Artificial Life - amazing breakthrough or one step too far?

[Rich Boy Rob]

Now, why's it bad? What you are speaking of is creating slave clones, and we as human beings have absolutely no right to do that. Not only would that be, I repeat, slavery, but it would violate the value of human life to the point your average dollar would be worth more. That's your life you're making worth the dirt on someone's shoes. Not only that, but my life too! Now I ask you, who has the right to do something like that? You? A scientist? How about, nobody short of absolutely everyone including the clones themselves.

It's a sick and horrible thing to do, morally.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about creating a life form perfectly evolved (in a very loose sense of the word) for say; mining. For example it could have natural abilities such as being able to survive underground with relative ease and able to construct large burrows, maybe it could have reinforced fore-limbs (arms) to break apart rocks.
Now I'm not saying creating a perfect war machine is right (let alone possible, seeing as it would become a stalemate once both sides acquired the the technology, thus creating a never-ending war), but it would hardly de-value human life as you were insinuating.

EDIT:

edit I would also like everyone to consider the fact that physicists are the ones who are more likely to end the world than biologists. Chemists too, to a different degree.

I'm curious, how? o.O

I think he's on about stuff like the 'Large Hadron Collider' which, when activated had a 1/50000000000 chance of creating a black hole. (Just so you know, I'm not 100% sure if that probability is correct, but I know it was somewhere in that sort of region)

 

[Tinhead Bruce]

It's a sick and horrible thing to do, morally.

As I've been trying to explain, not everyone has the same morals. Morals as defined by society or religion, or anything really, aren't necessarily the right morals. Even if every single person on the planet recognizes something as immoral, does it make it absolutely (this is the right word, but I feel like the true meaning has been lost in the constant use to describe something, sort of like how the meaning of awesome has been considerably watered-down) immoral? No. Right and wrong can never truly exist as facts since they are subjective. Humans are naturally a social species, and have evolved to work together to build civilizations rather than simply fight for dominance (they do this as well, but not only this). Most other animals will kill each other for territory, or for a mate, or for many other things. Is it moral? Is it immoral? No, it just is. Now of course, other animals don't think in same way we do, so I can't really say that my argument is infallible, but that doesn't mean my point isn't valid.

Morality and immortality cannot be defined as black and white if there are exceptions. Murder is immoral, as most/all of society agrees. Except if it's in self-defense, is it immoral? Some would say it is, some would say it's not. If something can only be placed under two headings, moral and immoral, then it can't really have exceptions then, can it? So murder can't really be absolutely immoral or absolutely moral. It's non-existent on a universal morality scale. Everyone decides the limitations of its morality.

The human race is an incredibly intelligent species, but we're also an incredibly arrogant species. We tend to think that we're right about things like morals. And we tend to think we're better than other animals because we have better cognitive reasoning skills. But does thinking something automatically make it right? No.


These thoughts are jumbled, and some many not make perfect sense, but hopefully you guys can understand what I'm trying to say. So I guess in a way, the tl;dr is:

Do I have my own set of morals? Yes. Do I believe that there is such thing as absolute right and wrong? No.

 

[Dawn]

Given your argument I don't see how there's any room to argue back. =/ Tossing morals out is.. yeah.

 

[Åzurε]

As for the whole "playing God" thing, assuming God is real, ask yourself, would he have allowed this opportunity if he didn't like it?

The concept and act of sinning, QED.

Still don't see a big fat hairy problem with the article this thread was inspired by.

 

[SIN1488]

I think he's on about stuff like the 'Large Hadron Collider' which, when activated had a 1/50000000000 chance of creating a black hole. (Just so you know, I'm not 100% sure if that probability is correct, but I know it was somewhere in that sort of region)

I have heard of this, though I'm not sure what the chances are either. I do know that the scientists claimed it would be so weak it would collapse under it's own gravity, but I don't really like the idea of any black hole being on the planet. It just doesn't sound like it could be any good for us.... Although if it did happen and it collapsed under it's own gravity, at least we probably would have gathered a bunch of data on it, and there is a lot we don't know about black holes.

Oh, and I didn't bother to quote the person, but someone said something about how with this technology we could make life to harvest organs from. Well that's the good part, we don't actually have to make a living being as a whole to have new organs, as scientists have been figuring out ways to make organs themselves. Sounds pretty awesome, although also pretty Sci-Fi. :D

Speaking of which, there seem to be a lot of people saying that this stuff is nothing like in the movies or whatever, well a lot of technology we have now was thought up many years ago by people who wrote Sci-Fi, and back then people thought it could never be real. So almost all "impossibilities" might be possibilities some day.

 

[TheUltimateSacrifice]

When did Pseudo-Intellect Incorporated release their 3000 model, and why was I not informed?

 

[Nina]

What you speak of will never happen. The technology you're looking at is not even creating cells from scratch. This 'discovery' is basically a very misleading fraud, from what I'm seeing. That means it's 9001 miles away from anything that could lead to what you're imagining.

Just because you're 9001 miles away from something and taking one step at a time doesn't mean you won't eventually get there. You may take some wrong "paths" during the journey, but this is heading in the general direction.

I do not like how you keep saying things can never, or cannot happen.

From the article you linked.
"Nurse, Venter's rival in many ways, believes creating an entirely new cell from scratch, though theoretically possible, would require a level of technology likely to be reached "long after we are dead""

Just because it'll happen when we are dead doesn't mean it won't happen. It's not that we can't do it, we just haven't figured it out yet.



So, my thoughts?
So far what this world has taught me with science is that anything is possible, its just how long it will be before we figure out, and some one is always going to do it.
It will be done, no matter what we feel about it. It may be done by the government, it may be done by some crack underground scientist.

Since its going to be done, might as well try to do it as controlled as possible.
Everything has it's pros and cons.
A pencil is an excellent tool and it's actually something we have a hard time in modern society living without, (until we finally do get completely computerized) but I can always stab you in the eye with it.
:) Should we get rid of this useful tool because it has the capacity for harm?
(Yes, stabbing someone and making life are two different things but I'm just trying to make make my point clearer.)

 

[Red1530]

The Catholic Church issued a statement that this development is positive if used correctly. I think anyone investigating artificial life should read Frankenstein.

 

[Gymnotide]

I'm curious, how? o.O

Physicists play with the very fabric of reality and chemists play with substances much more dangerous than a mere bacterium. Now, I'm not saying that physics / chemistry is terrible and bad and that the aim of physics / chemistry as a whole is to try to end the world, but rather that there are aspects of them that are potentially more dangerous than biological sciences. I also agree that all three sciences are completely necessary, though sometimes it is risky behavior to delve into the studies of things that could potentially end our civilization completely -- examples include stuff like anthrax and the aforementioned Hadron Collider.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that the named sciences will end the world, but they are more likely to end the world than biology. If say a biologist creates a highly resistant strand of bacteria or virus through genetic engineering, it may spread rampantly across the Earth and may bring the end of the human population. However, it's much more likely that a group of people / animals who are resistant to the new pathogen are able to withstand it, and society restarts; or that the pathogen spreads to its fullest extent and then dies off because it lacks targets. In addition, biological mechanisms are much less likely to kill off the entire Earth due to specificity issues, etc. and the means of transfer, sustainability, wide variation, and other things. By contrast, if say, a black hole is generated on the surface of the Earth, the planet would be sundered and any life on it would be taken in with it. Or even, say humans were experimenting with fusion reactions and the model was said to be perfect, generators spread worldwide as a new power source, but then an intrinsic error was detected far too late and the world is destroyed in the over-release of energy. Even now, fission reactions are dangerous enough, but they're also one of our best sources of energy. As for chemists, they're the ones who harness toxins, poisons, chemicals in bombs, chlorofluorocarbons, etc. They're the ones who invented and mass-produced the materials found in pollutants. Which group of scientists is more dangerous now?

Again, I repeat that I'm not against any of the sciences because each has its own role in developing and prolonging the human race, as well as the Earth itself, and each is necessary, especially when you look at the fact that many ideas in chemistry relate to physics, biology to chemistry, etc.

 

[Dawn]

Just because you're 9001 miles away from something and taking one step at a time doesn't mean you won't eventually get there. You may take some wrong "paths" during the journey, but this is heading in the general direction.

I do not like how you keep saying things can never, or cannot happen.

From the article you linked.
"Nurse, Venter's rival in many ways, believes creating an entirely new cell from scratch, though theoretically possible, would require a level of technology likely to be reached "long after we are dead""

Just because it'll happen when we are dead doesn't mean it won't happen. It's not that we can't do it, we just haven't figured it out yet.



So, my thoughts?
So far what this world has taught me with science is that anything is possible, its just how long it will be before we figure out, and some one is always going to do it.
It will be done, no matter what we feel about it. It may be done by the government, it may be done by some crack underground scientist.

Since its going to be done, might as well try to do it as controlled as possible.
Everything has it's pros and cons.
A pencil is an excellent tool and it's actually something we have a hard time in modern society living without, (until we finally do get completely computerized) but I can always stab you in the eye with it.
:) Should we get rid of this useful tool because it has the capacity for harm?
(Yes, stabbing someone and making life are two different things but I'm just trying to make make my point clearer.)

...Optimistic, but you place your faith in the wrong area. Science will probably never give us that technology, simply because it's a fantastic idea. And I mean that in the BAD way. The "it's fantasy" way. Life doesn't work that way.

So, uh, sorry to break this to you, but if you don't want to hear what can't be done you want anarchy, not science.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

...Optimistic, but you place your faith in the wrong area. Science will probably never give us that technology, simply because it's a fantastic idea. And I mean that in the BAD way. The "it's fantasy" way. Life doesn't work that way.

So, uh, sorry to break this to you, but if you don't want to hear what can't be done you want anarchy, not science.

I'm pretty sure if you tried to convince Copernicus that one day there would be portable devices that allowed instant verbal communication from one side of the planet to the other, he would have said that it was impossible and is "fantasy". You have no idea what could be invented in the next 1000 years. Especially considering what has been in the last 200.

 

[Fox♠]

When did Pseudo-Intellect Incorporated release their 3000 model, and why was I not informed?

They sent your memo with mine by mistake. Darn postal strikes eh? Anyway, I'll bring it with me to our next westernised victory against the growing threat.

 

[Dawn]

I'm pretty sure if you tried to convince Copernicus that one day there would be portable devices that allowed instant verbal communication from one side of the planet to the other, he would have said that it was impossible and is "fantasy". You have no idea what could be invented in the next 1000 years. Especially considering what has been in the last 200.

Oooh~ The anything can happen argument.

Well good job sir, of course there's nothing more to be said here, except that if you insist on defying the limitations of the world as we know it in what you believe is possible...

Good luck to ye'

 

[Fox♠]

Oooh~ The anything can happen argument.

Well good job sir, of course there's nothing more to be said here, except that if you insist on defying the limitations of the world as we know it in what you believe is possible...

Good luck to ye'

Even though your argument about headshots consisted of "nothing is a 0% chance" which is also the anything argument. You should probably stop getting yourself into fights that you hold no ground in.

 

[Tinhead Bruce]

...Optimistic, but you place your faith in the wrong area. Science will probably never give us that technology, simply because it's a fantastic idea. And I mean that in the BAD way. The "it's fantasy" way. Life doesn't work that way.

So, uh, sorry to break this to you, but if you don't want to hear what can't be done you want anarchy, not science.

Oooohhhhh, trying to paint him as anarchist whose posts hold no water. Nice one! Except anarchy is nothing (I figured all three were in order) like the science that he's describing. Your tactics to discredit someone with a legitimate view are incredibly transparent.

Oooh~ The anything can happen argument.

Well good job sir, of course there's nothing more to be said here, except that if you insist on defying the limitations of the world as we know it in what you believe is possible...

Good luck to ye'

...I'm sure many people in ancient times also thought that being able to communicate instantly with people across the world through invisible waves that travel incredibly fast was defying the limitations of the world.

But it's not like we can do that, right? Psh, someone must be a heathen to believe in such blasphemous magical ideas (oh ho ho, I'm trying to discredit your argument by bringing up a completely unrelated subject. Never seen that before).

 

[Dawn]

Oooohhhhh, trying to paint him as anarchist whose posts hold no water. Nice one! Except anarchy is nothing (I figured all three were in order) like the science that he's describing. Your tactics to discredit someone with a legitimate view are incredibly transparent.

...I'm sure many people in ancient times also thought that being able to communicate instantly with people across the world through invisible waves that travel incredibly fast was defying the limitations of the world.

But it's not like we can do that, right? Psh, someone must be a heathen to believe in such blasphemous magical ideas (oh ho ho, I'm trying to discredit your argument by bringing up a completely unrelated subject. Never seen that before).

Oh, so now it's attack me to prove you're right.
Whatever, I won't be a part of that. Cya.

 

[Gymnotide]

While you probably won't have me, the chances of humankind successfully creating a cell is certainly nonzero, but it's currently really bleak if you're counting on a surefire model. First off, there needs to be a way to synthesize and mass-produce biological substances at a small scale (we're not talking ethanol or glucose here -- we're talking about full-on lipoproteins and cytoplasm. To make those things, you need to be able to actually peer into molecular structure itself and magnify it much past our current, and possibly future limitations. We would need to create molecules that can't be synthesized through chemical reaction alone, like complex proteins), then a method of assembly (we need to essentially weld many molecules together, but make sure they're in the right place, which is near impossible since they'll be moving all over the place.), a system to keep the biochemicals from dissociating (since you can't physically start with a fully-closed membrane, it's more than likely that the cells lyse and turn into mush. You could start with an empty plasma membrane, but then the organelles and cytoplasm have no real way of entry), and the speed so that the bacterium in question doesn't die off by eating itself. Then there's the fact that mitochondria and chloroplasts should really be considered their own cells, and therefore you need to work even harder to magnify the area.

While this part of the cell generation process is relatively easy, the next part leaves it all up to chance. You could argue that humankind is on the verge, or at some climbable distance away from the aforementioned goal, but it's unlikely that we will discover the secrets in the human era. That is, it's more likely we die off before we finish our research.

Then if we do develop this technology, we have to either (1) chemically induce life or (2) pray that life can be sustained by the cell once it is "started up." For the first one, since molecular biochemistry is based on chemical movement, bioreceptors, and an internal system of registry / reaction, there is really little chance that everything will work out. Somehow we need to stimulate the cell to create biomessengers and actually use them. If we can't sustain even simple biological functions, then we can't make life. Since it's dangerous to start out with food (adding substances like glucose to a cell's environment makes the liquid hypertonic, so water osmoses out of the cells and it shrivels up), scientists would also be faced with the challenge of keeping a cell out of food long enough to kick-start its life cycle. Then, they would somehow need to incorporate food and hope that the cell can process it. Then a large amount of solvent needs to be added to the solution, since cells can only replicate with enough raw materials around it. If that doesn't kill the cell, another round of chance needs to be played to see if the cell is capable of fertility at all, which is also unlikely because the cell has probably died (it has already missed many of its cell cycle areas, and all the sugar going into it is converted to ATP, making the cell super-concentrated -- water osmoses into the cell and it bursts). Then, if that wasn't enough, we have to leave it to chance that the cell can sustain its own life without intervention.

Moreover, sure the chance of creating a cell is nonzero, but since we have to have such advanced technology that humankind will probably never have, and since we have to leave many factors in creating a cell up to chance, it is improbable that a cell could be successfully generated. We're also talking about a single cell here. It will be several hundred years afterward before we can create larger-scale animals, which is an even trickier process by itself.

 

[SIN1488]

While you probably won't have me, the chances of humankind successfully creating a cell is certainly nonzero, but it's currently really bleak if you're counting on a surefire model. First off, there needs to be a way to synthesize and mass-produce biological substances at a small scale (we're not talking ethanol or glucose here -- we're talking about full-on lipoproteins and cytoplasm. To make those things, you need to be able to actually peer into molecular structure itself and magnify it much past our current, and possibly future limitations. We would need to create molecules that can't be synthesized through chemical reaction alone, like complex proteins), then a method of assembly (we need to essentially weld many molecules together, but make sure they're in the right place, which is near impossible since they'll be moving all over the place.), a system to keep the biochemicals from dissociating (since you can't physically start with a fully-closed membrane, it's more than likely that the cells lyse and turn into mush. You could start with an empty plasma membrane, but then the organelles and cytoplasm have no real way of entry), and the speed so that the bacterium in question doesn't die off by eating itself. Then there's the fact that mitochondria and chloroplasts should really be considered their own cells, and therefore you need to work even harder to magnify the area.

I'm not sure if this would help on the building part, but it might if they developed it further. Some scientists put magnets in certain single-celled organisms, and actually built a small (But crappy) pyramid with them. It's not exactly nanites, but it could lead to technology like that.

If nothing else, it's interesting.

 

[Alkaide]

I feel that man is moving towards success since a long time, so, steps are to be taken against the dread of things like pollution, so I think that it's a good thing.

 

[Gymnotide]

I'd like to both bump this thread, as well as rescind my previous sentiments with this video:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/01.html

It's very relevant and we're getting pretty close, it seems... Though, what I was most concerned about was creating a living being from single atoms, which it doesn't seem like anyone else was talking about anywho. If we're talking about pre-existing materials, then sure we can do it.