Monolithic0117

Banning MHM because I haven't banned him yet.

Banning brophy for having an avatar of Scar.

Banning ytsejam because I haven't banned him for a long, long time.

Site.

Hmmm. From friends, I got a bunch of things. Let's see -- Absolute Death, A Drifting Life, District 9 on Bluray, Wolf Hall, an ABSOLUT Christmas pack, a bottle of Remy Martin, among other things.

Your sig is too I'll just parse that as "sig". ------------- Signature.

Banning Derkins because I haven't posted here in one or two days.

Banning shadow for not posting so much.

Perhaps you could, however, in order to do that, you would have to bypass the complications of language and numbers. 2+2 alone is meaningless without the numbers to express it. In order to accomplish what you are saying, you would in all likelihood have to modify the brain. Are we not speaking about genetic engineering? Perhaps I was too vague... As I said before, you cannot encode concepts such as language and mathematical objects into genes. It is not so simple as to just engineer a response to a question such as 2+2 or "what is the color of a banana" into the genes. To express these questions, you require the concepts of language and mathematics (e.g. numbers), which are handled in areas of the brain.

Perhaps you could, however, in order to do that, you would have to bypass the complications of language and numbers. 2+2 alone is meaningless without the numbers to express it. In order to accomplish what you are saying, you would in all likelihood have to modify the brain.

Genetic memory is a controversial issue. Knowledge on the subject is very cloudy, and delving into it you would have to bypass the unwieldy matters of Lamarckism, Darwinism, Lysenko-Michurinism, the whole lot. Now, scientists have just begun analyzing this subject. The knowledge learned so far indicates that genetic characteristics just encode a disposition to react in certain ways to environmental catalysts, and not actual memory/experience, which is what this application would imply.

False.

Banning shadow for having a sig with two links.

Rambo.

Banning Derkins for having a bad opinion of his work day.

Banning shadow for having a link in his sig.

First of all - you've ignored half of my statement. You're focusing on the capability of performing video game tasks in reality, when I've stated that even if you are capable of doing such a task in reality, it is not necessarily acceptable by any standard. Now let's take a look at this "games aren't fiction" business using a simple explanation... Video games are an established form of fiction. 95% of video games out there are fiction. It doesn't matter what degree you've learned from something, it can still be fictitious. Just because some task in a game can also be performed in reality, it does not make the game non-fictitious. Let's take a look at one of the many definitions of fiction: Now let's take a look at a definition of non-fiction: Now let's take a look at the definition of fact: Now let's compare these to a game - Left 4 Dead, for example. The first few moments into the game, it becomes clear that the game is fictitious - the concept of zombies is not fact, it is fiction. The concept of a zombie apocalypse is not fact, it is fiction. Zombies do not exist in reality and are not scientifically viable. The story is not based on any facts. I could take this definition and apply it to most games, the same results. I also realize we are going off-topic...

Uh, games are fiction... Anyway, it's not a question of your capability, but of the view that society casts upon "it". If you went out and punched someone in the face, do you think it would be acceptable, morally or authoritatively?

Actually, it is the one where the It would be best if you wrap spoiler-containing statements in spoiler tags, as well, for those who haven't read the book.

It's not the issue of what you can see in games that you can't see in real life, but the issue of what you can do in games that you can't do in real life. It's the issue of how those things you see in games affect how you see the world and its properties and inhabitants.

That's a tired old argument you're presenting. It's very easy to look at something; some new technology, and pass it off by saying that mankind is too "irresponsible and immature" to use it competently. The difficult thing to do is to allow the furthering of ourselves - humankind will not advance in maturity and responsibility if we stick to the same routine we've kept for all time. Let me put it this way - it's like an authority declaring that a man who has never used a gun before, but has the physical capacity to; cannot handle a gun, so he is prohibited to utilize one. Well, of course he can't employ a gun, he's never used one before! But if he is given the tools to learn - there is a good chance that he will eventually understand how to handle the firearm competently. Synthetic biology represents a major, critical step forwards for us - a step towards understanding life and ourselves. Do you not think that the risks taken would be worth it? &kungfubellydancer: The barrier presented by ethical issues is debatable, but I can assure you that the capability for construction of full-scale, highly complex creatures, such as animals, or even the cloning of humans, is far, far away.

During the past few years, the area of synthetic biology (we'll call it synbio), and with it, synthetic organisms; man-made organisms, has grown more prominent. The point of this topic isn't to discuss the process of creating these organisms, so I'll provide them in layman's terms - the process involves fabricating genetic sequences; genomes, then transplanting them into existing cells. These cells will transform, adhering to the created genetic code. The genome on its own is not alive, but insertion into a cell would produce artificial life. Now, artificial life is a profound word, bearing with it a veritable plethora of controversial issues with it, but from that fount, that single micro-organism created by the insertion of a simple genome into a single cell, will spring a bounty of potent possibilities. First of all, one of the major advantages of synbio is the control it allows. By creating the organism, you can modify the genome to any extent you wish, to minimize instable, unnecessary elements and maximize beneficial elements. Using this approach, organisms would be reduced to building blocks, basically. There would be no unnecessary genetic variation and the resulting organisms would not adapt to conditions that we would not wish them to. To eliminate the risk of the organism escaping confinement and causing unwanted changes, a reliance on a certain material administered by the users would be engineered, for example. For example, the prominent dilemma of fuel production could be solved. In theory, it would be possible to manufacture biofuels on a large scale, replacing the current, expiring fuels. The already existing of harvesting algae in bioreactors to produce biodiesel fuel is very similar to this, although the former approach would eliminate the problem of amassing enough biomass energy. Another application would be to detect and reduce pollutants in the environment. Micro-organisms would be engineered specifically for this purpose. This would aid the increasingly industrial world we live in, with its many harmful pollutants. Other applications would include producing more efficient, stable products such as therapeutic substances or biochemicals, or even spider silk as an industrial material. These products would produce minimal waste and maximum efficiency, due to the complete control allowed by synbio. You could even produce nutritious, safe food very cheaply using synbio, providing developing countries such as Africa with food to feed the millions of hungry. Now, you could go on and on with the applications, but synbio has its complications. The risk of biosecurity and biosafety, for example. What's to stop a malicious actor to engineer a malign virus? What problems could terrorism present? What protocols, research guidelines, etc. would we attach to synbio work? How would we enforce these? As well as the societal and ethical issues. How would you go about communicating the basics and ramifications of synbio to the public? As I see it, synbio is an opportunity to gain comprehension and power over life - a large step closer to understanding life itself. Its massive potential and limitless applications - some that could avert crises. Ignoring this opportunity would be ludicrous and possibly dangerous - why turn down the chance to rectify some real problems in the world? The potential far outweighs the risk. I'd like to hear your ideas and opinions about this.

Banning brophy because its virtually impossible that you go through life without saying "what" in any language, in some way or another.

I think it's safe to assume that MC will once again be the protagonist.

Banning Pronam because I see that the "M" in his avatar is more in-focus and sharper than the rest of the letters - is that on purpose?