I'm aware of that.
I still do not see why cyborgs are the only way to leave the solar system.
They may represent the best way but the only one like is suggested?
I had asked the OP to provide a link but no response yet.
But the reasons are probably that too many unforeseen circumstances arise for robots to make all the necessary decisions alone (programming limitations), and for the case of humans it's because it simply isn't practical or safe (even in many terrestrial environments) to be subjected to hazardous situations unnecessarily, or to extreme conditions for extended durations....
So its not that humans could not do it but it does not make much sense to send humans. In other words: A cyborg is the better but not the only option.
Knowledge is a polite word for dead but not buried imagination. E. E. Cummings
Give everyone the benefit of the doubt
because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact. Erin from BigCloset-Topshelf?
Humans are so delicate and quite intolerant physically, thus requiring an intense control over their local environment. Our nearby space voyages are best described as incredibly lucky forays, despite the deaths to date. Our ground environment is quite cosmically rare/unique - a mere thin scum on a planet's rind - so we'd have to take a proxy of that with us.
Even allowing for that, it would be difficult to maintain a helpful genetic coherence over generations, for healthy lives. Any group under about 100 individuals, of however apparently diverse origin at the start, when inbred will rapidly produce individuals with many homozygous traits. This almost never produces a nett positive result for an individual's health. We would all become cousins after a few hand-fulls of generations.
It is heterozygosity that keeps most of us from touching the effects of at least the 'early lethal' genes in the pool, and most of those causing miscarriage. Most worrying are those mutations that diminish our DNA repair capacity, hence any buffering from an even higher rate of failure. Over human history that effect has been predominantly mitigated by physical migration and thus outbreeding, and also that a large enough population can sustain such losses without extinction. While space environments do ramp up the mutation rate, only a small fraction of those mutations will be unpenalised. This applies to the bio component of the cyborg too.
When the voyage arrives at the target system we will either be dead or barely resembling the founding members. This is the penalty for a short life/generation span compared to voyage duration. This implies that sufficient genetic understanding and control is crucial for that aspect of success.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) So Star Trek was right - it's life Jim, but not as we know it .... :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
While a lot of people are against it genetic manipulation will be our only hope even on earth. In the last 100 years we mostly eliminated natural selection by making it possible to keep nearly any child alive. (at least in 1st world countries)
The effect is aready visible in raising numbers of health issues.
Now we are on the brink of understanding our most basic programming language the DNA. If we could correct it if there was an error than the normal mutation would not be an issue. The question is just the ethecial one if we should use it. At least for now. I'm sure sooner or later we will have no choice. Also long before that some one will have done it for money.
Aging is just bodily controlled makeing compy mistakes that accumulate over time. The bible sais the first few generations lived a few hundert years to around 1000 years. I have no idea how much of the bible is fact and how much is fiction but I'm sure such live spans will be possible pretty soon. Maybe even for us already.
Still the question remains if generation ships make any sense in the first place. Time dilation helps the guys on board to stay alive but from our point of view thay still take ages.
Till they reach their destination its likely we will be able to "explore" that far from earth. Or they will be over taken by the next generation of ships.
If faster than light speed is possible than it would be a question of the technology only.
If light speed is the limit for any space travel then the available amount of energy would determine how close we can get to light speed. so the speed of later ships would still be faster.
So interstellar space travel makes only sense if it is for collinisation or after that trade.
Interplanetary space travel however is a totally different matter.
Knowledge is a polite word for dead but not buried imagination. E. E. Cummings
Give everyone the benefit of the doubt
because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact. Erin from BigCloset-Topshelf?
Now we are on the brink of understanding our most basic programming language the DNA. If we could correct it if there was an error than the normal mutation would not be an issue. The question is just the ethecial one if we should use it. At least for now. I'm sure sooner or later we will have no choice. Also long before that some one will have done it for money.
So...who decides what is an "error" and what is a "tolerable" mutation? Is being shy a genetic defect? Being autistic? Other things may not be declared errors, but maybe not "useful" or "in high demand" (we only "need" so many master violinists in a socienty), so maybe we can bring demand and supply in a balance?? Think about it: How many great minds and great personalities would have been optimized away like this because their DNA had "an error" according to what some people or even the majority may think? No, I don't subscribe to this.
Now we are on the brink of understanding our most basic programming language the DNA. If we could correct it if there was an error than the normal mutation would not be an issue. The question is just the ethecial one if we should use it. At least for now. I'm sure sooner or later we will have no choice. Also long before that some one will have done it for money.
So...who decides what is an "error" and what is a "tolerable" mutation? Is being shy a genetic defect? Being autistic? Other things may not be declared errors, but maybe not "useful" or "in high demand" (we only "need" so many master violinists in a socienty), so maybe we can bring demand and supply in a balance?? Think about it: How many great minds and great personalities would have been optimized away like this because their DNA had "an error" according to what some people or even the majority may think? No, I don't subscribe to this.
Isn't it a matter of survival and adaptability? If so, the following items would've been on my wish list had it been possible to ask me ahead of time which features and abilities I wanted:
> Wings
> Gills
> Eyes like an eagle
> Dog's sense of smell (and if possible regarding the personality, the dog's sense of loyalty)
> A second heart would be nice
> The ability to regrow severed limbs
> Photosynthetic ability (to metabolize energy from light and the minerals in drinking water)
> Warm and cold blooded, to not perish from hypothermia as well as being able to survive a deeper cryogenic stasis
> Physical coordination that would enable virtuosity with musical instruments with minimal practice, as well as Ninja-like reflexes, but all that's presumably included in the cerebellum that comes with the “Wings� option :))
> Last, but certainly not least, an elephant's mind (as in never forgets, or photographic memory)
While it's true enough that I can already have all those things with the right gear and some hard work, I can't help but wonder what things will become possible, or even necessary (as in being forced to live out in space if disaster strikes the planet or its habitability)...
I think I understand your reservations Bikeman, but I would never wish upon any soul the sufferings of e.g., Hellen Keller, just so I could find some inspiration in overcoming disability ~ what inspiring stories might she have told had she instead been born with wings? Although it wasn't a genetic defect in this example, the point is that it's most ethical to do everything possible to prevent such sufferings, and hence for some defects the only way to prevent them is to perform surgery on the genes, so to speak. I also couldn't think of another example that more aptly conveys the notion of a disability; it's being both blind and deaf to something, possibly many things. I'm guessing if you ask anyone with a disability if they would rather be able to live life with the full range of experiences and sensations, the answer would be yes is every case.
When it comes to neurological disorders, all I can say is that there's a dark side to ignorance known as consequences, usually not the least bit blissful, and a disability of the mind is then ignorance of being blind and deaf to something, possibly many things, to top it all off....
My reservations to the subscription are made moot by two things: 1) Faith in the scientific method and in those who carry that out, and 2) Rooted in religious doctrine, belief in abundant (rather than disabled) life...
My particular point was sufficient genetic understanding and control. I think a reasonable projection is that without intervention the trend for Genes In Space is downhill.
Control doesn't necessarily imply any activity beyond who breeds with who. This is a technique long used in many areas of agriculture, if nought beyond maintaining separate 'lines' which are then crossed back every so-many generations. This sort of thing, while genetically effective for some purpose, is unlikely to be welcomed by humans though. There will always be the Romeo wanting to cross the street for a Juliet.
Probably a better solution in that aspect, but much harder in practice, is to emigrate in really large numbers. That gets around the genetic 'pinching' of small groups, has terrific redundancy for tragedy/error/happenstance, and relieves the moral aspects of such urgency.
Mind you, we could also stay at home here on Earth and perhaps get on better with each other .....
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
actually, there does not seem to have been any mention of merging humans and robots in the conclusion, but does seem to be that a joint effort between humans and robots. the reference to cybernetics seems to have come from a comment by the reporter.
actually, there does not seem to have been any mention of merging humans and robots in the conclusion, but does seem to be that a joint effort between humans and robots. the reference to cybernetics seems to have come from a comment by the reporter.
The interface between human and machine will see most improvement from apparently just letting the brain adapt to the activity-specific exoskeletol apparatus. Seems to work fine with monkeys (see In Pioneering Study, Monkey Think, Robot Do, and note that this NY Times article is already five years old).
RE: I'm aware of that. I
)
I had asked the OP to provide a link but no response yet.
But the reasons are probably that too many unforeseen circumstances arise for robots to make all the necessary decisions alone (programming limitations), and for the case of humans it's because it simply isn't practical or safe (even in many terrestrial environments) to be subjected to hazardous situations unnecessarily, or to extreme conditions for extended durations....
So its not that humans could
)
So its not that humans could not do it but it does not make much sense to send humans. In other words: A cyborg is the better but not the only option.
Knowledge is a polite word for dead but not buried imagination.
E. E. Cummings
Give everyone the benefit of the doubt
because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Erin from BigCloset-Topshelf?
Humans are so delicate and
)
Humans are so delicate and quite intolerant physically, thus requiring an intense control over their local environment. Our nearby space voyages are best described as incredibly lucky forays, despite the deaths to date. Our ground environment is quite cosmically rare/unique - a mere thin scum on a planet's rind - so we'd have to take a proxy of that with us.
Even allowing for that, it would be difficult to maintain a helpful genetic coherence over generations, for healthy lives. Any group under about 100 individuals, of however apparently diverse origin at the start, when inbred will rapidly produce individuals with many homozygous traits. This almost never produces a nett positive result for an individual's health. We would all become cousins after a few hand-fulls of generations.
It is heterozygosity that keeps most of us from touching the effects of at least the 'early lethal' genes in the pool, and most of those causing miscarriage. Most worrying are those mutations that diminish our DNA repair capacity, hence any buffering from an even higher rate of failure. Over human history that effect has been predominantly mitigated by physical migration and thus outbreeding, and also that a large enough population can sustain such losses without extinction. While space environments do ramp up the mutation rate, only a small fraction of those mutations will be unpenalised. This applies to the bio component of the cyborg too.
When the voyage arrives at the target system we will either be dead or barely resembling the founding members. This is the penalty for a short life/generation span compared to voyage duration. This implies that sufficient genetic understanding and control is crucial for that aspect of success.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) So Star Trek was right - it's life Jim, but not as we know it .... :-)
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Well I agree
)
Well I agree mostly.
However you overlook one fact I believe.
While a lot of people are against it genetic manipulation will be our only hope even on earth. In the last 100 years we mostly eliminated natural selection by making it possible to keep nearly any child alive. (at least in 1st world countries)
The effect is aready visible in raising numbers of health issues.
Now we are on the brink of understanding our most basic programming language the DNA. If we could correct it if there was an error than the normal mutation would not be an issue. The question is just the ethecial one if we should use it. At least for now. I'm sure sooner or later we will have no choice. Also long before that some one will have done it for money.
Aging is just bodily controlled makeing compy mistakes that accumulate over time. The bible sais the first few generations lived a few hundert years to around 1000 years. I have no idea how much of the bible is fact and how much is fiction but I'm sure such live spans will be possible pretty soon. Maybe even for us already.
Still the question remains if generation ships make any sense in the first place. Time dilation helps the guys on board to stay alive but from our point of view thay still take ages.
Till they reach their destination its likely we will be able to "explore" that far from earth. Or they will be over taken by the next generation of ships.
If faster than light speed is possible than it would be a question of the technology only.
If light speed is the limit for any space travel then the available amount of energy would determine how close we can get to light speed. so the speed of later ships would still be faster.
So interstellar space travel makes only sense if it is for collinisation or after that trade.
Interplanetary space travel however is a totally different matter.
Knowledge is a polite word for dead but not buried imagination.
E. E. Cummings
Give everyone the benefit of the doubt
because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Erin from BigCloset-Topshelf?
RE: Now we are on the
)
So...who decides what is an "error" and what is a "tolerable" mutation? Is being shy a genetic defect? Being autistic? Other things may not be declared errors, but maybe not "useful" or "in high demand" (we only "need" so many master violinists in a socienty), so maybe we can bring demand and supply in a balance?? Think about it: How many great minds and great personalities would have been optimized away like this because their DNA had "an error" according to what some people or even the majority may think? No, I don't subscribe to this.
CU
Bikeman
RE: RE: Now we are on
)
Isn't it a matter of survival and adaptability? If so, the following items would've been on my wish list had it been possible to ask me ahead of time which features and abilities I wanted:
> Wings
> Gills
> Eyes like an eagle
> Dog's sense of smell (and if possible regarding the personality, the dog's sense of loyalty)
> A second heart would be nice
> The ability to regrow severed limbs
> Photosynthetic ability (to metabolize energy from light and the minerals in drinking water)
> Warm and cold blooded, to not perish from hypothermia as well as being able to survive a deeper cryogenic stasis
> Physical coordination that would enable virtuosity with musical instruments with minimal practice, as well as Ninja-like reflexes, but all that's presumably included in the cerebellum that comes with the “Wings� option :))
> Last, but certainly not least, an elephant's mind (as in never forgets, or photographic memory)
While it's true enough that I can already have all those things with the right gear and some hard work, I can't help but wonder what things will become possible, or even necessary (as in being forced to live out in space if disaster strikes the planet or its habitability)...
I think I understand your reservations Bikeman, but I would never wish upon any soul the sufferings of e.g., Hellen Keller, just so I could find some inspiration in overcoming disability ~ what inspiring stories might she have told had she instead been born with wings? Although it wasn't a genetic defect in this example, the point is that it's most ethical to do everything possible to prevent such sufferings, and hence for some defects the only way to prevent them is to perform surgery on the genes, so to speak. I also couldn't think of another example that more aptly conveys the notion of a disability; it's being both blind and deaf to something, possibly many things. I'm guessing if you ask anyone with a disability if they would rather be able to live life with the full range of experiences and sensations, the answer would be yes is every case.
When it comes to neurological disorders, all I can say is that there's a dark side to ignorance known as consequences, usually not the least bit blissful, and a disability of the mind is then ignorance of being blind and deaf to something, possibly many things, to top it all off....
My reservations to the subscription are made moot by two things: 1) Faith in the scientific method and in those who carry that out, and 2) Rooted in religious doctrine, belief in abundant (rather than disabled) life...
My particular point was
)
My particular point was sufficient genetic understanding and control. I think a reasonable projection is that without intervention the trend for Genes In Space is downhill.
Control doesn't necessarily imply any activity beyond who breeds with who. This is a technique long used in many areas of agriculture, if nought beyond maintaining separate 'lines' which are then crossed back every so-many generations. This sort of thing, while genetically effective for some purpose, is unlikely to be welcomed by humans though. There will always be the Romeo wanting to cross the street for a Juliet.
Probably a better solution in that aspect, but much harder in practice, is to emigrate in really large numbers. That gets around the genetic 'pinching' of small groups, has terrific redundancy for tragedy/error/happenstance, and relieves the moral aspects of such urgency.
Mind you, we could also stay at home here on Earth and perhaps get on better with each other .....
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
actually, there does not seem
)
actually, there does not seem to have been any mention of merging humans and robots in the conclusion, but does seem to be that a joint effort between humans and robots. the reference to cybernetics seems to have come from a comment by the reporter.
RE: actually, there does
)
Hi Obsidian, do you recall a link by any chance? Did you mean Cybernetics, or cybernetic organism?
The interface between human and machine will see most improvement from apparently just letting the brain adapt to the activity-specific exoskeletol apparatus. Seems to work fine with monkeys (see In Pioneering Study, Monkey Think, Robot Do, and note that this NY Times article is already five years old).
I wonder how invasive the implants are... :)