Danse is your Grandson

[Ekscalybur]

 

Right. In the same way as the computer my dad built is my brother :wink:

 

Y'know Gen 3 synths are mostly biologically human components, right?

 

 

 

Not mostly. The bodies are ENTIRELY human. They contain augmentations, but the bodies Gen 3s are running around in are 100% biological human. Genetically re-engineered copies of Shaun.

 

So, Danse and Curie's body aren't your grandkids. They are your son.

 

 

 

Fallout 4 suddenly becomes super creepy when you realize that 2 of your love interests are clones of your own son. This is some reverse kind of Oedipus kink.

[Athanasa]

Not mostly. The bodies are ENTIRELY human. They contain augmentations, but the bodies Gen 3s are running around in are 100% biological human. Genetically re-engineered copies of Shaun.

 

So, Danse and Curie's body aren't your grandkids. They are your son.

 

Fallout 4 suddenly becomes super creepy when you realize that 2 of your love interests are clones of your own son. This is some reverse kind of Oedipus kink.

 

Mostly your son? I imagine there's some gene edits in there for hair colours and whatnot... actually, is that about editing genes, or are the genes for that already in there? I guess it depends on your PC's ancestry, but let's say they have a bit of EVERYTHING in there. It's not like we have control on their background anyway, if the Lore says so. And it wouldn't be hard to believe that in 2070 there's enough travel in the world that your family tree has people from the 'major' visibly identifiable flavours of human... If that's the case, that would make any Synths, regardless of skin colour, 100% your son. Just with cherry picked DNA. Or daughter, if they glued together two X chromosomes. Except still your son, genetically. A female son.

 

... oh dear. I really, really hope Synths can't reproduce. Not that it makes it any better. I can't look at Danse-Husbando now.

[Moraelin]

 

 

Or if someone found a Kleenex full of my, *ahem* genetic material, nobody would say "oh, it has your DNA, coming from you, congrats, that mess is your son." Other than as a joke.

 

 

If someone donated sperm, you wouldn't call the sperm your son, but it could well result in hundreds of offspring if that sperm was used in say IVF. The resulting offspring would by any definition be considered your sons and daughters surely?

 

 

IF it were actually put up someone's lady parts, and grew from a zygote, sure. If it's just a machine that uses 3d printed tissue, I'm not sure, is what I was trying to say.

 

I already gave the example of machines that used tissue to produce insulin. Since Fallout's technology is stuck in the past, that would probably still be the only way anyone knows how to produce insulin. So anyway, let's say you have this machine that uses a culture of my cells -- 100% DNA originating from me -- to do a job. WTH is that to me in family relationship terms? My son? My clone? Or still just a machine? I'm voting for the last one, basically.

[Moraelin]

 

Not mostly. The bodies are ENTIRELY human. They contain augmentations, but the bodies Gen 3s are running around in are 100% biological human. Genetically re-engineered copies of Shaun.

 

So, Danse and Curie's body aren't your grandkids. They are your son.

 

Fallout 4 suddenly becomes super creepy when you realize that 2 of your love interests are clones of your own son. This is some reverse kind of Oedipus kink.

 

Mostly your son? I imagine there's some gene edits in there for hair colours and whatnot... actually, is that about editing genes, or are the genes for that already in there? I guess it depends on your PC's ancestry, but let's say they have a bit of EVERYTHING in there. It's not like we have control on their background anyway, if the Lore says so. And it wouldn't be hard to believe that in 2070 there's enough travel in the world that your family tree has people from the 'major' visibly identifiable flavours of human... If that's the case, that would make any Synths, regardless of skin colour, 100% your son. Just with cherry picked DNA. Or daughter, if they glued together two X chromosomes. Except still your son, genetically. A female son.

 

... oh dear. I really, really hope Synths can't reproduce. Not that it makes it any better. I can't look at Danse-Husbando now.

 

 

Nevertheless, genetics doesn't work like mixing dyes in a mixer to paint the wall. You don't have a mix of every single pigment you put in, in all quatities between 0% and 100%.

 

You get exactly two alleles for each gene, one from each parent. It doesn't matter how much they intermixed. You don't get 12.5% of celtic MC1R from that welsh great-grandfather, and 12.5% of Asian alleles for it from the hot Japanese girl she married, and 25% of African MC1R from your grandfather, and so on. It doesn't matter how much they travelled and intermixed. You get exactly two versions of that gene, one from each parent. Period.

 

So, no, they wouldn't have a gazillion different alleles for each locus from Shaun. It's not how biology works.

 

And some genes are recessive, so essentially you NEED the same version group from both parents for it to show up. If you have a ginger Shaun, there's no bloody way to have any black-skinned version of MC1R from him. It's that simple. It doesn't matter if his ancestors mixed with every single ethnic group on the planet, he just can't have those versions of the gene in him.

 

Other skin or hair combinations are basically a mix of recessive genes, and you'd need one of each to produce that combination. E.g., you can't have a strawberry haired kid unless he has the gene versions for blond and red hair, AND both versions of the eumelanin gene are the European-type brown eumelanin. Replace even one in there and you get chestnut, or auburn, or black hair.

 

And it doesn't even just matter which combination you made Shaun. If that were the case, sure, I could accept that you made a canonical Shaun that has just the right genetic mix to explain it all. But it's a matter of the other synths too. No matter what combination of skin and hair you made Shaun, there will be enough synths in the game that just can't come 100% from his genes.

 

Someone HAD to edit some genes or possibly replace them with undamaged versions from the other researchers.

[Athanasa]

IF it were actually put up someone's lady parts, and grew from a zygote, sure. If it's just a machine that uses 3d printed tissue, I'm not sure, is what I was trying to say.

 

What if it's not put up her lady parts, but fertilized in a petri dish then put into her womb? What if it never goes into a womb, but is grown via an artificial placenta in some weird sci-fi tube?

 

 

I already gave the example of machines that used tissue to produce insulin. Since Fallout's technology is stuck in the past, that would probably still be the only way anyone knows how to produce insulin. So anyway, let's say you have this machine that uses a culture of my cells -- 100% DNA originating from me -- to do a job. WTH is that to me in family relationship terms? My son? My clone? Or still just a machine? I'm voting for the last one, basically.

 

It does not feel pain. It is not biologically a human. It may be PARTS, but it is not a living organism.

 

Besides, technology stuck in the past? Have you actually SEEN how Gen 3 synths are made? Here, have a link. 3D printed bits of body, stuck into some sci-fi mush... however, what comes out is undeniably a living organism.

 

Synths feel pain. Synths think. Synths are capable of independent thought. By my definition, they are not machines. They are living organisms. But they are also (in my view) not true humans, due to missing the entire development from a foetus thing. But that's my definition, and I'm not sure the Real World has actually addressed an issue remotely similar to this - clones don't count, as they still GROW from gametes. Synths... don't seem to, not in the same way. Although I imagine there's stem cells everywhere.

 

Regardless, Gen 3 Synths are genetically your descendant. Whether you chose to ACKNOWLEDGE that as your "son" in a semantic sense is your choice, but you cannot deny the genetic link.

 

 

You get exactly two alleles for each gene, one from each parent. It doesn't matter how much they intermixed. You don't get 12.5% of celtic MC1R from that welsh great-grandfather, and 12.5% of Asian alleles for it from the hot Japanese girl she married, and 25% of African MC1R from your grandfather, and so on. It doesn't matter how much they travelled and intermixed. You get exactly two versions of that gene, one from each parent. Period.

 

Someone HAD to edit some genes or possibly replace them with undamaged versions from the other researchers.

That would make them further from your Son, but still closer than a grandchild. There's a lot more to genetics than outward physical appearance. Also, you are incorrect. Genes can lie dormant. Just because they are not active in you does not mean they are can't be inherited by your descendants and become active.

 

Following your logic, there is no way two blue-eyed parents could have brown-eyed children. Or, in this example, according to you it is impossible for black parents to have white children.

 

Just because genes aren't active doesn't mean they aren't there. Sperm and egg cells aren't all identical to each other, otherwise all siblings would look identical to each other.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Athanasa

[Moraelin]

What if it's not put up her lady parts, but fertilized in a petri dish then put into her womb? What if it never goes into a womb, but is grown via an artificial placenta in some weird sci-fi tube?

 

Being grown naturally from a zygote is still not the same as assembling a bunch of 3d-printed tissue parts.

 

 

 

It does not feel pain. It is not biologically a human. It may be PARTS, but it is not a living organism.

 

I also gave the example of using some grown brain tissue to drive a toy car. It's something that's already been done, you know? You could conceivably wire some of the inputs as pain receptors, if you were studying that. So what? It's still a machine. You could probably add some muscle fibers to steer the wheels or whatnot. Does it make it my descendant?

 

 

 

Synths feel pain. Synths think. Synths are capable of independent thought. By my definition, they are not machines. They are living organisms. But they are also (in my view) not true humans, due to missing the entire development from a foetus thing. But that's my definition, and I'm not sure the Real World has actually addressed an issue remotely similar to this - clones don't count, as they still GROW from gametes. Synths... don't seem to, not in the same way. Although I imagine there's stem cells everywhere.

 

I'll even grant that it might be a sentient machine. No shortage of those in SF, after all. Hell, there's a whole trope about basically every program becoming sentient if left alone long enough.

 

I mean, even in the game, Codsworth certainly seems self-aware and has some emotions that don't seem to be a part of the original programming. And he seems capable to distrust you, be disappointed in your actions, have empathy for other robots (e.g., he dislikes if you ask for more caps from overseer Greene), etc. Is he a sentient machine by now? I have no problem with that. Hell, I don't even have a problem with giving him human rights.

 

But that doesn't make him BE a human, nor a descendant of anyone.

 

Or take KLEO. She certainly seems to have trancended her programming, and most certainly seems self-aware and capable of her own decisions that none of the programmers anticipated, much less put there. Is she a human? Or still a sentient robot?

 

 

 

Regardless, Gen 3 Synths are genetically your descendant. Whether you chose to ACKNOWLEDGE that as your "son" in a semantic sense is your choice, but you cannot deny the genetic link.

 

Well, you know, "semantics" are a matter of MEANING. So I never understood the objection that basically, it's just semantics. Seems to me like a defense of talking nonsense, if semantics are dismissed as not mattering.

 

That said, I'm not denying the genetic link. What I'm denying is that using some manufactured tissue to build a machine -- even a biological, and even a sentient machine -- makes said machine my son or grandson, other than in a metaphoric sense.

[Athanasa]

That said, I'm not denying the genetic link. What I'm denying is that using some manufactured tissue to build a machine -- even a biological, and even a sentient machine -- makes said machine my son or grandson, other than in a metaphoric sense.

 

Right. So we're actually in agreement there. However, my choice of words for the title was carefully thought out: clickbait, which worked. And also because the thread would get entirely the wrong feel if I made the title, "SEX WITH SYNTHS IS INCEST". Better to let people come to that conclusion themselves.

 

BIOLOGICALLY a synth is pretty much your son on a genetic level. Now, I grant that - from your definition - the synth is not 'your son' in the emotional sense. They are... well, not your son, but not your grandson either (too close genetically for that). They are, however, your descendant.

 

And frankly, how interesting would a thread title be if it was, "Synths are biologically your descendants but we don't actually have a strictly existing word for it yet but sleeping with Danse or Curie is pretty much incest due to how much DNA they share with you as Shaun's parent and it's really creepy"?

 

 

However...

 

son

[suhn]

noun

1. a male child or person in relation to his parents.
2. a male child or person adopted as a son; a person in the legal position of a son.
3. a male offspring of an animal.

 

It does not explicitly SAY that it applies to clones. Burden of proof and all that nonsense. But seriously, we have no words for this situation yet. Mostly because humanity hasn't run into that issue yet. If human clones become an issue, the semantics regarding it will be sorted out.

 

If you had a son who died from a genetic defect, and you chose to clone him while using gene manipulation to remove that defect, would the result still be your son? At this point, the definition is not one of genetics but of emotion.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Athanasa

[Aintiarna]

You know how in movies when people discover their "real" parents, and by that I mean their genetic parents in some kind of adoption or abandoned at birth story, they usually need some kind of convincing. Well, in real life it's not really like that. Most people recognise their genetic relations without needing to be told because of phenotypic resemblance. Obviously when you're dealing with actors, it's hard to achieve that resemblance. Anyway, if they hadn't altered the DNA of the synths that codes for appearance such that they all looked like Shaun and the PC, I wonder if people would feel differently about those filial bonds. In real life, I imagine meeting a synth that looked like you would be a very different experience than one that looked completely different, regardless of how they were made. Or what about if they were genetically identical in every way, except the opposite gender? Interesting.

Edited December 27, 2015 by tirnoney

[Athanasa]

Or what about if they were genetically identical in every way, except the opposite gender? Interesting.

Someone, somewhere, faps to that.

[Moraelin]

@Athanasa

Well, basically that's what I'm trying to say too: "seriously, we have no words for this situation yet." I'm sure it will get sorted when it becomes an issue, but right now it hasn't, so it seems to me like you can't just postulate that it does apply. You're certainly within your rights to choose to extend the meaning that way, as long as it's for yourself. But, since it hasn't been really settled, I can also choose not to extend the meaning that way.

 

That is really all we're debating, really.

 

That said, yes, I'll grant that it's an emotional issue. In fact, it's pretty obvious that Beth was going for anvillicious emotional impact. Not trying to minimize that, but, well, if we're trying to figure out semantics, we kinda need to take a sidestep into the domain of cold logic.

 

Or you could just enjoy the emotional aspect whether or not everyone else agrees to a word definition.