Re: medicine tomorrow?

[Guest guest]

" I don't know if my book will do well or make a difference, but at

least it's therapeutic. "

I applaud your efforts and do hope it sees publication.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Genetic manipulation is better than waiting 4 million years for nature to do the job. Humanity is at such a turning point that we either do this and rely on the best minds or we fall back to darker times. We need people to be born with more intelligence,tendency to happiness and hearty genetics. It's okay to be concerned but, I'd rather be part of it and try to understand. That said, I am possibly enrolling in a biotech program at a college. There's a college fair tomorrow with over 140 showing up that I can look at. Even Princeton is going to be here in redneck oklahoma. Really, if the scientists weren't confident about this it wouldn't be such a huge new undertaking. The only problem is finding the actual source of the diseases whilst not wiping out certain enzyme pathways that are to a certain benefit. The math of this endeavour seems quite impossible to me. Anyway, I subscribe to the belief that I'm here to spread my genes, that is, to have children who pass my genes

and my name into the future. An old proverb says that we borrow the land from our children and I agree. miminm <mnmimi@...> wrote: This is how I see these things. What is being admitted is that environmental agents are catayls for the mutation of genes when other genes are found in suseptible people. the mutagens effect all manner of development and effect behavior and anxiety, outside of the known inherited genes. The scientific community instead of stopping the production of environmental catalyst. (let's for a moment call

this an environmental pollution, seek instead to alter the human. thus changing humanity as a canabalized set of desired genetics.Instead of stopping industry from polluting our world and our persons we will be changed to allow the generation of money to continue.Organic food is not a conspiracy to increase the cost of food it is a weapon in the flow of artifical humans. This sounds more sci-fi all the time. That is what makes me sad that humankind as a whole will be sacrificed to keep an economic sysem in place and that the way for this is being peddaled by pharmicudical companies.I wanted false imposed mutagenic conditions to be brought back to original through the means of what G'd had provided in this planet. We choose to treat ourselves and our planet well. I do not want to be forced to rely on people whom would alter those creations in a synthetic way as to keep me a captive and imprision my

offspring. That is my indignation

Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Answers - Check it out.

[Guest guest]

You know what I'm thinking? Arthur C. e's 3001 except the kids are turned into mindless bags of bones and they don't go to any other planet or matrix. Instead, with the genetically damaged brains they kill each other off or they become animals in factory farms to serve aliens or to be made a permanent lower class that has no idea. miminm <mnmimi@...> wrote: >> I

agree that natural healing ought to be tried first, provided it is > safe. It's what we all had to begin with and jumanity survived. > However, the advantage to drugs and the like is that, with the ones > that work, potency, and therefore effectiveness, has been increased, > which I think has contributed much to our longer life spans.> > Tom> Administrator> Maybe I did not explain myself. The "disease" they are working onrecoding: Number #1 on the list, is Autism. This is being developed to cure Autism by recoding the brain. They picked Autism because there were known genes plus mutated genes that cluster in hot spots. That is what is happening now. They are trying to cut all these therapy costs by NTing the whole crop of ASD's

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user panel and lay it on us.

[Guest guest]

It's not just you. It's the individuality. What makes an individual. Well, there's freedom of choice that someone here mentioned earlier and that makes the most sense. Humans have the ability to find out what is the right or wrong way. Religion has taught that that is bad. It says that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (both q.ran and bible) is what caused man's fall. Fall from grace? Man creates himself and does it with his will. He cannot change a whole nation of people if they are unwilling. Just look at the Irish or the Russians, or the Jews or the blacks. We have justice, not grace. The justice of punishing the wrong but, religion has taught us not to want what's best for ourselves but, to want what's best for our neighbors. We cannot know what's best for our neighbors because we are all individuals. Albert Einstein said that, "great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. If we can learn how to make people

work more efficiently at astronomy and quantum mechanics we might just have a chance to either blow up the next comet when it comes our way or send spaceships to other planets when earth is scheduled to be thrown into the garbage bin. I think it's scary but, we have to move on. Otherwise we'll fall back and the things we have to lean on are more scarce these days than they were in the middle ages. miminm <mnmimi@...> wrote: >> Biotech has some pretty interesting implications. One is hardiness. Alot of celiacs have died out and they're still dying undiagnosed. It's an interesting book: Dangerous Grains. It's about the impact of peptides in the bloodstream. Many Northern Europeans' countries didn't have wheat 10,000 years ago and there's a high percentage of Celiac among these. Iv'e always had a side of me that's interested in the biotech though. It seems that if people can have their brains working more efficiently and more mathematically there may be hope for life on Mars or somewhere else. Maybe the comp generation is only the beginning of a math renaissance. > > I have actually been depressed about this for days. What is the allowable condition for altering a human. Can we control those alterations to be discreet or are we changing whom that person is by altering their

DNA. Are we correcting to save a life or for convience.I am in courses at college to be a Speech and Language pathologist. I want to do this for my son, but I also want to do it for other children who think and process in a different way. (similar to mine) This last week I have been increasingly anxious, feeling more alien and outcast "because I have to fit into a student setting" I can be overly technical in a group especially if they are moving too slow for me. So I feel "left out" angry and frustrated, I have considered the disability office because I could take tests in a room alone nad away from others. I feel that is impractical, because I woun't be able to do that if I work in a school. I have to find a way to cope; in order to teach effective coping to smaller people.So what if I could wipe the anxiousness out of my system by getting "recoded" would I want that? Who would I be afterward, would

I think or process differently or would I just be numb in certain areas? Would I cease to have the Mimi "experience" that I am having.I feel the misuse of this technology is far weighter than it's usefulness. Could we recode for any annoyance. Why can't we choose to help ourselves and find effective ways of coping. Do I believe life should be preserved: Yes! but should we recode for big boobs or a better laugh: no! We are our experience, there are social ills that add or detract from that experience, we come close to mapping humanity and choosing for others? I don't want you to choose for me and I do not want to rob you of your ability to choose. There are consequences for choice. I believe it would be an end to meaningful experience and learning. I am frightened and dissipointed by the prospect. It seems to insult human exsistance, there has to be a more natural approach to healing and helping those in

need.Maybe it is just me

Got a little couch potato?

Check out fun summer activities for kids.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/2007 12:55:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I have a problem with "Type O" universal implants. My problem is rather abstract and philosophical, so bear with me.

That isn't an original concern.

Most games that include such things have a balancing factor. In Shadowrun, each character has a base amount of life energy or "essence." Each piece of implant reduces that essence by a given amount. If a character reaches zero essence, they die. In older editions, at certain points down the line, characters had increasing problems with social interactions (because others feel that something isn't right with them) and odd behavior, up to and including psychopathy, which does not help social interaction either. Another game had even harsher rules for it, but that one was so complex it faded long ago and I don't recall its name now.

Now, I'm not sure that there would be that much of a problem, particularly if the organs are cloned from the person they are intended for. It may be that they will have a "phantom limb" effect or something like that. However, it would be a choice between medicine or a new organ. Also, there would be plenty of time to study the matter.

This beings up another question. How much can be replaced before a person is no longer human? Shadowrun has no limit for that, other than the zero essence rule (though there is a nasty way around that), though it does mention people feeling less themselves the more they get. The Hatchetman diary was rather eery. Certain anime series have placed the limit at around 90%, basically just the brain and brain stem. Ghost in the Shell, which I am watching as I write this, has a limit, but I'm not sure what that is. The Major and a couple of other lead characters aren't much more than brain, brain stem and life support organs. The movie Robocop had most of the previous cyborgs before the robocop killed themselves when they found out what they were. Dr. Who also saw the Cybermen kill themselves when they found out what they had become.

The only thing to say about it is that we will see what happens when it happens, if it happens.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/2007 1:18:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Some time about 10,000 years ago, Cheetahs had a massive die-off. And from those that remained stem all the cheetahs we have today. These cheetah are so genetically similar that if you take one from India (yes, there are Cheetah in India, and through Israel too), and compare its DNA to the DNA of a Cheetah from South Africa, the two would be genetically as similar as brother and sister. One feline disease could wipe them all out due to this lack of genetic diversity.

Cheetah are dying out now and it has nothing to do with disease. As you mentioned, the die off is largely to blame. The other cause is that they are super specialized. The cheetah is designed for one thing: speed. Its body is maxed out like a thoroughbred racehorse, and just like those horses, it balances on a fine line between survival and death. If it pushes itself to its limits, it is very likely to injure itself. The cheetah is also weak compared to lions, leopards and hyenas. Those animals can chase a cheetah off a kill and prevent it from scavenging. It is very likely that within a century or two, there will be no more cheetah in the wild because of these factors. This is an ancient pattern when the specialists, like the saber-toothed tiger, will lose out in the end in favor of generalists.

Fertility and genetic diversity have less to do with survival sans humans than what we have done to them. Most milk cows need to be milked twice a day. Delaying the milking is painful because they swell up with milk. I don't know if they would die from that, but it certainly would be unpleasant for them. Beef cattle, on the other hand, would not face that problem. Another factor for survival would be lack of males for breeding purposes and potential inbreeding issues if male calves grew up in a herd and began breeding within the herd itself.

Most of the annoying toy breeds of dogs would probably die off. They wouldn't be able to compete for food, or probably would BE food for larger animals.

Pigs tend to do quite well without people. Feral pigs sometimes are a problem down in Alabama. Pigs are also interesting in that they tend to have a variable genetic expression. That is, if a domestic pig escapes from a farm, it tends to revert to a wild state. In time, their hair becomes thicker and their teeth become more tusk-like and they often become larger than they would have been on the farm. They can also interbreed with wild swine. Pigs wouldn't have many predators either, short of bear.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/2007 12:48:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, drumthis2001@... writes:

You know what I'm thinking? Arthur C. e's 3001 except the kids are turned into mindless bags of bones and they don't go to any other planet or matrix. Instead, with the genetically damaged brains they kill each other off or they become animals in factory farms to serve aliens or to be made a permanent lower class that has no idea.

That is a concern of mine with brain/machine interface. Suppose the Matrix (meaning the network of internet, computers and human brains and not the movie) decided to optimize itself. The computers and internet would be fairly harmonious with only certain software variation. Humans would be the wildcard what with all of their diversity, changing moods, etc.. The Matrix could hypnotize the people connected to it, which indeed would probably be part of the connection process anyway to make the mind more receptive to the interface, and reprogram them to make them more efficient parts of itself.

The question then is just what happens to the people? Does it end up like the movie Matrix with people plugged into machines and living in a virtual world? Are the people still mobile but little more than biorobots serving the machines? Or, are the people "uploaded" as programs into the computer and the bodies discarded? All of these have been addressed in sci-fi, but the latter is probably the least familiar.

The case of people being uploaded has been discussed in stories, a few movies and games. The issue boils down to one of continuance of soul. If you don't believe in the soul, that humans are simply a collection of experiences stored in a bio-computer, the brain, then uploading a "person" is not a problem. If you do believe in a soul, it is more complicated. What happens to the soul in such a transfer? Does it remain with the original body and die with it, or will it follow the copy, or transplanted brain to a new body? Some old computer games decided that they were just copies, the uploads of memory and personality. Shadowrun seems to share that view, although there are a few ghosts in the machine, but those are extremely rare. Like Ghost in the Shell, it has the view that the soul will follow the brain, so that if the brain is moved to a new body, even a cybernetic one, the soul goes with it. Interestingly, Ghost in the Shell, does refer to problems with this. A person's "ghost," how they refer to souls, can get slightly disconnected from the body sometimes, such as if the body moves while sleeping. That can cause and out of body type experience.

That is more or less my view as well. The soul would follow the brain, though being placed in a new body or a cybernetic one would be stressful and very strange. The best way to look at it would be Hatchetman's comments. In his diary, he said that at times the world would become strange, a dissociative state where it was like he was watching the world on TV rather than actually being there. He mentioned that at times his body would seem like it wasn't his, the phantom limb phenomenon being common. Later, after he was taken over the line, it was much worse.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/2007 1:46:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epitome_hawke@... writes:

I wish I had saved the link to an article I read earlier today... itdescribed the potential for DNA to become contaminated with enzymes ofother species... specifically it mentioned viruses. But it thenexplained that the way most eggs and sperm are created and storedprevents these mutations/contaminations to be passed down to offspring.

I remember an article like that. It is believed that bits of our current DNA actually are strains left over from viral infections ages ago. That should not be too surprising since viruses reproduce by inserting themselves in our DNA and hijacking the system. That would affected certain cells in an individual. To be passed on, that means the reproductive cells would have to have been infected at some point in such a way as to not preclude reproduction, but altered just enough for the fragment of virus to pass on, but again, not kill the resultant offspring.

Since you mentioned the soul, my view is that of the old Irish. I believe that the soul does not reside in any part of the body or the DNA. Rather, the body lives within the soul, and that the soul also permeates the body. This visible part of the soul is what some people refer to as the aura surrounding a person. If the soul is gone, so is the aura and the body is dead, even though DNA and possibly all of the parts are still present and the body should otherwise be operational.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/2007 2:30:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

As silly as this sounds, every time I have to have another filling putin my teeth, I feel a bit less human...or else a bit closer to death since, as far as I know, I will not be cutting a third set of teeth. (In rare cases, it has been known to happen to some people.) I am also beginning to lose hair on the top of my head, and my beard is showing a bit of gray. It's rather fascinating really, watching my body change naturally and edge closer to death. Interestingly, I am much more comfortable with getting closer to death than I am with having parts of me removed and replaced with silver, porcelein, or epoxy.TomAdministrator

That's interesting. I have so many fillings thanks to those braces as a teenager that I don't worry about it. I've already had to have two teeth pulled because they were so weakened and will probably have more go too. It is just a nuisance to worry about losing a filling all the time.

I've noticed signs of aging too. Injuries don't heal as fast, my hair is thinning and there is some grew in my facial hair. There are other worries, too, as I have alluded to in the past. Even when I was in college, it would seem to me that as I neared graduation that things I would do would be one time closer to the last time, such as walking down a flight of stairs or going to a certain building. I see that more often in life in general these days.

Personally, I am more concerned about dying than I would be about replacing a few organs with clones or whatever, not that that would be an easy thing mind you. Indeed, if magic existed and I were a wizard, if there was a way to become a lich without the necessity of committing and irredeemably evil act (there is actually), I would be very tempted to do so. If interested, I will post a bit about what that might be like, according to D & D 3.5, though personally I think some modifications could be made.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

> This goes back to the original concern of getting rid of humans that> don't 'fit' the typical set of genes... There's a reason we need to> have a variety of genes in the mix.

It's interesting that scientists admit that they believe that there is a reason for human evolution with genes that have cause humans problems, yet the same brilliant people will still try to change or cure that which they don't understand.

Kim

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=DC9F2509-E7F2-99DF-3621E37563E14B7B

September 06, 2007

It's No Delusion: Evolution May Favor Schizophrenia Genes

New research reveals that genes related to the debilitating disorder may also provide developmental advantages

Schizophrenia, the psychotic disorder marked by hallucinations, multiple personalities and cognitive disorganization, affects roughly 1 percent of the U.S. population. Many of those afflicted, however, also have reduced reproductive fitness, which means they are less likely to pass a genetic profile associated with the condition onto their offspring. "It's sort of a genetic paradox," explains Steve Dorus, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Bath in England. "Why is this disease found at such a high prevalence?" Dorus co-authored a report, appearing in this week's Proceedings of the Royal Society B, about the evolution of genes linked to schizophrenia. After analyzing human DNA from several populations around the world and examining primate genomes dating back to the shared ancestor of both humans and chimpanzees, researchers reached a striking conclusion that several gene variants linked to schizophrenia were actually positively selected and remained largely unchanged over time, suggesting that there was some advantage to having them. "Schizophrenia can be explained by a lot of individual alleles (variations of genes)," Dorus notes. "There are many different loci that impact the actual manifestation of the disease." Over the past decade, several dozen genes have been identified as potential culprits, and scientists believe that several genes cause disruptions in protein formations predisposing a person to schizophrenia. For this study, the team, which also included Bernard Crespi, an evolutionary biology professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, and East Carolina University evolution professor Summers, focused on 76 gene variations most strongly related to schizophrenia. By comparing these combinations with the evolution of other genes known to affect neuronal processes, the researchers determined that 28 of the schizophrenia-associated genes have been evolutionarily preferred in recent years by either Caucasian, Asian or African populations. "Because it's a such a complex genetic trait … you actually expect there to be some variability from population to population, in terms of what genes are playing a role in the disorder," Dorus says. He notes that he was surprised that the study turned up a positive selection for some of the genes most closely associated to the disease, including DISC1 (disrupted in schizophrenia 1), which is involved in the transport of proteins along the relatively lengthy cell bodies of neurons, among them. "The most important thing is we don't really know what the basis of the selection has been," he says. "It could be due to an entire range of neurodevelopmental processes." Co-author Crespi says that a number of theories have been floating around regarding the persistence of schizophrenia's genetic underpinnings. One holds that schizophrenia is a "disorder of language" and that the illness is an unfortunate consequence of the development of human speech, expression and creativity. "Whenever you get strong selection, it's like a big plus, and you can drag along a lot of minuses," he says. "You can think of schizophrenics as paying the price of all the cognitive and language skills that humans have—they have too many of the alleles that taken individually…might have positive effect, but together they are bad." Dorus says the team will now home in on the 28 genes fingered in positive selection in the hope of finding new treatments for the mysterious disorder.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/9/2007 2:21:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I would posit that the people who want immortality the most are the ones least deserving of it because they cannot see any joy in living in the present day with their present lifespans. Not knowing what the future holds, wouldn't they be depressed if things WORSTENED in the future instead of getting better?

I see it differently. Most of the people who would want immortality would be those most obsessed with either power, wealth, hedonism or a combination of the three. Rather than use their lifespans for anything productive, they would live their lives as they do now, lusting for a tiny scrap more of power, scrambling for one more dollar, or consuming without end to soothe ever more jaded pallets. Given more time to carrying out their games, they could get quite dangerous.

The reason for that would be that they would no longer be able to wait for certain rivals to die, but they would instead have to be destroyed. Now, they could develop rules for the game to keep that things somewhat civil, but then again, maybe not. And what happens when someone new wants a seat at the table? Another competitor would likely be highly unwelcome, at least in the power and wealth circles, though new flesh toys might be welcome. That means access to immortality would be limited. Indeed, it is possible that once the first round gained immorality, they would destroy all knowledge of the process beyond that needed to maintain themselves, so no one else could join them. Then again, immortality could be used as the ultimate lure to get minions to do their bidding, and they might even grant it from time to time.

I do recall one short story about humanity that had achieved immortality. In it, almost everyone lived alone. Couple would pair up for a time (weeks to a few decades) but would eventually drift apart, people not being able to live together for eternity. People did work together sometimes, but in general, everyone lived alone. The other exception was to raise children, which in itself was a rarity and limited by law to only two per couple (yes, humans were space fairing so they could spread out through the universe). Interesting concepts in that story and probably true.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

I have a problem with " Type O " universal implants. My problem is

rather abstract and philosophical, so bear with me.

But there have been stories about donor recipients having weird food

cravings after getting an organ transplant, and follow-ups showed

that the donors liked those particular foods.

Well...

If the body supports the brain, and the brain holds the mind, and

the soul inhabits mind and body...what is happening to our souls

when we start replacing body parts with made up stuff that was

created from stem cells donated by others? Do we become a hodge-

podge of all the people who make up our " new " bodies? And if so,

what happens to our individual soul? Do they get edged out of the

way to make way for aspects left behid by the donors?

And if we clone our own organs, knowing that a clone is NOT us even

though it was made from us, aren't we doing the same thing?

Now one can argue that a cloned organ can have no soul, but doesn't

that make things worse? We don;t know what a soul really is exactly,

and though arguable we put fillings in our teeth, and metal

applainces in our hips during hip replacement surgery, replacing an

organ with souless flesh is rather disturbing to me.

Maybe I am thinking about this too deeply, but I do not like this

new science.

Tom

Administrator

In the future, it will very likely be a case of having diseased

organs replaced with a cloned copy rather than treated by drugs.

Since it is a clone, there would not be rejection issues and all the

medicine needed for that. There is also the possibility of " Type O "

universal implants. These would be disease free tissues in an organ

like matrix with a blood tissue barrier to protect it from the

host's immune system. Such " cybernetic " replacements could be

factory made in a number of sizes and ready for implant, even as a

temporary measure while cloned organs are grown. Complex organs like

eyes will take longer, though there is some research on using stem

cells to repair retina damage that shows promise.

[Guest guest]

" The problem is the genetic similarity. This problem has actually

been building up through the centuries. The tighter the selection,

the less diverse the genes in the population. This leaves them

potentially more vulnerable to disease. The Mad Cow outbreaks in

England could be related to this. As the herds are less diverse, it

is easier for a disease to spread through them.

<snip>

" Some, like dogs, cats and pigs, stand a good chance of surviving. "

Interestig that you should bring this up .

One thing that people have not figured into is what nature can do

and already has done.

Some time about 10,000 years ago, Cheetahs had a massive die-off.

And from those that remained stem all the cheetahs we have today.

These cheetah are so genetically similar that if you take one from

India (yes, there are Cheetah in India, and through Israel too), and

compare its DNA to the DNA of a Cheetah from South Africa, the two

would be genetically as similar as brother and sister.

One feline disease could wipe them all out due to this lack of

genetic diversity.

As it stands, the only thing that have kept Cheetah alive is that

they can be quite reproductive in the wild, having as many as 6 cubs

in one litter, of which as many as three may survive into adulthood.

But they breed incredibly poorly in zoos.

Your discussion about domestic cows was quite on the money. Their

infertility or lack of genetic diversity could make them extinct if

a disease hit, or if humans died off.

You mentioned that cats would survive. Domesticated cats, oddly

enough, WOULD survive. The reason is because we have bred cats over

the years to be breeders. Of the 37 species of wildcat, it is rare

for any of them to breeed more than one litter per year. A domestic

cat can have 4 litters in a year. Whereas cats in the wild may only

have one or two surviving cubs, domestic cats can have 6 kittens in

each litter survive into adulthood. Multiply this by four litters

per year, and tack on to this the fact that domestic cats are

capable of breeding at 18 months of age and you can see how the

numbers would go.

Domestic cats became so fertile because

1) The Egyptians considered them guardians of the underworld, and so

they raised cats specifically to kill them and mumify them with

their dead.

Additionally, it was not uncommon for the mourners of the dead to

offer a mummified cat or falcon or scarab as an offering to the Gods

of the departed.

Also, they kept cats around the house to protect them from evil

spirits sent to haunt them by the underworld.

So the cats needed to be plentiful.

2) Europeans used them as mousers aboard boats, in homes, and on

farms.

To this day, it us known that the European Linx can only have one

letter per year, yet a domestic feline living in Europe can have 4

litters a year.

Attempts to breed domestic and wild cats have been successful,

incidentally, and some natural breedings between domestics and wild

cats have also occured (such as between Andean mountain cats and

feral domestics) but fertility and breeding capacity among the

offspring seems not to follow along domestic lines, so the offspring

from those pairings are unlikely to reproduce in numbers to sustain

themselves.

As for dogs, some will die and others would live for similar reasons

as described above. Many dogs were bred for certain jobs, and these

dogs were bred to breed quickly as well. Other dogs, mostly of

the " show " variety, are such weird genetic combinations that they

may not actually breed in sustainable numbers without assistance.

Regarding pigs, these animals were descended from animals like the

African wild boar. They would live simply because they have huge

litters with each breeding, and a few are almost guarenteed to

survive unless their should be some particularly nasty strain of

tuberculosis or swine flu going around.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> I have a problem with " Type O " universal implants. My problem is

> rather abstract and philosophical, so bear with me.

>

> But there have been stories about donor recipients having weird food

> cravings after getting an organ transplant, and follow-ups showed

> that the donors liked those particular foods.

>

> Well...

>

> If the body supports the brain, and the brain holds the mind, and

> the soul inhabits mind and body...what is happening to our souls

> when we start replacing body parts with made up stuff that was

> created from stem cells donated by others? Do we become a hodge-

> podge of all the people who make up our " new " bodies? And if so,

> what happens to our individual soul? Do they get edged out of the

> way to make way for aspects left behid by the donors?

>

> And if we clone our own organs, knowing that a clone is NOT us even

> though it was made from us, aren't we doing the same thing?

I wish I had saved the link to an article I read earlier today... it

described the potential for DNA to become contaminated with enzymes of

other species... specifically it mentioned viruses. But it then

explained that the way most eggs and sperm are created and stored

prevents these mutations/contaminations to be passed down to offspring.

The first thought I had was, what if one of these contaminated strands

of DNA is used in a cloning experiment???

On the topic of organ donation - the husband of one of my best friends

received the kidney of his brother and did take on a few

characteristics of his brother - such as his hair curled and he

started to prefer a drink he didn't like and disliked a drink he

liked. (one was coffee one was soda, I don't remember which he likes now)

I personally don't believe that the soul is contained in body parts -

only the DNA. I do believe however that the soul can be influenced by

the DNA in that the DNA contributes to our experience of the world and

it is through this experience that we filter our thoughts and make our

decisions. I believe the closest embodiment of our soul would be our

'will'. Therefore, I do not think that organ donation or cloning will

create soul transfer or beings without souls.

However I DO think there are moral consequences to mucking around with

such things without thinking them through. Because our experiences

help to shape our will, and because DNA influences the way in which we

experience the world, care should be taken to not purposefully

creating situations that hinder how someone understands the world.

This would NOT mean to kill off those that have mental disabilities,

but rather, just the opposite, to care for each and every soul and for

others to learn how to enable everyone to understand that he or she is

a valued and important individual.

[Guest guest]

" The justice of punishing the wrong but, religion has taught us not to

want what's best for ourselves but, to want what's best for our

neighbors. We cannot know what's best for our neighbors because we are

all individuals. Albert Einstein said that, " great spirits have always

encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. "

Einstein believed in God though and was a Jew until his dying

day...and presumably afterwards.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Genetic manipulation is better than waiting 4 million years for

nature to do the job. Humanity is at such a turning point that we

either do this and rely on the best minds or we fall back to darker

times. We need people to be born with more intelligence,tendency to

happiness and hearty genetics. It's okay to be concerned but, I'd

rather be part of it and try to understand. "

The problem with these medical advances is that if we ever get to the

point where we can augment ourselves for special purposes or for

double or triple the lifespan that we have now, it is unlikely that we

have the needed intelligence or discipline to deal with these advances

in a thoughtful and mature manner.

I would posit that the people who want immortality the most are the

ones least deserving of it because they cannot see any joy in living

in the present day with their present lifespans. Not knowing what the

future holds, wouldn't they be depressed if things WORSTENED in the

future instead of getting better?

Some would regard these people as optimists, but I see them as

incredibly weak people who cannot survive in the present and so live

in their dreams of the future.

Scientists who hype up longevity are equally underserving of anything

they aspire to attain. They tend to play on the emotions of these

weaklings and that is where they get their funding from...so that they

can then fund THEIR OWN longevity.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" This would NOT mean to kill off those that have mental disabilities,

but rather, just the opposite, to care for each and every soul and for

others to learn how to enable everyone to understand that he or she is

a valued and important individual. "

This is a view shared by many Aboriginals in North America. Raven is

away on business, but perhaps if she sees your post when she returns

she can comment on it. (Part of her lineage is Aboriginal.)

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" This beings up another question. How much can be replaced before a

person is no longer human? "

As silly as this sounds, every time I have to have another filling

putin my teeth, I feel a bit less human...or else a bit closer to

death since, as far as I know, I will not be cutting a third set of

teeth. (In rare cases, it has been known to happen to some people.)

I am also beginning to lose hair on the top of my head, and my beard

is showing a bit of gray. It's rather fascinating really, watching

my body change naturally and edge closer to death.

Interestingly, I am much more comfortable with getting closer to

death than I am with having parts of me removed and replaced with

silver, porcelein, or epoxy.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

>> Well...

>

> Maybe I am thinking about this too deeply, but I do not like this

> new science.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

I think my thoughts go along the same path. Curing a person with

food or removing an irritant in a gental way leave the control with

me. I know the risks(which are 0) in the case of food, but that

medicine asks us to trust someone or manysomeones else. I don't have

a great track record for that. The person that cares most for my

children is me. It is dangerous for me to get too caught up in that

thinking. So in an emergency I have and would bring him to an

emergency room.

I think medicine is about trust and I have none for them. In my past

I have been medically diagnosed wrong and almost had the wrong hand

operated on once(I fainted that time thinking they would have cut

open the wrong wrist)

At the end of painful tests the answer is well you don't have that,

it must be in your head. (It wasn't in my head at all seeing as I

hadn't been suggesting the tests0 Hence why I must be dragged to the

dr's. Actually I have not been to an actual appointment in roughly 5

maybe 7 years. I have had 2 emergencies.

I don't trust them to be mindful of me and alteration does seem like

a bad idea, there confidence is baloney(it's just not their body so

they are confident in themselves but using your body)

I echo Tom when I say I don't like this new medicine that seems

heartless and confident with our children

[Guest guest]

>

>> Well...

>

> Maybe I am thinking about this too deeply, but I do not like this

> new science.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

I think my thoughts go along the same path. Curing a person with

food or removing an irritant in a gental way leave the control with

me. I know the risks(which are 0) in the case of food, but that

medicine asks us to trust someone or manysomeones else. I don't have

a great track record for that. The person that cares most for my

children is me. It is dangerous for me to get too caught up in that

thinking. So in an emergency I have and would bring him to an

emergency room.

I think medicine is about trust and I have none for them. In my past

I have been medically diagnosed wrong and almost had the wrong hand

operated on once(I fainted that time thinking they would have cut

open the wrong wrist)

At the end of painful tests the answer is well you don't have that,

it must be in your head. (It wasn't in my head at all seeing as I

hadn't been suggesting the tests0 Hence why I must be dragged to the

dr's. Actually I have not been to an actual appointment in roughly 5

maybe 7 years. I have had 2 emergencies.

I don't trust them to be mindful of me and alteration does seem like

a bad idea, there confidence is baloney(it's just not their body so

they are confident in themselves but using your body)

I echo Tom when I say I don't like this new medicine that seems

heartless and confident with our children

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/2007 6:26:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I agree that natural healing ought to be tried first, provided it is safe. It's what we all had to begin with and jumanity survived. However, the advantage to drugs and the like is that, with the ones that work, potency, and therefore effectiveness, has been increased, which I think has contributed much to our longer life spans.TomAdministrator

But here we have the quality of life issue. Yes, people are living longer, but often at the expense of loads of medicine with their side effects and all. Also there is surgery and an increasing probability of more serious disease. My family, for example, tends to live a long time, but not always in the best of health. My mother takes many pills every day. Several of her cousins and relations all also take lots of medicine. There isn't much in the way of direct relations left on the other side, but my father isn't in the best of shape and my uncle was in very bad shape before he died. Makes me wonder if dying young wouldn't be a bad thing.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/11/2007 2:52:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

"So what if I could wipe the anxiousness out of my system by getting "recoded" would I want that? Who would I be afterward, would I think or process differently or would I just be numb in certain areas? Would I cease to have the Mimi "experience" that I am having."Reading this brought to my mind the book 'Speed Of Dark' by Moon.http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Dark--Moon/dp/0345481399"From Publishers Weekly"If I had not been what I am, what would I have been?" wonders Lou Arrendale, the autistic hero of Moon's compelling exploration of the concept of "normalcy" and what might happen when medical science attains the knowledge to "cure" adult autism. Arrendale narrates most of this book in a poignant earnestness that verges on the philosophical and showcases Moon's gift for characterization. The occasional third-person interjections from supporting characters are almost intrusive, although they supply needed data regarding subplots.

That reminds me of a scene from the otherwise dismal Star Trek movie where they went to the center of the galaxy, following a Vulcan who could take away bad memories and pain. He showed Spock and McCoy their deepest and most painful regrets. He offered to show Kirk his and take away the pain, but Kirk said, roughly, "I need the pain, it is who I am." What he meant, I think, was that all of his memories, good and bad, are what make him what he is.

I watched the original Ghost in the Shell movie tonight on Sci-Fi. There was a scene in there where Motoko was talking to Batou on a boat. Motoko said that it was her thoughts and her experiences that made her her and unique in the world. The knowledge she learned she did so for her own purposes and to do with as she pleased. Too bad it followed the original manga very closely and she merged with that AI monstrosity. Hated the manga after that: too much like Childhood's End.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

" My family, for example, tends to live a long time, but not always

in the best of health. My mother takes many pills every day. Several

of her cousins and relations all also take lots of medicine. "

I don't think people realize how enslaved they are to pills. My

mother's pills tend to make her forgetful. So forgetful that

occassionally she forgets to take her pills. When that happens, her

memory returns, and she feels much better physically. Then she

remembers to take her pills and starts feeling miserable again, so

she goes to the doctor and he prescribes more pills.

If I try to talk to her about this I get told to shut up, so I no

longer talk to her about it.

She " needs " her pills, apparently. Let her have them. It's

punishment enough for not listening to me.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" So what if I could wipe the anxiousness out of my system by

getting " recoded " would I want that? Who would I be afterward, would

I think or process differently or would I just be numb in certain

areas? Would I cease to have the Mimi " experience " that I am having. "

Reading this brought to my mind the book 'Speed Of Dark' by

Moon.

http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Dark--Moon/dp/0345481399

" From Publishers Weekly

" If I had not been what I am, what would I have been? " wonders Lou

Arrendale, the autistic hero of Moon's compelling exploration of the

concept of " normalcy " and what might happen when medical science

attains the knowledge to " cure " adult autism. Arrendale narrates most

of this book in a poignant earnestness that verges on the

philosophical and showcases Moon's gift for characterization. The

occasional third-person interjections from supporting characters are

almost intrusive, although they supply needed data regarding

subplots. At 35, Arrendale is a bioinformatics specialist who has a

gift for pattern analysis and an ability to function well in

both " normal " and " autistic " worlds. When the pharmaceutical company

he works for recommends that all the autistic employees on staff

undergo an experimental procedure that will basically alter their

brains, his neatly ordered world shatters. All his life he has been

taught " act normal, and you will be normal enough " -something that has

enabled him to survive, but as he struggles to decide what to do, the

violent behavior of a " normal friend " puts him in danger and rocks

his faith in the normal world. He struggles to decide whether the

treatment will help or destroy his sense of self. Is autism a disease

or just another way of being? He is haunted by the " speed of dark " as

he proceeds with his mesmerizing quest for self- " Not knowing arrives

before knowing; the future arrives before the present. From this

moment, past and future are the same in different directions, but I

am going that way and not this way.... When I get there, the speed of

light and the speed of dark will be the same. " His decision will

touch even the most jaded " normal. "

Copyright 2002 Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to

an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. "

> >

> > Biotech has some pretty interesting implications. One is

hardiness.

> Alot of celiacs have died out and they're still dying undiagnosed.

> It's an interesting book: Dangerous Grains. It's about the impact

of

> peptides in the bloodstream. Many Northern Europeans' countries

> didn't have wheat 10,000 years ago and there's a high percentage of

> Celiac among these. Iv'e always had a side of me that's interested

in

> the biotech though. It seems that if people can have their brains

> working more efficiently and more mathematically there may be hope

> for life on Mars or somewhere else. Maybe the comp generation is

only

> the beginning of a math renaissance.

> >

> >

> I have actually been depressed about this for days. What is the

> allowable condition for altering a human. Can we control those

> alterations to be discreet or are we changing whom that person is

by

> altering their DNA. Are we correcting to save a life or for

> convience.

>

> I am in courses at college to be a Speech and Language

pathologist.

> I want to do this for my son, but I also want to do it for other

> children who think and process in a different way. (similar to

mine)

>

> This last week I have been increasingly anxious, feeling more alien

> and outcast " because I have to fit into a student setting " I can

be

> overly technical in a group especially if they are moving too slow

> for me. So I feel " left out " angry and frustrated, I have

> considered the disability office because I could take tests in a

room

> alone nad away from others. I feel that is impractical, because I

> woun't be able to do that if I work in a school. I have to find a

> way to cope; in order to teach effective coping to smaller people.

>

> So what if I could wipe the anxiousness out of my system by

> getting " recoded " would I want that? Who would I be afterward,

would

> I think or process differently or would I just be numb in certain

> areas? Would I cease to have the Mimi " experience " that I am

having.

>

> I feel the misuse of this technology is far weighter than it's

> usefulness. Could we recode for any annoyance. Why can't we

choose

> to help ourselves and find effective ways of coping. Do I believe

> life should be preserved: Yes! but should we recode for big boobs

or

> a better laugh: no! We are our experience, there are social ills

> that add or detract from that experience, we come close to mapping

> humanity and choosing for others? I don't want you to choose for

me

> and I do not want to rob you of your ability to choose. There are

> consequences for choice. I believe it would be an end to

meaningful

> experience and learning. I am frightened and dissipointed by the

> prospect. It seems to insult human exsistance, there has to be a

> more natural approach to healing and helping those in need.

>

> Maybe it is just me

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting point. We are as a nation better off without snakeoil salesman. We need more reality than blind hope in these salesmen. We'll have to start from the ground up eventually when it all comes crashing down. So strong is hope and that's why people still vote.environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: "Genetic manipulation is better than waiting 4 million years for nature to

do the job. Humanity is at such a turning point that we either do this and rely on the best minds or we fall back to darker times. We need people to be born with more intelligence,tendency to happiness and hearty genetics. It's okay to be concerned but, I'd rather be part of it and try to understand."The problem with these medical advances is that if we ever get to the point where we can augment ourselves for special purposes or for double or triple the lifespan that we have now, it is unlikely that we have the needed intelligence or discipline to deal with these advances in a thoughtful and mature manner.I would posit that the people who want immortality the most are the ones least deserving of it because they cannot see any joy in living in the present day with their present lifespans. Not knowing what the future holds, wouldn't they be depressed if things WORSTENED in the future instead of getting

better?Some would regard these people as optimists, but I see them as incredibly weak people who cannot survive in the present and so live in their dreams of the future.Scientists who hype up longevity are equally underserving of anything they aspire to attain. They tend to play on the emotions of these weaklings and that is where they get their funding from...so that they can then fund THEIR OWN longevity. TomAdministrator

Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Travel.