get the job done.

And in order to be infectious a virus has to have just the exact right proteins to find a way through our bodies protective measures, then the right tools to keep the virus being discovered and then booted form the body. So it is my opinion that it would be very difficult to accidentally create a super bug that wipes out 90% of the earth's population, and turns most of the remaining 10% into blood hunger vampires, no matter what Hollywood wants you to believe.

However genetic engineering is producing real world benifical effects right now. And it's not just glowing cats (http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s16/trevorpitt/The%20Art%20Pitt%20Art/glow-in-the-dark-cats.jpg), or bunnies (http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2007/03/cute_science_ex.html), or fish (http://foreignerinformosa.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/transgenic_fish_2.jpg).

For example the first commerical use of genetic engineering (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BA/aapost/firstcommerce.php) was to get bacteria to produce insulin for us, instead of needing to give diabetics ground up sheep panceras.


And I think there are some of us playgrounders who are glad they did. :smallwink:

[Ilena]

I was mainly just using that as an example to get some conversation going :P

Personally i feel that genetic engineering is something that could be helpful, can remove deseases and give people who have say muscle deseases and such a better life and all, but could also be used for harm, enhancing soldiers, enhancing athletes, basicly a new way of cheating in races and such, thats the kind of discution i was lookin for, but glow stuff is cool, people should be bioengineered to glow :P

[Dallas-Dakota]

Gah, these ideas are veering much towards games such as Impossible Creatures or maybe Spore.....


Gaah.

[Mastikator]

It's venturing into transhumanism, which is something I completely support.

[mangosta71]

There are a number of genetic diseases that afflict a lot of people in the world. While some of them can be treated, the only way they will ever be cured is through gene therapy, which requires genetic engineering research.

Aside from that, genetic engineering is already producing crops that not only yield more food than ever before, they are also more resilient to unideal conditions. And yes, everything is tested before it is allowed to be consumed by humans. I work in a lab that does the testing.

[Telonius]

Depends on what you mean by genetic engineering. If you've ever eaten a banana, then you've had a food that's been genetically changed because of its interaction with humans. We've been selecting crops and livestock for higher production and better taste for millennia.

[mangosta71]

Depends on what you mean by genetic engineering. If you've ever eaten a banana, then you've had a food that's been genetically changed because of its interaction with humans. We've been selecting crops and livestock for higher production and better taste for millennia.

This is merely putting selective pressure on our environment. Actual genetic engineering (as it is being practiced in the food industry) involves identifying a protein in one organism that makes it more fit to survive in a certain set of conditions, copying or synthesizing the gene that results in that protein being produced, and introducing it to another species. Results include strawberries that don't die instantly when exposed to cold weather and corn that can survive droughts.

[skywalker]

Except that it's what the human race has been doing since they stopped being hunter-gatherers. They knew what they were doing. Not. But then that's how learning works, you work with what you know and see what else you can work out.

This is slightly disingenuous, breeding plants/animals for certain characteristics, while technically genetic engineering, is not modification on a genetic level.

I don't think too much can go wrong if you breed two horses to make them go faster. I mean, you can create one screwed up horse, but you can't create Super Vampire Death Horse! :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

yes, selective breeding is powerful (compare a Pekinese to a wolf, for example) but it has limits.

At the bacterial level, a sort of genetic engineering happens naturally, in the sense that bits of gnes are broken off other cells, and bacteria sometime incorporate these snippets into their own genome. so the "it was DNA from a completely different creature" complaint has to contend with the fact that bacteria do this all the time.

And I think evidence of this sort of thing may exist for more complex creatures: not sure. But I remember suggestion that animal DNA can incorporate short strands from very different life-forms.

[Dr. Bath]

I mentioned it because the thread is not titled 'Genetic modification' but Genetic engineering, it may have been implied, but I don't care. :smalltongue: And selective breeding is how genetics was discovered anyway, so it's certainly relevent.

And I dunno... some dog breeds strike me as Super Vampire Death like.

[Krrth]

This is slightly disingenuous, breeding plants/animals for certain characteristics, while technically genetic engineering, is not modification on a genetic level.

I don't think too much can go wrong if you breed two horses to make them go faster. I mean, you can create one screwed up horse, but you can't create Super Vampire Death Horse! :smallbiggrin:

...it can be. Anytime you breed for a trait, you are changing the genetic code of the line. It gets worse with cross species breeding, such as for the Liger or the Mule.
As for the super vampire death horse...who knows?

[hamishspence]

when breeding for anything, you are selecting traits that already exist in the genetic space of the creature. The genes for nearly every type of dog are somewhere in the genes of the world's wolves: mutations are the exception rather than the rule for breeds.

[Krrth]

when breeding for anything, you are selecting traits that already exist in the genetic space of the creature. The genes for nearly every type of dog are somewhere in the genes of the world's wolves: mutations are the exception rather than the rule for breeds.

That is true. However, you can breed out traits. Once you have done that, you have indeed altered the species on the genetic level.

[Ilena]

Personally i just consider that selective breeding, what i was refering to as genetic engineering was when people are taking parts of one animal and putting it into a differnt animal, much like glow fish that have fish + gellyfish dna,

and who knows, people are crazy, they may make a flying killer squirrel that can flap around and rain doom on anything it sees .... that would be cool! :P

[hamishspence]

if a triat isn't present in every member of the species, does it count as part of the DNA of the whole species? And if it is present in every member, its pretty hard to breed out.

[dish]

Depends on what you mean by genetic engineering. If you've ever eaten a banana, then you've had a food that's been genetically changed because of its interaction with humans. We've been selecting crops and livestock for higher production and better taste for millennia.

Selective breeding is NOT the same thing as genetic modification.

1. Selective breeding takes much longer. Yes, humans changed bananas so that domesticated varieties are completely differnt from wild ones, but it took centuries for that transformation to take place. This allowed the surrounding ecosystems time to evolve and adapt to the changes.
Genetic modification takes place rapidly. Can we be entirely sure that we know how surrounding ecosystems are going to adapt?
For example, when European settlers introduced the rabbit to Australia they thought it would be a good thing. That really worked out well, didn't it?

2. With selective breeding no matter how hard you try you're never going to be able to mix the DNA from a virus into the DNA for a potato. With genetic modification you can.
Could this potentially cause ecological problems? I don't know. Trouble is, I've talked to many researchers at China's top biological science research institute...and they don't know either. Some of them were completely unconcerned, while others were very nervous about the situation. Maybe American scientists know the definite answer - mangosta71 or SDF, do you know?


I'm a biochemist (or at least working on finishing my degree) so I do a lot of genetic engineering research. Many of the medicines you take and food you eat is genetically modified, the only real fault lies in what we haven't discovered yet.

In the USA - yes. In the European Union - no. Well, I don't know about medicines, but when it comes to food, genetic modification has been a really big, really hot, (and really political) topic in Europe. As a result of massive public pressure, Europeans eat very little GM food. Also, many Europeans are surprised at how happily the American public has accepted this change in diet without protest.

Could you expand on the last clause, 'the only real fault lies in what we haven't discovered yet'? Which kinds of discoveries are we waiting for? Good ones, bad ones, mixed?


There are a number of genetic diseases that afflict a lot of people in the world. While some of them can be treated, the only way they will ever be cured is through gene therapy, which requires genetic engineering research.

Strangely enough, Europeans seem to be less bothered about gene therapies, stem cell research, etc than Americans. It is interesting the way cultural background effects our perceptions of scientific research. (There should be a good academic paper in that for someone.)


Aside from that, genetic engineering is already producing crops that not only yield more food than ever before, they are also more resilient to unideal conditions.

Possibly, but I've read of reports from the Universities of Kansas and Nebraska (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html) that suggest it may not be as simple as that, and that often GM crops produce significantly lower yields.

If GM crops are proving to be more resilient and to produce better yields, why did the IAASTD (http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=FAQs&ItemID=8) - the largest, most international research group into agricultural science, funded by over 30 governments and multiple NGOs (World Band, UNESCO, etc) take four years of research done by four hundred scientists to conclude that there is little role for GM, as it is currently practised, in feeding the world's poor (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/16/food.biofuels) The article I've linked to quotes the report's chairman as saying, "Assessment of the [GM] technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable,"..."The short answer to whether transgenic crops can feed the world is 'no'. But they could contribute. We must understand their costs and benefits."

Ok, I've spent far too much time trying to track down those reports, and I've probably been ninja'd multiple times by now, so I'll stop and you won't get to hear my opinions on the large agribusinesses which own the vast majority of GM technology.

[skywalker]

...it can be. Anytime you breed for a trait, you are changing the genetic code of the line. It gets worse with cross species breeding, such as for the Liger or the Mule.
As for the super vampire death horse...who knows?

Yes, when I breed a red horse and a white horse to try to get a certain color, I am changing the genetic code, but I'm not going in on a molecular level and changing the baby horse's color DNA from brown to tan.

When you make a mule, you make a new species, which is definitely a different code altogether.

As for parts of a species having traits that the whole species doesn't have, compare the Barbary Lion to the sub-Saharan lion, or to the Asiatic Lion.

EDIT: @Dish: What is the specific reason why Europeans are against GM foods? Is it kinda like why the have such strict restrictions on what you can call Champagne? I can tell you what will help feed the world's poor, but it's political in nature :smallfrown: So I cannot tell you here. Oh well.

[bibliophile]

Genetic engineering has benefits and drawbacks for mankind. We can cheaply produce biochemicals such as proteins and other complex molecules (insulin for example). Our understanding of the underlying mechanisms (DNA and biochemistry) have lead to great advances in forensics. We have the potential to eliminate genetic diseases.

As with everything, there are less pleasant side effects. If the wealthy are able to produce more fit, more intelligent offspring, they out compete their nonaugmented peers, making themselves richer, rich enough to enhance their children... Society could become divided into genetic castes. Super viruses could be developed, with gigantic death tolls if ever used.

I support it, but with great caution.

[hamishspence]

other problem is many traits involve many genes acting together in a complex and intricate way. it isn't always "a gene for this, a gene for that" Entirely possible that trying to give an organism a massive makeover will damage it in unforeseen ways. "superbaby" might has flaws that do not show up until its much older.

[Collin152]

"superbaby" might has flaws that do not show up until its much older.

Flaws? Or prizes?

[snoopy13a]

Without genetic engineering, people with diabetes would still have to use pig insulin to regulate their blood sugar.

However, with genetic engineering, one can stick plasmids containing human insulin genes into bacteria and the genetically engineered bacteria will produce the necessary insulin. This is just one example of the medicinal value of genetic engineering.

[Thes Hunter]

As for creating super humans.... the easiest route to that is by modifying the egg and the sperm, or the embryo at the single cell stage.

Good luck with that. :smallwink:

After you start getting cell division it becauses much harder to create controlled precise changes. (You can make changes easily enough, just step out into the sun! But they aren't controlled or precise. With the exact same change happening to millions of cells all at once. :smallbiggrin: )

Not only do you have to change a large number of cells at once after the cell division, but you must also worry about DNA being sequestered and hard to get at. You have to worry about the cell's potency and it's ability to change (ie, how determined it is being exactly what it is), and all these other things on top of what sorts of gene promoters you tie the gene expression to, so you get only as much of the protein being created as you want in exactly the cells you want it made in, without it being made too much or too often.


And yes, I said protein, because if you want to build a super solider, or whatever else you listed up there... it's all about either what proteins are out there telling your body what needs to be done, or what proteins are building structures, or what proteins are allowing stuff to be shuttled to and fro.

Proteins, proteins, proteins.

It's no wonder that with a good understanding of biochemistry, and cell biology, that the physiology of an organ system becomes pretty much a piece of cake. :smallwink:

[Collin152]

As for creating super humans.... the easiest route to that is by modifying the egg and the sperm, or the embryo at the single cell stage.

That's the idea.
Isn't that really the only way?

[Ilena]

Na im sure theres other ways, but thats is probably the best way,

[mangosta71]

Well, considering that any genetic modification past the single cell embryo stage would have to be applied to each cell individually to not only ensure that the desired trait is expressed but also passed on to offspring, it really is pretty much the only way. Tinkering with gametes has the potential to break or otherwise alter chromosomes so that they aren't recognized by their corresponding chromosomes from the mate's gametes, which usually causes sterility at least and often some form of retardation in addition (this is why catfish from commercial farms are bigger than wild ones - they're sterile due to a trisomy and thus don't expend any energy on reproduction).

[UncleWolf]

Monster movie rule #1 Genetic tampering is BAD!!

but on the other hand i would love to have a glow in the dark bunny rabbit.:smallbiggrin:

[Ilena]

LOL i could just imagine ... glow in the dark rats ... released into the normal population, all their offspring glow, easy to catch rats :P

[Thes Hunter]

Recessive mutations like that normally lead to a reduction of fitness of the animal.

Not only would the rats be easier to catch by humans they would be easier to catch by all other predators as well.

But recessive mutations reducing fitness is also true when the phenotype isn't something visual.


And here I was going to work in some kinda in breeding joke, but I jut don't have time. :smallwink:

[Collin152]

Not only would the rats be easier to catch by humans they would be easier to catch by all other predators as well.


Make them toxic. it won't take too long for the predators to learn that glowing rats kill you.
You just have to keep making more for a while.

[Thes Hunter]

But remember the building of toxins take energy, still possibly putting them at a lower fitness. And they would have to be just toxic enough to make the animal very ill, but not kill them. Otherwise how would the animals learn not to eat those rats? (if an animal is toxic enough to kill it means that there have been many rounds of back and forth between the predator and the prey where prey becomes toxic, predator gains some resist, prey becomes more toxic and etc.)

Also, this toxin couldn't come with such an energy cost that it meant normal rats could out compete them and shut them out for resources. As an example here I am thinking of like the warfarin (rat poison) resistant rats in WWII Britian. They did great as long as the Brits were putting out the rat poison but that resistance came at such an energy cost that as soon as the Brits stopped using the poison the non-resistant wild type rats over took them and wiped the resistant rats out of the population. Because they could out compete them for resources.

Sorry to be such a sour puss, but it's just not that easy when you want to mess with mother nature, she messes right back. It's a rat eat rat world and everything comes with a cost.

[mangosta71]

Even beyond the points Thes made, most mutations are deleterious to the animal in some form. Something that may come as a shock to most of the playground is that fertilized eggs rarely grow past the embryo stage. I don't remember the exact numbers, but it's below 10 or 20%. Every embryo contains mutations, and those that contain mutations that make them unfit to survive/compete are terminated before energy is expended on their growth. Many miscarriages are caused by mutations that arise during fetal development. Introducing any change into an organism is risky, both to the health of the animal and its offspring, but also in terms of probability of success, and the risk increases exponentially with increased complexity of the organism being modified.

[Thes Hunter]

@^ I thought I remembered the number being 30% of pregnancies do not proceed past the 1st trimester. This could be because of chromosome abnormalities (Too many, too few, bad cross overs that lead to arms of chromosomes being lost or over duplicated, etc), Implantation issues, Improper tissue folding (And you thought origami looked complicated) or heart failure.

But yeah, even if your numbers are off, your point is very valid... the researchers would have to go through a lot of eggs to get it right... which is why this subject can get so darned political. :smallwink:

[Archonic Energy]

Remember, genes are NOT blueprints. This means you can't, for example, insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a giraffe with a trunk. There are no genes for trunks. What you CAN do with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals. For instance, we can in theory splice the native plants' talent for nitrogen fixation into a terran plant.
yeah i quoted a PC game in a serious thread, it's a good example!

i'm looking forward to wheat/maize/[insert food staple here] which can use nitrogen fixation so there is less need for artificial fertalizers.
the other one is a harvestable plant which can grow in salt water... to create Bio-Diesel or food.
there's 70% of the earths surface which could be better used, with Hydroponics and/or solar/wind/tidal/geothermal power generation

i must stress that i'm not condoning the use of the WHOLE ocean, just some parts which are least likely to be effect the whole eco system.

[Ilena]

lol dont knock video games, i used rome total war in compairitive civ, we were learning about an island and its like ... hey i invaded that .... i know where that is :P

but ya that could work but would you really want to eat corn grown under the sea?

[mangosta71]

@Thes: Is it 30? It's been a while since I took that class, so I may be mixing that up with something else. I recently did a lot of work with transgenic animals, so I'm familiar with selective pressure against slightly longer chromosomes. Loss of transgene is quite an annoyance when one is attempting to determine genotoxicity and has to first figure out how much of the transgene being used is present.

@ArchE: SMAC FTW! Also, most of our oxygen is produced by bacteria and algae that live in the ocean, which seems like not a terrible use to me. :smallwink:

[Ilena]

Ya, last i heard oxygen is good for us ... and that the ocean does make what was it something like 70% of it for the world?

[Archonic Energy]

heh. :smallamused:
point taken, but a plants grown in the ocean would STILL create O2 and also have another use, infact i'm sure there are more efficent O2 producers that could be adapted. NASA is working on a wheat which has a high effeciency of CO2 to O2 for use in long term space stations (food & O2 FTW, but where are they going to put the bakers?)

also it wouldn't be "under the sea" as very little light gets to the sea bed (unless it's close to shore) it would more be a mass of floating organic stuff...

yeah, i know my ideas suck but at least i'm trying!

[Ilena]

No idea sucks as long as its attempting to push the idea forward ... that doesnt make sense but you know what i mean! Giving an idea is alot better then sitting back with your finger up your nose :P

[mangosta71]

All of the food crops that I'm familiar with require a very different chemistry than that provided by the ocean. Altering the chemistry of the ocean is bad, as that messes up currents that regulate global climate, aside from potentially killing off the critters that give us the ability to breathe. I assume your plan would be to engineer plants so that they can thrive in an oceanic environment. In addition to completely changing the nutritional needs, you also have to radically alter the morphology of the plant so that it maintains orientation without the stability that dirt provides. So it's an interesting idea, but I doubt that it will ever be workable.

[Archonic Energy]

All of the food crops that I'm familiar with require a very different chemistry than that provided by the ocean. Altering the chemistry of the ocean is bad, as that messes up currents that regulate global climate, aside from potentially killing off the critters that give us the ability to breathe. I assume your plan would be to engineer plants so that they can thrive in an oceanic environment. In addition to completely changing the nutritional needs, you also have to radically alter the morphology of the plant so that it maintains orientation without the stability that dirt provides. So it's an interesting idea, but I doubt that it will ever be workable.

we could make "edible" seaweed...
nah, that's too far out even for me!

ah well i'm sure such posibilitys have been explored, by REAL scientists.
(Edit: not that i'm saying you aren't a "real scientist" just that i am not)

wheat/maize/edible plants which (when supplied with an adequate source of water) can grow in the dessert
is that more technically feasable?

[Ilena]

accually seaweed is edible ... as far as i know

[Archonic Energy]

accually seaweed is edible ... as far as i know

only technically :smallwink:

[mangosta71]

wheat/maize/edible plants which (when supplied with an adequate source of water) can grow in the dessert
is that more technically feasable?

To a certain extent, this is being done already. A lot of the corn that's growing in the Midwest right now has been engineered to resist dry conditions. As long as the soil contains the right chemicals, engineering to make a plant more resilient to a certain condition can be done.

The desert you plan to grow food in matters, too. Utah was considered a desolate wasteland 160 years ago. The pioneers settled there and made the Salt Lake valley suitable for raising crops. The soil was dry, but contained the other nutrients that their crops needed, so an irrigation system allowed them to flourish. Other deserts lack the soil composition for crops.

[Collin152]

only technically :smallwink:

Nori is delicious.
Don't go knocking seaweed.

[Thes Hunter]

@Thes: Is it 30? It's been a while since I took that class, so I may be mixing that up with something else. I recently did a lot of work with transgenic animals, so I'm familiar with selective pressure against slightly longer chromosomes. Loss of transgene is quite an annoyance when one is attempting to determine genotoxicity and has to first figure out how much of the transgene being used is present.

@ArchE: SMAC FTW! Also, most of our oxygen is produced by bacteria and algae that live in the ocean, which seems like not a terrible use to me. :smallwink:

Actually thinking about it, we both might have been right.

R&D systems, like cloning have as high of a rate of embryo death as you state. While I was talking about natural systems, like well how most of us were made. :smallwink:

But even after you lose 80-90% of your embryos in an R&D system, you will still have issues with implantation and folding to overcome.

And actually you might have more issues than normal, because the environment has been changed.

[hamishspence]

A distinction needs to be made: plants as a general rule do not create oxygen: except during the rapid growth stage: they putout oxygen during the day, but take it in at night.

[Sam]

I hate to be a downer, but genetic engineering is pretty useless for fully grown organisms (aka us). They have been working on it, but the results? Not so good.

The most likely path for improvements in humans would be cyborg based stuff. It is simpler, stronger, cheaper, better, etc.

Of course, for us hard scifi fans, resistance to radiation means we can reduce the required armor for space craft and make them more economical. There are some other minor changes that would be good. I for one and tired of having that fifth toe, ear lobes and a whole host of unnecesary parts.

Growing food in the ocean isn't a good idea. Most of the ocean is deader than the Empty Quarter. The parts that are productive, we would have to displace the current residents... who we hunt for fish.

As for using video games... SMAC is good for its realism (excepting the telepathy and gameplay). Rome Total War... there were two major mods designed specifically due to the degree that game departed from reality.

On the other hand, it is great for teaching you that to rise to the top, you are going to have to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

[UncleWolf]

But remember the building of toxins take energy, still possibly putting them at a lower fitness. And they would have to be just toxic enough to make the animal very ill, but not kill them. Otherwise how would the animals learn not to eat those rats? (if an animal is toxic enough to kill it means that there have been many rounds of back and forth between the predator and the prey where prey becomes toxic, predator gains some resist, prey becomes more toxic and etc.)

Also, this toxin couldn't come with such an energy cost that it meant normal rats could out compete them and shut them out for resources. As an example here I am thinking of like the warfarin (rat poison) resistant rats in WWII Britian. They did great as long as the Brits were putting out the rat poison but that resistance came at such an energy cost that as soon as the Brits stopped using the poison the non-resistant wild type rats over took them and wiped the resistant rats out of the population. Because they could out compete them for resources.

Sorry to be such a sour puss, but it's just not that easy when you want to mess with mother nature, she messes right back. It's a rat eat rat world and everything comes with a cost.

This reminds me of an incident involving rabbits. In New Zealand (i think) there was a huge problem with rabbits eating large portions of crops. So, the Government decides to poison them all. It works...

mostly.

Under 10% of the rabbit population proved to be immune to the poison. Within a few months the rabbit population is back to where it was so the Govt. decides to poison them AGAIN! And as before a small percentage of the population was resistant. Except this time they were resistant to TWO different poisons. This keeps going on for a long time until the govt. gives up.



The main problem with trying to use genetic engineering on humans is that there is just WAY too many variables. Trying to get a person to glow in the dark could just fizzle out or have horrendous side effects (a.k.a. new plagues (extremely unlikely))

[UncleWolf]

To a certain extent, this is being done already. A lot of the corn that's growing in the Midwest right now has been engineered to resist dry conditions. As long as the soil contains the right chemicals, engineering to make a plant more resilient to a certain condition can be done.

The desert you plan to grow food in matters, too. Utah was considered a desolate wasteland 160 years ago. The pioneers settled there and made the Salt Lake valley suitable for raising crops. The soil was dry, but contained the other nutrients that their crops needed, so an irrigation system allowed them to flourish. Other deserts lack the soil composition for crops.

Almost forgot, Desert sand has the highest mineral content for almost all soils. The problem is that the sand is still rock (just really tiny rocks) it has yet to be broken down completely. The perfect soil would have to have some sand in it even though it would make it easier for the plant to be ripped up.

[Sam]

You aren't going to make new plagues by making people glow. You could make new genetic disorders (opps- we forgot to have an enzyme take apart the glowy proteins and now they are clogging up the cells!)

[Ilena]

thats an o crap moment,

[DigoDragon]

So... wait, what was the benefit of a glowing cat again? :smallconfused:

I like genetic engineering for all the little things we don't really pay much attention to when we go about our daily lives like vaccines and genetically modified food. Those things have usually been fairly good to us in the long run.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm mainly in favour of it because I'd love to be half-fox (sadly, the area seems risky, and as Sam said, it's harder to modify fully grown creatures:smallfrown:).

[Semidi]

So... wait, what was the benefit of a glowing cat again? :smallconfused:


Short version:

Making things glow is highly beneficial to understanding what genes are influenced by messing around with particular genes in a relatively safe way.

I think, I'm only into pop-biology, so a real one might want to correct me.

[Ilena]

from what i understand that is exacly hte case, although once people learn how to transplant a brain into another body, it no longer becomes an issue with full grown creatures being changed, just regrow a new body and vola ..

[Eldan]

Well, research is being done into regrowing cells of the CNS after damage. I thikn someone managed to heal paraplegic rats.
Anyway, these cats only glow under UV anyway, but I saw an article somewhere after genuinely bioluminescent pigs... I'll go look if I can find it.

[DigoDragon]

Making things glow is highly beneficial to understanding what genes are influenced by messing around with particular genes in a relatively safe way.

Okay, now glowing make more sense. Thanks for clearing that up. :smallsmile: In an odd way I could see some sort of benefit in locating animals that glow should they get trapped in disaster areas.

[Ilena]

Omg that would be amazing, glowing birds .. at night if they are flying ... see glowing things in the air would be amazing!

[Sam]

Glowing animals are excellent for securing funding- you tell someone you are the glowing green monkey guy and you can write your own checks!

Of course, you could use it to track trait expression- but that isn't the point of mad science!

[Ilena]

Exacly, i mean its only proper that you create glowing tentical octopus things that will try to eat people, its progress!

[mangosta71]

Exacly, i mean its only proper that you create glowing tentical octopus things that will try to eat people, its progress!

They must also abuse Japanese schoolgirls. Otherwise it's not science.

[black dragoon]

Hey now! I'm a biotech major! We actually mostly engineer glowey animals and plants to A track gene expressions such a particular enzyme or cell type or B for the heck of it when we're bored and need to look like we're doing something. In truth though It's next to impossible to re-engineer a living organism mostly because well...It's like trying to rewrite the blueprints of building ninety percent finished and telling them to build it. Things get...messy. Single cells are not as bad but complex life is out of the question.

[Ilena]

Out of the question ... for now ... muahahahhahaha! but ya im sure in 50 - 100 years if things keep going it will be like getting a peircing nowadays, its gona be like ... everyone will be what we nowadays would consider freaks, extra arms, wings, tails and so forth im sure

[Archonic Energy]

Out of the question ... for now ... muahahahhahaha! but ya im sure in 50 - 100 years if things keep going it will be like getting a peircing nowadays, its gona be like ... everyone will be what we nowadays would consider freaks, extra arms, wings, tails and so forth im sure

*imagines future*
Genetic re-splicing £100 per gene.

we can make that Genetic disorder disappear.
we can make you Glow in the dark, useful for finding your keys.
we can even make you secrete rose smelling sweat...
*/imagines future*

i think i like the present. :smallwink:

[black dragoon]

Part replacement? Sorry bad pun...
That's been theorized since the sixties. It's logical to an extent. You can't just sew on a pair of wings and expect to be able to fly. In fact to create the needed lift You'll either need to completely refit your body with a lighter bone structure and stronger muscles or turn your arms into wings. A lot of supposed soon to be common mutations are fraught with issues. I expect it'll be longer than a century. We may be able to clone with out difficulty then but that will probably be it. We have just scratched the genome right now. Any advancement there will take time to take effect. Between that and current laws I really don't see a biotic future sadly.

[Archonic Energy]

Part replacement? Sorry bad pun...
That's been theorized since the sixties. It's logical to an extent. You can't just sew on a pair of wings and expect to be able to fly. In fact to create the needed lift You'll either need to completely refit your body with a lighter bone structure and stronger muscles or turn your arms into wings.
you should be shot for that...
also,
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comics/Lite20080906.jpg:smallamused:

[black dragoon]

Sorry it was to tempting.:smallbiggrin:
But yeah, gross physical change is a grueling process and short of remaking your entire body to better suit the task it is'nt going to happen. Even Bio-chemical changes are iffy. Yeah we can make you glow but we have no idea how screwed up your liver and kidneys will become. There can be some adverse side-effects to tampering with the genome I really don't want to imagine some of them to be honest.:smallfrown:

[Ilena]

lol i think it wouldnt be too hard to do some modifications, like eyes and stuff like that, genetic disorders (within 100 years) but getting poeple to fly ... maybe glide but not fly, to fly you have to be ALOT lighter, OR have insanely strong muscles, and lighter, bah on side effects, people take pills nowadays with some horrid side effects so i dont think this would be much differnt ;P

[black dragoon]

Exactly. Sadly even modifying to remove genetic disorders can be iffy. It can work at the early stages especially chromosomal disorders where you can in theory just take out the old one a pop in an intact replacement from a parent or sibling. But, doing this to a fully grown human would be a painfully slow process. You would have to trigger a cascade of changes basically and cause the entire body to start the process at once and keep stable while trying to still continue life processes. Retro-viral Genetherapy is our best hope and that's iffy at best.

[mangosta71]

There really is very little that can conceivably be done to "improve" the human race through DNA manipulation with our current knowledge/technology. So much of how we grow up and turn out is due to epigenetic factors. A person could have the genes to grow 8 feet tall, but without proper nutrition while he grows he may end up barely over 5. One person may have the potential to build muscle extremely quickly, but if he never gets off the couch he'll just be another fat slob. Another may have faster reflexes, but he drinks excessively and ends up slower than normal. I think Mass Effect simulated what's reasonable pretty well - slightly faster response time, quicker clotting, longer life expectancy, etc. All generally considered very minor improvements.

[black dragoon]

I agree except with growing eight feet tall. That's a death sentence for that poor person.:smallfrown:
The heart would give out before then...:smallfrown:

[Ilena]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallest_woman

alot of people close to or above 8 feet :P

[black dragoon]

Not without serious side-effects though. :smallfrown:

[mangosta71]

Yeah, that was an intentional exaggeration. I was just throwing it out as an example of how nutrition and genetic factors work together to determine a person's physical state.

[black dragoon]

With that I can't agree more. A recent article sums it up. GENETICS ARE NOT YOUR DESTINY. They play a role for sure but they are not the deciding factor. If we followed the genetic code to a tee I should be an alcoholic but, I'm not because I've consciously chosen not to drink heavily or frequently.(the last time I touched the stuff was about a year ago) I decided for myself what to do and not let my genes decide for me.

[Eldan]

With the overpopulation we have already, wouldn't it make more sense to make people smaller? They would need less space and less food.

[hamishspence]

Knowing your genome can give you info about Things to Avoid: some people ar unusually sensitive to some things, and so avoiding them is healthier. In that sense, even if genes don't dictate your life, knowledge about genes can help you know what you may be vulnerable to, and how to protect yourself.

That said, so much is combination-based that the search for "Genes for X", where X is either a good thing or a bad thing, can be fruitless.

[Thiel]

With that I can't agree more. A recent article sums it up. GENETICS ARE NOT YOUR DESTINY. They play a role for sure but they are not the deciding factor. If we followed the genetic code to a tee I should be an alcoholic but, I'm not because I've consciously chosen not to drink heavily or frequently.(the last time I touched the stuff was about a year ago) I decided for myself what to do and not let my genes decide for me.

My biology teacher put it like this:
Your genes are your roadmap and your environment your navigator

[black dragoon]

That's probably the best way to describe it. Sadly we really can't read that roadmap very well at the moment. We have little understanding as to what really makes the whole system work. Supposed 'junk' DNA has proven to play huge roles in life and there is a metric TONNE of the stuff. Right now our roadmaps look pretty much like a five year old drew them as far as reading the danged things goes.

[Zeful]

Without genetic engineering, people with diabetes would still have to use pig insulin to regulate their blood sugar.

However, with genetic engineering, one can stick plasmids containing human insulin genes into bacteria and the genetically engineered bacteria will produce the necessary insulin. This is just one example of the medicinal value of genetic engineering.

Actually the first attempt at manufactured insulin failed miserablely. The Bacteria was creating too much of it and started reprocessing it into a poison that killed almost 40 (or was it 400 I can't remember at the moment) people before it was recalled. I do believe later attempts were more successful/less lethal.

Genetics seems way too complex to just be a literal translation into traits. It seems to be more like an equation that informs the protien construction and placement at specific times throughout our development.

[black dragoon]

That is the basic concept. A single tiny mishap with genes can lead to disastrous results. We've gotten better at manipulating the relatively simple things like bacteria but it's hit or miss. Right now genetics is in it's infancy is more of an art than science at times. You need to be able to see the outcome before you perform the act so to speak. Tampering with genetic coding has led to many benefits but, it's still risky. I'm dabbling in plant genetics and I get iffy about things at times. We've engineered varieties that can absorb Cadmium but, it still very early in work we have yet to see what side-effects this will have.

[Thiel]

Actually the first attempt at manufactured insulin failed miserablely. The Bacteria was creating too much of it and started reprocessing it into a poison that killed almost 40 (or was it 400 I can't remember at the moment) people before it was recalled. I do believe later attempts were more successful/less lethal.

Seeing as how Novo Nordisk (Thats th ones who invented the procedure) is making tons of money from the stuff its safe to asume that the did.

[Sam]

People, people- cybernetics are the future for human manipulation, not genetic engineering!

Finally TVs in our eyes...

[Ilena]

bah that would suck ... then they could bombard you with commericals all day long ... but ya cybernetics is coming long quickly, but given the choice, id rather be geneticly better then cyberneticly, at least geneticly gets passed on to children :P and i really dont want to be like the borg ... but VR would be awesome for gaming ...

[Bug-a-Boo]

bah that would suck ... then they could bombard you with commericals all day long ... but ya cybernetics is coming long quickly, but given the choice, id rather be geneticly better then cyberneticly, at least geneticly gets passed on to children :P and i really dont want to be like the borg ... but VR would be awesome for gaming ...

But you can't be enhanced by genetic engineering anymore. Your children can, but you'll have to go the way of cybernetics for enhancement.

And who says cybernetics can't be passed on to children? "I have my father's eyes. He left them to me in his will." :smallbiggrin:

[Ilena]

true but thats why they have to learn how to transfer a brain over or something .. grow a new body with all the enhancements and ya ... problem solved! also a problem of the aging population ... also causes a whole mess of overpopulation ... but thats for other people to figure out ....

[black dragoon]

It's more than likely going to be a hybrid of the two. Out children will be screened for possible illnesses that gene based and we as we grow old and weary will see more and of ourselves replaced. while grandson is retro engineered for a disposition for high density muscles and being eight feet tall.:smalltongue:

[Zeful]

Anybody seen Gattaca? That's what's likely to happen if Genetic Engineering gets out of hand.

And of course if human stength could be calibrated to the level of an ant then you could have toddlers bench pressing motorcycles.

[black dragoon]

Scary thought

[Thes Hunter]

Knowing your genome can give you info about Things to Avoid: some people ar unusually sensitive to some things, and so avoiding them is healthier. In that sense, even if genes don't dictate your life, knowledge about genes can help you know what you may be vulnerable to, and how to protect yourself.

That said, so much is combination-based that the search for "Genes for X", where X is either a good thing or a bad thing, can be fruitless.

Yeah, a study just came out that says you can beat the fat gene with 4 hours of moderate exercise a day.


Of course this has gotten me thinking of ways that I can surf the internet while on the stair master. =]

[Eldan]

Which is nice for people who actually have four hours a day...

[Sam]

You can't do that- the reason ants are so strong is due to the size (small things can pack in greater feats of strength relative to their size) and the fact they don't have to have useless things we need- like lungs, genetalia, brains, etc.

Hey, why do you think the Tyranids are so tough? Dump out all the useless parts, replace it with ceramics and muscle bundles and you have your self a monster! Of course, you can't do that with people- the beast you build would need predigested food.

[black dragoon]

True. In truth the tyranid gene structure makes little sense beyond being the ants from hell but hey. It's 40K

[Oslecamo]

Yeah, a study just came out that says you can beat the fat gene with 4 hours of moderate exercise a day.


Of course this has gotten me thinking of ways that I can surf the internet while on the stair master. =]

Or you could maybe eat less or eat healthier...

Laws of Physics prove that fat won't form up out of nowhere.

Anyway, as for genetics, VERY dangerous stuff. Powerfull and able to do good stuff? Sure. But still very dangerous.

Artificially engineered diseases in particular, cancers...There are many ideas of trying to "tame" baterias and virus to work for our body, but one little error, and we may end up with some unstopable disease because we taught it or how to bypass all our defenses.

Also, remember that for a species to survive it demands random variety. This way when something changes whitout warning some of us are bound to have the right genes to adapt to it.

But still, it will go forwards. It has just too many uses.

Let's pray that after the initial boom that's bound to happen in the next decades, people's head will cool down and start using genetic manipulation reasonably, just like we did with radioactive energy.

You do know that for some years radioactive substances were used for anything and everything right because people tought it could solve everything. Then they discovered it would just slowly kill people of cancer.

TRIVIA:Did you know that people have been using genetic manipulation for thousands of years now? Ever since people started forcingly crossing certain animals or plants to create new races that we've been genetically manipulating nature. It's not exactly yesterday's news.

[black dragoon]

We are playing it careful. We can barely scratch the surface right now. We don't even know all the micros in our mouthes...

[Jayngfet]

Apparently you can make gas from bug crap with certan bugs now, it's to expensive to be viable but they're working on it.

[Thes Hunter]

Or you could maybe eat less or eat healthier...

Laws of Physics prove that fat won't form up out of nowhere.



:smallsigh:

There is a weight loss 'expert' around every corner on the internet isn't there?

Yes, a calorie is a calorie, but some humans are more efficent at getting every single little proton to funnel through ATP-Sythnase, while other people have a inner mitochondrial membrane that is more 'leaky'. Thus... some people need to rev the Kerbs cycle engine a few more times to get the same amount of ATP than someone else.

And that is just one possible genetic mutation that can lead to differing experiences with food/exercise and weight loss. Adipose tissue has been discovered to be an endocrine 'gland'. The mechanism of the hormones and the factors influenced by these hormones are complex. However Leptin has gained attention, and some people are more receptive to Leptin than others.

In a study of rats, rats with knock out for the leptin receptor gene ate until they could not move, while rats with a constitutively active receptor died of starvation.

So you are indeed correct that you can not defy the laws of thermodynamics in your diet, but I am a bit sick and tired of hearing that fact be bandied about as a counter to the claim that some people have a harder time losing weight than others. :smallmad:

[Zeful]

Or you could maybe eat less or eat healthier...

Laws of Physics prove that fat won't form up out of nowhere.

Anyway, as for genetics, VERY dangerous stuff. Powerfull and able to do good stuff? Sure. But still very dangerous.

Artificially engineered diseases in particular, cancers...There are many ideas of trying to "tame" baterias and virus to work for our body, but one little error, and we may end up with some unstopable disease because we taught it or how to bypass all our defenses.

Also, remember that for a species to survive it demands random variety. This way when something changes whitout warning some of us are bound to have the right genes to adapt to it.

But still, it will go forwards. It has just too many uses.

Let's pray that after the initial boom that's bound to happen in the next decades, people's head will cool down and start using genetic manipulation reasonably, just like we did with radioactive energy.

You do know that for some years radioactive substances were used for anything and everything right because people tought it could solve everything. Then they discovered it would just slowly kill people of cancer.

TRIVIA:Did you know that people have been using genetic manipulation for thousands of years now? Ever since people started forcingly crossing certain animals or plants to create new races that we've been genetically manipulating nature. It's not exactly yesterday's news.

Cybernetics is much worse though. You can create control programs that run amok through the cybernetic enhancements, eventually finding there way into the brain. Bam! Instant thrall/vegetable/etc. no hope to save the guy, because by the time you notice something, it's already far too late. Identity theft becomes trival, you now have all there credit card information, SS numbers just as long as they have a direct (or indirect in the case of VR tech) like to the brain.
Or what about movies like Saw or Dark City hm? Imagine have your memories pawed through to be erased or rewritten at a whim? Or some psychopath starts putting memories of horrific crimes he committed into your head? Insanity and schizophrenia become rampant, easily cured but rampant.

In short, technology often times has some good aspects, but a creative monster will turn them into weapons of terror without a second thought.

[hamishspence]

Technically Cochlear implants are cybernetics (interpret information and feed it into the brain) and they aren't exactly worse than genetic engineering. Cybernetics cannot all be written off as Too Dangerous.

[mangosta71]

I assume that cybernetics whose sole purpose is restoring a lost function are exempt from the "too dangerous" label. It's when we get into hacking off limbs to replace them with incredibly strong metal bits that the line is crossed. Installing weapons is probably out, too. Kind of a shame, really. Would be awesome to be able to snap my hand back and have the barrel of a laser cannon pop out. Or reinforced fingernails that I could use to scratch steel.

[hamishspence]

Many sci-fi settings see nothing too dubious about intentionally applying cybernetics to healthy, willing people. Whether this is true in the real world is an interesting question: is there a line to be drawn, or not? How altered does a brain have to be, before "computer with organic parts" is a better term than "organic brain with computer parts"?

EDIT:
Getting back to GM: same may apply: One might say a human who is fast, strong, etc due to GM is still a human, but one with strong animalistic instincts, or strongly expanded intellect, is Different.

[black dragoon]

We push the boundaries of what shall be called human. Made of flesh or silicon is he a man or machine. Best or savant he still may be called the creature that is man.

[Mewtarthio]

Cybernetics is much worse though. You can create control programs that run amok through the cybernetic enhancements, eventually finding there way into the brain. Bam! Instant thrall/vegetable/etc. no hope to save the guy, because by the time you notice something, it's already far too late. Identity theft becomes trival, you now have all there credit card information, SS numbers just as long as they have a direct (or indirect in the case of VR tech) like to the brain.
Or what about movies like Saw or Dark City hm? Imagine have your memories pawed through to be erased or rewritten at a whim? Or some psychopath starts putting memories of horrific crimes he committed into your head? Insanity and schizophrenia become rampant, easily cured but rampant.

Which is why you shouldn't wire your brain directly to the Internet. Seriously, this sort of concern is tantamount to worrying that hackers will hack your mind through your cell phone.

[Wraithy]

I don't care about anything unless it takes me one step closer to owning a pocket panda.

I demand a pocket Panda!

[black dragoon]

Have fun as the thing tries eating everything in sight. :smallbiggrin:

[Sam]

Computers aren't THAT easy to take advantage of- you have to let the viruses and control programs in first. And most cybernetic stuff won't be connected to the outside world, so it won't be a problem.

If you can get them to work of your body, it will save on wear and tear battery costs. THAT is the major problem- getting them to work in such a goppy environment.

[black dragoon]

At a certain level a machine can run off you. via piezoelectric effects but yeah machines and **** do not mix trust me.

[mangosta71]

Even if cybernetic enhancements can be constructed of materials that don't degrade in the hot, humid environment present in a human body, we still have to tinker with them so that they can run off the current of the nervous system without providing enough feedback to fry it.

[black dragoon]

Work has been done on such a thing it's very basic but we have the beginnings of a basic Neural interface.

[Thes Hunter]

You can't do that- the reason ants are so strong is due to the size (small things can pack in greater feats of strength relative to their size) and the fact they don't have to have useless things we need- like lungs, genetalia, brains, etc.

Hey, why do you think the Tyranids are so tough? Dump out all the useless parts, replace it with ceramics and muscle bundles and you have your self a monster! Of course, you can't do that with people- the beast you build would need predigested food.

Not genetics... pure physiology, but just something to remember when discussing alien species.

Ants don't need lungs because they are small enough to allow effective passage of oxygen through diffusion from their primative cirulatory fluid. (Which uses copper as the metal carrier ion, fyi) This is all well and good for something so small and thin....

however as size increase the laws of physics (and here is one of my weak areas of knowledge) dictate the need for a more advanced circulation system. One that actually pumps and such, and cooperativity in the oxygen delivery system helps as well, since all the oxygen doesn't get dumped where it's not needed the most. and etc. Also iron is better at carrying oxygen than copper is anyway.

[black dragoon]

It's true that size is a key factor and after a certain point a body cannot absorb needed volatiles through it's skin simply because it's to big. Of course then again this is 40K so really saying there is scientific backing to anything they put out is like saying that Evangelion makes any sense in the last few eps.

[mangosta71]

(and here is one of my weak areas of knowledge)

This is, imo, one of the coolest things about scientists. We freely admit when something is outside our area of expertise. Most other people just try to BS their way through it.

[black dragoon]

It's partly because we tire of being ridiculed as nut jobs even though we're secretly right. My specialty is plant and microbial genetics so my knowledge outside that is limited to what's put out by journals but, I'm terror in my own field of expertise.:smalltongue:

[Sam]

Does that mean that others in your field differ to you or that you have once sent a message to the UN starting with "Not even Bond can help you!"...

[Fri]

TRIVIA:Did you know that people have been using genetic manipulation for thousands of years now? Ever since people started forcingly crossing certain animals or plants to create new races that we've been genetically manipulating nature. It's not exactly yesterday's news.

This made me laugh. I pictured, a prehistoric man facing a chicken and a cow.

"Okay you two. Breed, now! Or I'll force you"

[Ilena]

Yes, its how we got the failed specie of cowicken, didnt you know? :P

[Collin152]

Yes, its how we got the failed specie of cowicken, didnt you know? :P

If you know a better way to combine the two best tasting and best selling meats in America, I'd like to hear it!

[Lupy]

Okay Collin, we need some Ham, a treadmill, and a whole lot of beef and poultry!

[Justyn]

I don't care about anything unless it takes me one step closer to owning a pocket panda.

I demand a pocket Panda!

Conversely, I demand giant guinea pigs!

[mangosta71]

Forget guinea pigs. I'm holding out for my own miniature giant space hamster.

[Ilena]

miniature giant space hamster .... so hes the runt of a family of giants then? and dont you know when people start messing around with the size of things ... they will turn on their creators and attempt to eat them? Even if they dont eat meat? But if you also want to discuss cybernetic as well as gm go ahead, i find both topics interesting,

[mangosta71]

Somebody hasn't played Baldur's Gate. You have no idea what you're missing. :smalltongue:

[Ilena]

Accually i did play bulders gate when i was alot younger and more nieve, i didnt like the game then (as i said i was young and foolish) as i didnt like the numbers and missing and stuff, but one of these days i will go back and play it fully through now that i can more appreicate it