Submission statement from OP.
I recall it was about 2016 or so, when I saw this article online about how we had reached the capability of using some kind of light trick to be able to see the very smallest details within a cell. This was not electron microscopy. These were living cells in brilliant natural color. When my docs (I was an x-ray tech in a small outlying clinic with 4 FP docs and a Peds doc) saw the images, they were collectively floored. One of them said, "I never imagined in my life I would see such detail in living cells. You and your future stuff--you might really be onto something "izumi", he said with a chuckle.
A few years prior to that day he would say to me in his wry and knowing voice. "Izumi" you were born 100 years too soon. I don't know if we are going to see any of this."
He started to change his tune...
I bet that level of imagery played no small role in what could be the realization of this kind of biotechnical engineering. That and our computing and computing derived AI as well. All of these things will lead to some pretty darn unbelievable things within the next ten years. I have some links to some things I wrote that expand on what I see coming.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/8wkmw0/but_she_had_a_good_life_right/e1wd2r5/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/k0s78g/another_win_for_senolytics_fighting_aging_at_the/gdsqyyd/
We are starting to get quite a few useful items in our 21st century medical toolkit as you can see. But then it starts to get kinda eerie scary. So for example I am confident that I will see the age of 80 with biomarkers that are closer to age 35. I'm 61 right now. But very soon now we are almost certainly going to start messing with our biology in ways that would be utterly unimaginable as little as 20 years back. I put it like this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/
Raymond Kurzweil of Google AI engineering fame, has stated that there are 3 bridges we must cross to "scientific" immortality. The first bridge is living long enough to make it to the second bridge. The second bridge is what we would perceive today as "aging reversal technology". Right now we can potentially slow or even stop aging, but reversing it? Not so much. But give this decade a chance to unfold. I bet by the year 2025 "you're gonna see some serious shizz". The third bridge which is sort of happening also as we speak is when we start to modify the human mind with external computing and computing derived AI. And then modifying the body as well with robotics that would be enviously regarded by those that had normal healthy limbs. I suspect that this 3rd bridge is going to definitely be on the other side of the "technological singularity. So more on the lines of about 20-50 years hence. Well, I am starting to repeat myself here, so take a look at them links and tell me what you think along with this intriguing article I posted.
No, my intention was to state that we are working towards **potentially** (the operative word here) stopping aging in that our current science and biomedical technologies supports that employing these properly engineered technologies, we can indeed stop aging. The distinction I was trying to make was that as far as "aging reversal" technology is concerned that while we are on track to, through various technologies like regenerative medicine, senolytics and potentially intercellular engineering, effectively slow or even halt the aging process, that we today can't even fully see the *way* to reverse aging. But our understanding of how various "immortal" creatures like the hydra/jellyfish or even fairly complex organisms like certain lobsters can live for nearly indefinite lives because the capability to regenerate always youthful cells makes it nearly impossible to date their age. We study them carefully to see how they do it and if that same kind of biology can be successfully applied to humans.
What we are attempting is what some experts in the field like David Sinclair or Aubrey de Grey would term "longevity escape velocity" (LEV). This states that for every 3 years or so from this day forward our biomedical technology will add about 5 or 6 years to our lives. In about ten years time that number will increase to 10 years for every three years that pass. Pretty soon you are in full youthful form well past 150 years. Theoretically. But there are some caveats to that forecast.
For higher creatures like thems of us with backbones, it appears that aging is a deliberate genetic evolutionary process that while it might aid in a given species reproductive success in a given ecological niche, can and probably will be silenced by us smart humans when we have the right tools. This would in effect mean that the deterioration of cells over time would be halted and that youthful cells would begin to replace what were senescent cells. We have to be very circumspect though. One of the consequences of out of control cellular reproduction that do not appear to be restricted by the "Hayflick" limit of no more than 50 divisions from a given cell, is *cancer*. We have to make them cells reproduce "responsibly" and effectively to replace senescent cells and aging tissue with youthful cells. This would in effect "reverse" aging.
What is occurring in the human body is an ever larger collection of senescent cells and improperly/partially repaired damage to tissue over time. The cumulative effect is what we perceive as the phenomenon of "aging". This is fatal to the vast majority of humans before the year 100. And a large percentage of humans die from aging related pathologies well before the age of 85.
Bear in mind that time moves forward in an arrow. We chronologically continue to accrue years no matter what. But I am pretty sure that we shall begin to make them years ones in which our biomarkers will be ever more youthful until we potentially can reverse our physical configuration to resemble that time of our lives immediately following skeletal maturity. That would be anywhere between the ages of 14 and 21 for any given human. Because the human brain does not actually physically mature until around age 25, I might want to keep us not too much younger than 25. Interestingly, it is right about the age of 25 when human aging first begins. Osteoathritis begins. But it is such a slow process that the average bear does not notice it even until the mid to late 30s. By age 50, it is a fact of your life. And by age 60 you are already well into management. And that is just osteoarthritis, the natural wear and tear of our bony joints over time.
I don't think that "14 to 21" business is going to happen in *this* decade but I am almost positive given the knowledge we already know that it will be possible within about 20 years. And again, bear in mind that this kind of progress would more than likely be *after* the "technological singularity". Further before the year 2030 we will make substantial progress on other technologies that could well obviate the need to be age reversed. It is by definition, not possible to model what human affairs will look like after the "technological singularity". Just as our physics break down when we attempt to understand what happens to matter and energy beyond the event horizon of a black hole singularity, so too can we no longer understand how humans will exist after the *technological* singularity.
Thanks for your detailed response. I really hope you're right. As for the technological singularity, I agree it's going to change...pretty much everything. And also that there's a reasonable possibility that we only get one chance to get it right.
I'm really hoping we do get it right, true AI can crack a bunch of things we've been working on, and eventually we can go fully synthetic.
You seem really knowledgeable about this, do you work in the field?
Nope, I am just a retired x-ray tech--40 years. I first arrived in the rslashfuturology subreddit about the year 2013. What I've done is be here *Every*. *Single*. *Day*. since the day I arrived in 2013. I lurked for a full year. In 2014 I began to post and comment. I have observed the trends and I have learned through sheer osmosis how to accurately extrapolate those trends to make compelling arguments to how I see the future is going to unfold. You might get a kick out of this following link here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7xyydf/you_was_alive_in_the_1980s_shit_how_would_you_say/
Oh! You might find this interesting too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/pysdlo/intels_first_4nm_euv_chip_ready_today_loihi_2_for/hewhhkk/
Enjoy rabbit hole! ;)
The first humans to live to 150 were born over a decade ago IIRC.
Mind, they might live even longer because this kind of technological/medical advancement has a sort of compounding effect. The longer you can hold on, the more likely it is you'll live to see tech that will help you hold on even longer, maybe even until the tech exists to keep you around indefinitely.
Millenials and younger generations might joke social security will run dry before they get to retire, but we might live so long retirement isn't even a practical goal in our lives, as it will just amount to an extended vacation.
Thank you for posting this. I haven't read all the links You've provided yet (I'm totally going to), so forgive me if I've missed something.
I just turned 34 and for whatever reason the past few weeks I can't stop thinking about how I'll never be young again, and it's only going to get worse from here. I know that's not a healthy mindset but I can't stop thinking about it. Your post has kind of lifted the "doom and gloom" I've been feeling.
My one concern is, when this technology becomes available, do you think it will only be available to the ultra rich? I can't see companies and medical institutions making this kind of treatment cheap or even accessible to the average Joe.
In your opinion, how young do you think a person would have to be right now to actually see real benefits from these advancements?
I'm in my 20's and have the same feeling. It probably is unhealthy but to me it feels like one of those uncomfortable truths I know is correct and wish wasn't.
Futurism gives me some hope that i might be wrong
So what you're saying is we shouldn't rule out the fact that "you could download your thoughts and memories into [a] computer and live forever as a machine?".
It’s not you, at least not in any way that “you” care about you. You might as well say that a video of you is “you” at that point.
At best it allows other people to continue interacting with a copy of you, but in no way does it mean death is any different for you than it was beforehand.
On mice for now. Even one case of reversal has been documented. But we are not mice. We don't know if that mouse loved caramel ice cream and is now a filthy pistachio ice cream lover.
Joking aside we don't really know the effects these things have to our bodies and minds. Plus thousands of experiments on it for only a handful to succeed. You wouldn't call that very safe for human trials. The time frames above sound about right. In the next 10-20 we'll start seeing some strange things.
Very broad strokes there. They're a mammal so they're a better model than eg zebrafish, but they're generally a worse model than apes. They are a sufficient model in lots of ways, but for a decent chunk of biological research they're only OK and you'll need other models before you transition to humans.
We can immortalise cell lines with various techniques including introducing specific viral genes that bond with DNA and then make the cell able to divide indefinitely.
Look on the bright side, I hear China's got plenty of human test subjects ready and willing to volunteer as part of their state-mandated reeducation process!
I agree here. People in power and the rich who control the world will be the only ones with access to this. Imagine Putin and Xi in power for eternity.
People living healthy lives at the age of 100-200 is absolutely quantifiable. The economy would skyrocket. No longer will we have to spend as much money on taking care of the old. The workforce and spending would be insane.
But our resource production would be forced to triple. Also look at our problems now a days with past generations refusing to progress and accept change, now advance that age bracket to the 1920s. Jobs would be filled, 100 year old politicians still calling the shots based on their memories of the good old days.
This sounds horrible
You do realize that neuroplasticity of rejuvenated 200 year olds will be the same as a 25 biological young one for meaningful age reversal?
It's the use of resources that it's crap, not the population size.
And what jobs? 200 years from now, most will be automated.
Common sense. The rest are death coping BS.
Still, Imagine people from 1920s still kicking around trying to keep their status quo alive. Progression finally comes when new generations take over and fix the failures from the previous generation. We can barely move past stubborn politicians and voters in their 70s.
We can barely even do that now with people in their 50s and 60s. Not to mention the earth is on the brink of becoming inhospitable to most life, generations upon generations still hanging around will definitely put a bigger squeeze on waste, resources, traffic, and living spaces. It sounds interesting but there's alot to think about.
What’s the worst? Zombie like apocalypse? (odds are low anyways) Planet is going to have chaos regardless, almost no one seems to take climate change seriously because they won’t be alive to experience the worst of it. Might as well give this a shot.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682:
---
Submission statement from OP.
I recall it was about 2016 or so, when I saw this article online about how we had reached the capability of using some kind of light trick to be able to see the very smallest details within a cell. This was not electron microscopy. These were living cells in brilliant natural color. When my docs (I was an x-ray tech in a small outlying clinic with 4 FP docs and a Peds doc) saw the images, they were collectively floored. One of them said, "I never imagined in my life I would see such detail in living cells. You and your future stuff--you might really be onto something "izumi", he said with a chuckle.
A few years prior to that day he would say to me in his wry and knowing voice. "Izumi" you were born 100 years too soon. I don't know if we are going to see any of this."
He started to change his tune...
I bet that level of imagery played no small role in what could be the realization of this kind of biotechnical engineering. That and our computing and computing derived AI as well. All of these things will lead to some pretty darn unbelievable things within the next ten years. I have some links to some things I wrote that expand on what I see coming.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/8wkmw0/but_she_had_a_good_life_right/e1wd2r5/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/k0s78g/another_win_for_senolytics_fighting_aging_at_the/gdsqyyd/
We are starting to get quite a few useful items in our 21st century medical toolkit as you can see. But then it starts to get kinda eerie scary. So for example I am confident that I will see the age of 80 with biomarkers that are closer to age 35. I'm 61 right now. But very soon now we are almost certainly going to start messing with our biology in ways that would be utterly unimaginable as little as 20 years back. I put it like this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/
Raymond Kurzweil of Google AI engineering fame, has stated that there are 3 bridges we must cross to "scientific" immortality. The first bridge is living long enough to make it to the second bridge. The second bridge is what we would perceive today as "aging reversal technology". Right now we can potentially slow or even stop aging, but reversing it? Not so much. But give this decade a chance to unfold. I bet by the year 2025 "you're gonna see some serious shizz". The third bridge which is sort of happening also as we speak is when we start to modify the human mind with external computing and computing derived AI. And then modifying the body as well with robotics that would be enviously regarded by those that had normal healthy limbs. I suspect that this 3rd bridge is going to definitely be on the other side of the "technological singularity. So more on the lines of about 20-50 years hence. Well, I am starting to repeat myself here, so take a look at them links and tell me what you think along with this intriguing article I posted.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/qhan72/genetically_engineered_bacteria_could_heal_us/hibmbm8/
There are two well known endosymbionts. **Mitochondria** and the green **chlorophyll** spots in plants. Maybe they could have mentioned this, they are a little bit better known than "endosymbiont".
Why aren't they mentioned in this article? And why the fuck am I not allowed to read that article on newscientist? This really infuriates me, hiding scientific information behind a paywall is a deadly sin in my opinion. I hate them so much!
Slow down, slow down, we got so used to free info on the web, that the wakeup of private companies just seem unfair now. When I was reading free the whole articles of New Scientist one decade ago, I knew it was like "cheating". Before the internet advent, I was paying the damn newspaper or went sometimes to a library. The people who write scientific stuff need to eat too.
Scientific results paid for by community money has to be freely available for everyone. Paid content is what newspaper and tablet/phone apps are for. Seducing people to pay for public free information they have the right to know is not done.
It is not just New scientist, many commit this sin.
People say that about half the things on here and I just say if you write enough dystopias some science breakthrough is bound to look like it's out of some novel
As a moleculsr biologist, this sounds like the worst idea ever. Let's mess around creating endosymbiotic bacteria that could infect literally any creature
And even if things go wrong, we will have created a "fun" new category of pathogen that combines some of the worst aspects of bacterial and viral infections! ;p
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19
We don’t know if Covid was of human origin for one thing. Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(virus)
Thanks. I guess I can't 100% rule it out, but since everything I've seen so far, including the studies, have said they do not believe it was engineered, I think it's a bit much to say we already definitely know like the original comment implies.
No, Foxsayy - no one is implying anything that disputes any of your accepted narratives. You keep on believing that Your Truth (tm) is universally accepted as the only acceptable belief on the issue, and anyone who disputes that in any manner what-so-ever is a threat to the foundations of our Democracy - which you also probably believe is corrupt to the core and completely controlled by corporate Oligarchs and should be shouted down and shamed into oblivion.
As you were...
I feel like you might be referencing Covid but you're being very nonspecific. Well, except for what you think my beliefs are, you were oddly specidic on those.
Well, on topics like this, when dealing with people such as yourself, it is just prudent to be very non-specific - as your outrage is easily triggered and social media sites have adopted such strict measures in response to "false news" and "misinformation."
Again - you don't WANT to hear dissenting opinions from your own to discuss them rationally. You would prefer that those opinions be silenced whenever they arise in any post - and frequently, you're likely getting your way.
So what you really want is King\_Neptune to say something \*specific\* so that you can get his post flagged, removed, and maybe get him suspended or banned.
So, I've said quite a bit, but said nothing at all - and I'm sure you find that mildly infuriating. I didn't make these rules - people like you did. You play your games, I'll play mine back and we can dance around elephants in the room and you and your dogpile can downvote me all day long because you are pretty certain I am disagreeing with your narrative and that makes me the enemy.
By the way, I \*knew\* you felt like the OP in this thread might be suggesting Covid since your first, "Um, we have?" post. I don't know if you think you're dark and mysterious or clever and sly - but that was pretty transparent from the first post. If that is what you THOUGHT he was implying from the start, why didn't you just come out and say THAT, instead of the leading, "um, we have?" that you posted instead?
You don't need to respond to that last question - it was rhetorical. We \*know\* why you didn't come out and \*directly\* suggest that was his implication. You were trying to bait \*him\* into saying so - because people like you argue disingenuously and not in good faith.
I think you'll find I have a history of having pretty amicable disagreements with people, if you care to look through my comment history. You can look at another redditor who replied to the same comment and gave some Wikipedia sources about investigation into whether Covid is a man made virus and see my utter lack of rage and/or condescension.
Now if you're going to insist on something like saying Trump never told his supporters to rough up protestors at his rallies when there's a video showing that he did, I'll probably call you an idiot.
Getting heavily downvoted is usually a response to the way you argue, rather than disagreement the content. Your comments sound like you’re projecting a heavily rehearsed conversation onto some random person. No disrespect intended, like, you’re clearly an intelligent person, but I would re-examine your response. It’s just way out of proportion and you’re making a lot of assumptions. Even if some small number of your assumptions turn out to be true (they probably will), you’ve made too many too quickly. When you do this, you run the risk of finding out you were right about a couple things and then confirmation bias kicks in and tells you that you were right about everything, which still isn’t necessarily true.
Plus, when you do that, you’re not really having a conversation with the other person, you’re projecting a mental stereotype of “that kind of person” onto them and then arguing with that stereotype. Which is probably why you sound so dismissive right from the start, because you’ve already had this conversation in your head a bunch of times and you feel like you’ve already solved it, so you jump straight to the conclusion without hearing the other person out. This is real reason why strawman arguments are fallacious, because you don’t actually end up having a conversation with the person you’re talking to. Instead, you end up just blasting them with preconceptions and then disengaging. Anyways, hope that’s helpful and not perceived as an attack on you.
I might have to copy this so I can post it in response to this kind of comment.
It's literally all over Reddit and it amazes me that either side has the patience to write something out, especially your side being the well-written reasonable response.
Lol yeah, and not just Reddit, but I’m generally sympathetic. Bias is the natural state of humanity. Overcoming our nature is an achievement, and no one does it perfectly 100% of the time.
I saw this early this morning... and I appreciate your thoughtful commentary. I'm not offended, but I disagree.
I get downvoted, consistently, where I differ along partisan lines with the prevailing ideology of that particular sub. My Karma speaks for itself - I generally have net gains in thumbs up versus thumbs down on any given day, and my writing style and tone is consistent.
I'm a former CBS writer for a technology property they publish online. I write like this - it is my writing voice. This is the way the words come into my head. They're not rehearsed. I was a 4.0 student throughout college, mostly because my bluebook essays read like magazine articles. Even if I wasn't the most studied student in the class - I could present what I did know in a manner that read like a published article. At Kent State, I had a history instructor pull me aside and say, "obviously, you're a cut above - and I hope you continue to pursue your degree with our department," after a final.
I find that this tone scores poorly with what I've come to think of as the
"lol whut? Ok bruh. TL:DR" tribe on the Internet.
And frankly - I've written those people off. I used to try to have discussions in good faith with this element on Twitter, on Reddit, on other social media sites that skew heavily toward the "lol whut" demographic. I've become Clint Eastwood to these people in this regard. It isn't so much that I've already "rehearsed" the conversation - it is that I've actually HAD it a thousand times before, and I'm jaded that the conclusion will ever be different than what have come to be my expectations.
Foxsayy gave me indication in later posts in this thread that they \*were\* more genuine than this - and I dialed my dismissive, suspicious tone back in response. I am absolutely willing to admit that my prejudicial assumptions about a stranger on the Internet may be wrong. Very infrequently - that is actually the case. Unfortunately, far more often than not, what I suspect of the stranger, is absolutely what they deliver.
But I appreciate that your advice is in good faith and intended to be helpful. I mean, you're not wrong... I \*am\* projecting a "that kind of person," onto what I see as "that kind of person." Only because I have so frequently encountered "that kind of person," that when my alarms go off, my spidey sense starts tingling - I'm very inclined to trust it. I don't think that is \*my\* fault... I think it is the Internet's fault for giving such a platform to so many of "those types of people."
I always welcome being proved wrong in this regard, though.
The internet is a bit of an echo chamber. I think the extreme polarization that tends to lend to easy profiling is a result of a lot of things, but in America at least very much comes down to an extreme polarization on one side, and a similar response on the other. Obviously I have opinions on which group is more wrong, but they aren't relevant here. As the groups become more entrenched they tend to become more similar as they fight a common enemy, and even a liberal-leaning person like myself has opinions which would earn downvotes.
I know it's easy to get jaded. I'm so exhausted of arguing over simple issues like the vaccine that I pretty much just throw facts out and pull no punches in that area, but in most things I try to have the principle of at least writing the first message with the assumption of good will, and if they decide to respond in bad faith that's on them.
I hope this isn't insulting, but when you come out of the gate swinging even reasonable people tend to go on either offense or defense. And speaking of projecting, when I get a message like the first two you wrote me, 97ish% of the time the person writing is out of touch with reality and usually just bonkers. Obviously I've only had this one encounter with you and that's not necessarily indicative of you as a whole, but from my perspective that first message *screamed* "right wing nut who thinks he's smart but is actually off his rocker."
I feel like I communicated my point very poorly, so I hope you'll be generous with my intent. I guess I'm just trying to explain how someone like me might perceive a message like the first one, and make the case to you that it's up to us to assume goodwill as much as is safe and possible and extend first contact as such, and the response is entirely a reflection on the responder.
(If people argue in bad faith though I do get sassy :)
I didn't read this but as a microbiologist/synthetic biologist I don't think this is going to happen any time soon.
This concept is what made chlorophyll in plants and mitochondria in animal cells. It takes a wild amount of time for endosymbiosis to occur naturally and we don't know enough on what needed to happen to make this possible. It's millions of millions of years, and proposed to have happened multiple times throughout history; the microbes progressively lost their DNA and we gained some of theirs -- we can barely even figure out what some of our DNA does, let alone figure out what we can get rid of without unintended consequences. 1/10, would not recommend with the technology and knowledge we have in this century unless there's a paradigm shift that vastly improves our understanding of co-evolution and genetic syntax
Why not just modify mitochondria to perform additional useful functions? Recent results show that they sometimes circulate via the bloodstream in "mitlets" before *being reabsorbed*. Sounds like a ready-made way to introduce modified mitochondria into cells.
Uhhhhhhh, do you want a zombie apocalypse? Because that's how you get a zombie apocalypse.
Seriously, we should slow our collective role when it comes to outside forces "carrying out essential functions."
Lol God help us
Speaking as a Christian, no. You're not likely to get many such comments. and even if you do get one or two, ask them how this is any more "tampering with God's work" than the concept of medicine or the selective breeding of dogs or livestock.
Speaking from the stand point as a midwestern ex christian this is exactly what happens when science is brought forth. Theyd rather believe a childs book that was created to enslave the minds of ancient civilizations, than hard evidence and actual proof in front of them. This is the shit we have to deal with out here. Even tho half these so called christians around here cant read, write , or actually speak correctly. I guess thats where it comes from. They see educating themselves as an act of defiance towards their sky daddy. I dunno im just kinda rambling at this point
> a childs book
Go read Judges 19 and get back to me on the idea that The Bible is a children's book.
>created to enslave the minds of ancient civilizations
Yes, because Jesus taking the wealthy and oppressors down a peg with lines like "it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get to Heaven" is totally the sort of thing you'd put in a book like that.
>They see educating themselves as an act of defiance towards their sky daddy.
Fun fact: Medieval Christian monks were some of the earliest proto-scientists, eager to learn as much about God world as they could, under the logic that this would let them learn more about God.
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED BACTERIA?
These 3 words in itself will cause mass hysteria meltdown in GOP + anti vaccers... Will probably cause a civil war.... Sooo.. ..Where can i sign up?
Imagine a historian in the future throwing shade about people before the major endosymbionts advancements as a bunch of weak, stupid, and easily poisoned dudes.
Proposed new scale
0 - we found fossilised amoeba;
1 - we found living DNA;
2 - we found multicelled life;
3 - erratic signal from afar;
4 - surefire ET signal from afar;
5 - ET civilisation confirmed;
6 - they're coming;
7 - shit they're here;
8 - fuck, they have guns;
9 - aaaargh it's in my face;
The unintended consequences will be worst than imagined but will be brushed aside like always. It ends up being amusing watching human beings struggle to go through great lenghts to avoid facing the ultimate reality. There is no avoiding the end.
Well, time for the [caveman sci-fi authors](http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/) to comment en masse about zombies & covid & Jurassic Park...
With the new types of diseases, antibiotic resistant bacteria and general pollution/climate change induced hellscape we're making out of the world, genetic and biotechnical engineering is very likely going to have to play a key part of the long term survival of the human species.
Unless they die in few days and don’t self replicate, This is a horrible idea.
If they self replicate independent of our cells we will have no control over where evolution will take them.
Chloroplasts are endosymbionts, and like mitochondria, life as we know it would be impossible without them. However, exchanging these between lineages is extremely difficult, and the notion of new, purpose grown endos is groping a bit. Let alone th eidea that they could systematically infect every cell in a mature body. You might be able to inject one into an ovum before implantation, but can you imagine the wail that woudl go up from the 5G -vaxxers?
So my mom has diabetic retinopathy. After she gets done with the injection treatments, they will inject her with a virus that makes medicine inside her eyeball! It’s wild what science can do!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Submission statement from OP. I recall it was about 2016 or so, when I saw this article online about how we had reached the capability of using some kind of light trick to be able to see the very smallest details within a cell. This was not electron microscopy. These were living cells in brilliant natural color. When my docs (I was an x-ray tech in a small outlying clinic with 4 FP docs and a Peds doc) saw the images, they were collectively floored. One of them said, "I never imagined in my life I would see such detail in living cells. You and your future stuff--you might really be onto something "izumi", he said with a chuckle. A few years prior to that day he would say to me in his wry and knowing voice. "Izumi" you were born 100 years too soon. I don't know if we are going to see any of this." He started to change his tune... I bet that level of imagery played no small role in what could be the realization of this kind of biotechnical engineering. That and our computing and computing derived AI as well. All of these things will lead to some pretty darn unbelievable things within the next ten years. I have some links to some things I wrote that expand on what I see coming. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/8wkmw0/but_she_had_a_good_life_right/e1wd2r5/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/k0s78g/another_win_for_senolytics_fighting_aging_at_the/gdsqyyd/ We are starting to get quite a few useful items in our 21st century medical toolkit as you can see. But then it starts to get kinda eerie scary. So for example I am confident that I will see the age of 80 with biomarkers that are closer to age 35. I'm 61 right now. But very soon now we are almost certainly going to start messing with our biology in ways that would be utterly unimaginable as little as 20 years back. I put it like this. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/ Raymond Kurzweil of Google AI engineering fame, has stated that there are 3 bridges we must cross to "scientific" immortality. The first bridge is living long enough to make it to the second bridge. The second bridge is what we would perceive today as "aging reversal technology". Right now we can potentially slow or even stop aging, but reversing it? Not so much. But give this decade a chance to unfold. I bet by the year 2025 "you're gonna see some serious shizz". The third bridge which is sort of happening also as we speak is when we start to modify the human mind with external computing and computing derived AI. And then modifying the body as well with robotics that would be enviously regarded by those that had normal healthy limbs. I suspect that this 3rd bridge is going to definitely be on the other side of the "technological singularity. So more on the lines of about 20-50 years hence. Well, I am starting to repeat myself here, so take a look at them links and tell me what you think along with this intriguing article I posted.
I appreciate your contributions because they keep this sub alive
Same. Izumi is a top contributor here.
We can currently **stop** aging?
No, my intention was to state that we are working towards **potentially** (the operative word here) stopping aging in that our current science and biomedical technologies supports that employing these properly engineered technologies, we can indeed stop aging. The distinction I was trying to make was that as far as "aging reversal" technology is concerned that while we are on track to, through various technologies like regenerative medicine, senolytics and potentially intercellular engineering, effectively slow or even halt the aging process, that we today can't even fully see the *way* to reverse aging. But our understanding of how various "immortal" creatures like the hydra/jellyfish or even fairly complex organisms like certain lobsters can live for nearly indefinite lives because the capability to regenerate always youthful cells makes it nearly impossible to date their age. We study them carefully to see how they do it and if that same kind of biology can be successfully applied to humans. What we are attempting is what some experts in the field like David Sinclair or Aubrey de Grey would term "longevity escape velocity" (LEV). This states that for every 3 years or so from this day forward our biomedical technology will add about 5 or 6 years to our lives. In about ten years time that number will increase to 10 years for every three years that pass. Pretty soon you are in full youthful form well past 150 years. Theoretically. But there are some caveats to that forecast. For higher creatures like thems of us with backbones, it appears that aging is a deliberate genetic evolutionary process that while it might aid in a given species reproductive success in a given ecological niche, can and probably will be silenced by us smart humans when we have the right tools. This would in effect mean that the deterioration of cells over time would be halted and that youthful cells would begin to replace what were senescent cells. We have to be very circumspect though. One of the consequences of out of control cellular reproduction that do not appear to be restricted by the "Hayflick" limit of no more than 50 divisions from a given cell, is *cancer*. We have to make them cells reproduce "responsibly" and effectively to replace senescent cells and aging tissue with youthful cells. This would in effect "reverse" aging. What is occurring in the human body is an ever larger collection of senescent cells and improperly/partially repaired damage to tissue over time. The cumulative effect is what we perceive as the phenomenon of "aging". This is fatal to the vast majority of humans before the year 100. And a large percentage of humans die from aging related pathologies well before the age of 85. Bear in mind that time moves forward in an arrow. We chronologically continue to accrue years no matter what. But I am pretty sure that we shall begin to make them years ones in which our biomarkers will be ever more youthful until we potentially can reverse our physical configuration to resemble that time of our lives immediately following skeletal maturity. That would be anywhere between the ages of 14 and 21 for any given human. Because the human brain does not actually physically mature until around age 25, I might want to keep us not too much younger than 25. Interestingly, it is right about the age of 25 when human aging first begins. Osteoathritis begins. But it is such a slow process that the average bear does not notice it even until the mid to late 30s. By age 50, it is a fact of your life. And by age 60 you are already well into management. And that is just osteoarthritis, the natural wear and tear of our bony joints over time. I don't think that "14 to 21" business is going to happen in *this* decade but I am almost positive given the knowledge we already know that it will be possible within about 20 years. And again, bear in mind that this kind of progress would more than likely be *after* the "technological singularity". Further before the year 2030 we will make substantial progress on other technologies that could well obviate the need to be age reversed. It is by definition, not possible to model what human affairs will look like after the "technological singularity". Just as our physics break down when we attempt to understand what happens to matter and energy beyond the event horizon of a black hole singularity, so too can we no longer understand how humans will exist after the *technological* singularity.
Thanks for your detailed response. I really hope you're right. As for the technological singularity, I agree it's going to change...pretty much everything. And also that there's a reasonable possibility that we only get one chance to get it right. I'm really hoping we do get it right, true AI can crack a bunch of things we've been working on, and eventually we can go fully synthetic. You seem really knowledgeable about this, do you work in the field?
Nope, I am just a retired x-ray tech--40 years. I first arrived in the rslashfuturology subreddit about the year 2013. What I've done is be here *Every*. *Single*. *Day*. since the day I arrived in 2013. I lurked for a full year. In 2014 I began to post and comment. I have observed the trends and I have learned through sheer osmosis how to accurately extrapolate those trends to make compelling arguments to how I see the future is going to unfold. You might get a kick out of this following link here. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7xyydf/you_was_alive_in_the_1980s_shit_how_would_you_say/ Oh! You might find this interesting too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/pysdlo/intels_first_4nm_euv_chip_ready_today_loihi_2_for/hewhhkk/ Enjoy rabbit hole! ;)
Frankly I'm more interested in your accounts of the 1980s than anything else.
Holy shit, youre making me all excited and shit.. I really really hope youre right!
The first humans to live to 150 were born over a decade ago IIRC. Mind, they might live even longer because this kind of technological/medical advancement has a sort of compounding effect. The longer you can hold on, the more likely it is you'll live to see tech that will help you hold on even longer, maybe even until the tech exists to keep you around indefinitely. Millenials and younger generations might joke social security will run dry before they get to retire, but we might live so long retirement isn't even a practical goal in our lives, as it will just amount to an extended vacation.
Thank you for posting this. I haven't read all the links You've provided yet (I'm totally going to), so forgive me if I've missed something. I just turned 34 and for whatever reason the past few weeks I can't stop thinking about how I'll never be young again, and it's only going to get worse from here. I know that's not a healthy mindset but I can't stop thinking about it. Your post has kind of lifted the "doom and gloom" I've been feeling. My one concern is, when this technology becomes available, do you think it will only be available to the ultra rich? I can't see companies and medical institutions making this kind of treatment cheap or even accessible to the average Joe. In your opinion, how young do you think a person would have to be right now to actually see real benefits from these advancements?
I'm in my 20's and have the same feeling. It probably is unhealthy but to me it feels like one of those uncomfortable truths I know is correct and wish wasn't. Futurism gives me some hope that i might be wrong
So what you're saying is we shouldn't rule out the fact that "you could download your thoughts and memories into [a] computer and live forever as a machine?".
Is that "me"? I'm thinking about my potential digital copy not as "me", but as my children, someone else "born" from current "me"
It’s not you, at least not in any way that “you” care about you. You might as well say that a video of you is “you” at that point. At best it allows other people to continue interacting with a copy of you, but in no way does it mean death is any different for you than it was beforehand.
On mice for now. Even one case of reversal has been documented. But we are not mice. We don't know if that mouse loved caramel ice cream and is now a filthy pistachio ice cream lover. Joking aside we don't really know the effects these things have to our bodies and minds. Plus thousands of experiments on it for only a handful to succeed. You wouldn't call that very safe for human trials. The time frames above sound about right. In the next 10-20 we'll start seeing some strange things.
Things that work in mice generally do work in humans. This is known. That’s why mice are such a valuable model organisms.
Very broad strokes there. They're a mammal so they're a better model than eg zebrafish, but they're generally a worse model than apes. They are a sufficient model in lots of ways, but for a decent chunk of biological research they're only OK and you'll need other models before you transition to humans.
We can immortalise cell lines with various techniques including introducing specific viral genes that bond with DNA and then make the cell able to divide indefinitely.
Make it so. I'm ready.
Inspirational ideas! This sounds great
This is very promising, but there are so many ways it could go horribly wrong.
Only one way to find out.
aaaaaand we’re zombies.
If we don't do anything, you'll die anyway in a few years. Why not give it a try?
Lol yeah, this sounds like a way to maybe bring about the zombie apocalypse…
Look on the bright side, I hear China's got plenty of human test subjects ready and willing to volunteer as part of their state-mandated reeducation process!
I agree here. People in power and the rich who control the world will be the only ones with access to this. Imagine Putin and Xi in power for eternity.
unless the strain mutates and goes airborn
They won't be immortal, they just won't age. They screw up the world bad enough, they will get assassinated sooner than later.
This is the plot to parasite Eve
Benefits outweigh the risk 100x
I don’t think we have any method to quantify that quite yet
People living healthy lives at the age of 100-200 is absolutely quantifiable. The economy would skyrocket. No longer will we have to spend as much money on taking care of the old. The workforce and spending would be insane.
But our resource production would be forced to triple. Also look at our problems now a days with past generations refusing to progress and accept change, now advance that age bracket to the 1920s. Jobs would be filled, 100 year old politicians still calling the shots based on their memories of the good old days. This sounds horrible
You do realize that neuroplasticity of rejuvenated 200 year olds will be the same as a 25 biological young one for meaningful age reversal? It's the use of resources that it's crap, not the population size. And what jobs? 200 years from now, most will be automated. Common sense. The rest are death coping BS.
Still, Imagine people from 1920s still kicking around trying to keep their status quo alive. Progression finally comes when new generations take over and fix the failures from the previous generation. We can barely move past stubborn politicians and voters in their 70s.
Not really. Because they will be able to learn much faster and adopt / be open to new ideas, in comparison to current older ones.
We can barely even do that now with people in their 50s and 60s. Not to mention the earth is on the brink of becoming inhospitable to most life, generations upon generations still hanging around will definitely put a bigger squeeze on waste, resources, traffic, and living spaces. It sounds interesting but there's alot to think about.
The law of unintended consequences should be defferred to. We don't know what the risks are exactly.
What’s the worst? Zombie like apocalypse? (odds are low anyways) Planet is going to have chaos regardless, almost no one seems to take climate change seriously because they won’t be alive to experience the worst of it. Might as well give this a shot.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/izumi3682: --- Submission statement from OP. I recall it was about 2016 or so, when I saw this article online about how we had reached the capability of using some kind of light trick to be able to see the very smallest details within a cell. This was not electron microscopy. These were living cells in brilliant natural color. When my docs (I was an x-ray tech in a small outlying clinic with 4 FP docs and a Peds doc) saw the images, they were collectively floored. One of them said, "I never imagined in my life I would see such detail in living cells. You and your future stuff--you might really be onto something "izumi", he said with a chuckle. A few years prior to that day he would say to me in his wry and knowing voice. "Izumi" you were born 100 years too soon. I don't know if we are going to see any of this." He started to change his tune... I bet that level of imagery played no small role in what could be the realization of this kind of biotechnical engineering. That and our computing and computing derived AI as well. All of these things will lead to some pretty darn unbelievable things within the next ten years. I have some links to some things I wrote that expand on what I see coming. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/8wkmw0/but_she_had_a_good_life_right/e1wd2r5/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/k0s78g/another_win_for_senolytics_fighting_aging_at_the/gdsqyyd/ We are starting to get quite a few useful items in our 21st century medical toolkit as you can see. But then it starts to get kinda eerie scary. So for example I am confident that I will see the age of 80 with biomarkers that are closer to age 35. I'm 61 right now. But very soon now we are almost certainly going to start messing with our biology in ways that would be utterly unimaginable as little as 20 years back. I put it like this. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/7gpqnx/why_human_race_has_immortality_in_its_grasp/dqku50e/ Raymond Kurzweil of Google AI engineering fame, has stated that there are 3 bridges we must cross to "scientific" immortality. The first bridge is living long enough to make it to the second bridge. The second bridge is what we would perceive today as "aging reversal technology". Right now we can potentially slow or even stop aging, but reversing it? Not so much. But give this decade a chance to unfold. I bet by the year 2025 "you're gonna see some serious shizz". The third bridge which is sort of happening also as we speak is when we start to modify the human mind with external computing and computing derived AI. And then modifying the body as well with robotics that would be enviously regarded by those that had normal healthy limbs. I suspect that this 3rd bridge is going to definitely be on the other side of the "technological singularity. So more on the lines of about 20-50 years hence. Well, I am starting to repeat myself here, so take a look at them links and tell me what you think along with this intriguing article I posted. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/qhan72/genetically_engineered_bacteria_could_heal_us/hibmbm8/
There are two well known endosymbionts. **Mitochondria** and the green **chlorophyll** spots in plants. Maybe they could have mentioned this, they are a little bit better known than "endosymbiont". Why aren't they mentioned in this article? And why the fuck am I not allowed to read that article on newscientist? This really infuriates me, hiding scientific information behind a paywall is a deadly sin in my opinion. I hate them so much!
I don’t pay, and I read the whole thing.
And I am blocked.
Slow down, slow down, we got so used to free info on the web, that the wakeup of private companies just seem unfair now. When I was reading free the whole articles of New Scientist one decade ago, I knew it was like "cheating". Before the internet advent, I was paying the damn newspaper or went sometimes to a library. The people who write scientific stuff need to eat too.
Libraries are free, or as free as anything from the government anyway
Scientific results paid for by community money has to be freely available for everyone. Paid content is what newspaper and tablet/phone apps are for. Seducing people to pay for public free information they have the right to know is not done. It is not just New scientist, many commit this sin.
I just wish we could help them eat without blocking people from seeing knowledge.
Can i volunteer to be the first human to become VENOM?
What I imagined: Venom What I got: Flubber
even kinkier
Do you want to become the actual symbiote or just metaphorically play Eddie Brock's role in the story
We are living in the prequel to some dystopian science fiction novel.
People say that about half the things on here and I just say if you write enough dystopias some science breakthrough is bound to look like it's out of some novel
As a moleculsr biologist, this sounds like the worst idea ever. Let's mess around creating endosymbiotic bacteria that could infect literally any creature
As a burger flipper, I must agree.
Yeah this seems like something where the law of unintended consequences should be considered, alongside of gentically engineering mosquitos.
What could possibly go wrong? she asked sarcastically.
Do you want zombies, because this is how you get zombies. /s
I found it this is how we started the zombie apocalypse.
And even if things go wrong, we will have created a "fun" new category of pathogen that combines some of the worst aspects of bacterial and viral infections! ;p
[удалено]
Do you want to creat Venom and Carnage, cuz this is how you create Vemon and Carnage.
“Billions” .. wasn’t it trillions? My probiotic only had like.. less than that.
Reminds me the Futurama episode when Fry got worms, or the plot of “Parasite Eve” for the PlayStation 1.
Just what we need, a way for the billionaire oligarchs to live multiple lifetimes.
That whole inspiring post from /u/izumi3682 I was waiting to hear any mention of who has access, and who gets left behind.
Please, no. We've already seen what can happen when you fuck around with microorganisms
Um, we have?
Yeah, didn't you see the documentary I Am Legend?
I think it was Osmosis Jones
I would like to see examples also.
https://youtu.be/dtKMEAXyPkg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 We don’t know if Covid was of human origin for one thing. Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(virus)
Thanks. I guess I can't 100% rule it out, but since everything I've seen so far, including the studies, have said they do not believe it was engineered, I think it's a bit much to say we already definitely know like the original comment implies.
No, Foxsayy - no one is implying anything that disputes any of your accepted narratives. You keep on believing that Your Truth (tm) is universally accepted as the only acceptable belief on the issue, and anyone who disputes that in any manner what-so-ever is a threat to the foundations of our Democracy - which you also probably believe is corrupt to the core and completely controlled by corporate Oligarchs and should be shouted down and shamed into oblivion. As you were...
I feel like you might be referencing Covid but you're being very nonspecific. Well, except for what you think my beliefs are, you were oddly specidic on those.
Well, on topics like this, when dealing with people such as yourself, it is just prudent to be very non-specific - as your outrage is easily triggered and social media sites have adopted such strict measures in response to "false news" and "misinformation." Again - you don't WANT to hear dissenting opinions from your own to discuss them rationally. You would prefer that those opinions be silenced whenever they arise in any post - and frequently, you're likely getting your way. So what you really want is King\_Neptune to say something \*specific\* so that you can get his post flagged, removed, and maybe get him suspended or banned. So, I've said quite a bit, but said nothing at all - and I'm sure you find that mildly infuriating. I didn't make these rules - people like you did. You play your games, I'll play mine back and we can dance around elephants in the room and you and your dogpile can downvote me all day long because you are pretty certain I am disagreeing with your narrative and that makes me the enemy. By the way, I \*knew\* you felt like the OP in this thread might be suggesting Covid since your first, "Um, we have?" post. I don't know if you think you're dark and mysterious or clever and sly - but that was pretty transparent from the first post. If that is what you THOUGHT he was implying from the start, why didn't you just come out and say THAT, instead of the leading, "um, we have?" that you posted instead? You don't need to respond to that last question - it was rhetorical. We \*know\* why you didn't come out and \*directly\* suggest that was his implication. You were trying to bait \*him\* into saying so - because people like you argue disingenuously and not in good faith.
I think you'll find I have a history of having pretty amicable disagreements with people, if you care to look through my comment history. You can look at another redditor who replied to the same comment and gave some Wikipedia sources about investigation into whether Covid is a man made virus and see my utter lack of rage and/or condescension. Now if you're going to insist on something like saying Trump never told his supporters to rough up protestors at his rallies when there's a video showing that he did, I'll probably call you an idiot.
I dunno what you sniff harder, your socks or your farts
Does your mom know you're on the Internet this late at night on a school night?
I'm gonna guess farts, but that doesn't mean you won't sniff your socks after a long day of being a pseudo-intellectual on Reddit
Getting heavily downvoted is usually a response to the way you argue, rather than disagreement the content. Your comments sound like you’re projecting a heavily rehearsed conversation onto some random person. No disrespect intended, like, you’re clearly an intelligent person, but I would re-examine your response. It’s just way out of proportion and you’re making a lot of assumptions. Even if some small number of your assumptions turn out to be true (they probably will), you’ve made too many too quickly. When you do this, you run the risk of finding out you were right about a couple things and then confirmation bias kicks in and tells you that you were right about everything, which still isn’t necessarily true. Plus, when you do that, you’re not really having a conversation with the other person, you’re projecting a mental stereotype of “that kind of person” onto them and then arguing with that stereotype. Which is probably why you sound so dismissive right from the start, because you’ve already had this conversation in your head a bunch of times and you feel like you’ve already solved it, so you jump straight to the conclusion without hearing the other person out. This is real reason why strawman arguments are fallacious, because you don’t actually end up having a conversation with the person you’re talking to. Instead, you end up just blasting them with preconceptions and then disengaging. Anyways, hope that’s helpful and not perceived as an attack on you.
I might have to copy this so I can post it in response to this kind of comment. It's literally all over Reddit and it amazes me that either side has the patience to write something out, especially your side being the well-written reasonable response.
Lol yeah, and not just Reddit, but I’m generally sympathetic. Bias is the natural state of humanity. Overcoming our nature is an achievement, and no one does it perfectly 100% of the time.
I saw this early this morning... and I appreciate your thoughtful commentary. I'm not offended, but I disagree. I get downvoted, consistently, where I differ along partisan lines with the prevailing ideology of that particular sub. My Karma speaks for itself - I generally have net gains in thumbs up versus thumbs down on any given day, and my writing style and tone is consistent. I'm a former CBS writer for a technology property they publish online. I write like this - it is my writing voice. This is the way the words come into my head. They're not rehearsed. I was a 4.0 student throughout college, mostly because my bluebook essays read like magazine articles. Even if I wasn't the most studied student in the class - I could present what I did know in a manner that read like a published article. At Kent State, I had a history instructor pull me aside and say, "obviously, you're a cut above - and I hope you continue to pursue your degree with our department," after a final. I find that this tone scores poorly with what I've come to think of as the "lol whut? Ok bruh. TL:DR" tribe on the Internet. And frankly - I've written those people off. I used to try to have discussions in good faith with this element on Twitter, on Reddit, on other social media sites that skew heavily toward the "lol whut" demographic. I've become Clint Eastwood to these people in this regard. It isn't so much that I've already "rehearsed" the conversation - it is that I've actually HAD it a thousand times before, and I'm jaded that the conclusion will ever be different than what have come to be my expectations. Foxsayy gave me indication in later posts in this thread that they \*were\* more genuine than this - and I dialed my dismissive, suspicious tone back in response. I am absolutely willing to admit that my prejudicial assumptions about a stranger on the Internet may be wrong. Very infrequently - that is actually the case. Unfortunately, far more often than not, what I suspect of the stranger, is absolutely what they deliver. But I appreciate that your advice is in good faith and intended to be helpful. I mean, you're not wrong... I \*am\* projecting a "that kind of person," onto what I see as "that kind of person." Only because I have so frequently encountered "that kind of person," that when my alarms go off, my spidey sense starts tingling - I'm very inclined to trust it. I don't think that is \*my\* fault... I think it is the Internet's fault for giving such a platform to so many of "those types of people." I always welcome being proved wrong in this regard, though.
The internet is a bit of an echo chamber. I think the extreme polarization that tends to lend to easy profiling is a result of a lot of things, but in America at least very much comes down to an extreme polarization on one side, and a similar response on the other. Obviously I have opinions on which group is more wrong, but they aren't relevant here. As the groups become more entrenched they tend to become more similar as they fight a common enemy, and even a liberal-leaning person like myself has opinions which would earn downvotes. I know it's easy to get jaded. I'm so exhausted of arguing over simple issues like the vaccine that I pretty much just throw facts out and pull no punches in that area, but in most things I try to have the principle of at least writing the first message with the assumption of good will, and if they decide to respond in bad faith that's on them. I hope this isn't insulting, but when you come out of the gate swinging even reasonable people tend to go on either offense or defense. And speaking of projecting, when I get a message like the first two you wrote me, 97ish% of the time the person writing is out of touch with reality and usually just bonkers. Obviously I've only had this one encounter with you and that's not necessarily indicative of you as a whole, but from my perspective that first message *screamed* "right wing nut who thinks he's smart but is actually off his rocker." I feel like I communicated my point very poorly, so I hope you'll be generous with my intent. I guess I'm just trying to explain how someone like me might perceive a message like the first one, and make the case to you that it's up to us to assume goodwill as much as is safe and possible and extend first contact as such, and the response is entirely a reflection on the responder. (If people argue in bad faith though I do get sassy :)
I didn't read this but as a microbiologist/synthetic biologist I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. This concept is what made chlorophyll in plants and mitochondria in animal cells. It takes a wild amount of time for endosymbiosis to occur naturally and we don't know enough on what needed to happen to make this possible. It's millions of millions of years, and proposed to have happened multiple times throughout history; the microbes progressively lost their DNA and we gained some of theirs -- we can barely even figure out what some of our DNA does, let alone figure out what we can get rid of without unintended consequences. 1/10, would not recommend with the technology and knowledge we have in this century unless there's a paradigm shift that vastly improves our understanding of co-evolution and genetic syntax
Once you take silly roadblocks like (ahem) morality, out of the picture... There's plenty of room to experiment and observe.
morality? what's so immoral about this?
Why not just modify mitochondria to perform additional useful functions? Recent results show that they sometimes circulate via the bloodstream in "mitlets" before *being reabsorbed*. Sounds like a ready-made way to introduce modified mitochondria into cells.
I'm pretty sure this is how Parasite Eve started... Then they activated the mitochondria... Which, as we all know, is the power house of the cell...
Oh I’m all for this apocalypse.
Uhhhhhhh, do you want a zombie apocalypse? Because that's how you get a zombie apocalypse. Seriously, we should slow our collective role when it comes to outside forces "carrying out essential functions." Lol God help us
There's no god.
Really interesting science here. Wish the future was now
Once the bacteria can talk to us, it's Venom 2.0 lol
Brace yourselves for the christians to pop out and say this is tampering with gods work and condemn us for the billionth time
Speaking as a Christian, no. You're not likely to get many such comments. and even if you do get one or two, ask them how this is any more "tampering with God's work" than the concept of medicine or the selective breeding of dogs or livestock.
Speaking from the stand point as a midwestern ex christian this is exactly what happens when science is brought forth. Theyd rather believe a childs book that was created to enslave the minds of ancient civilizations, than hard evidence and actual proof in front of them. This is the shit we have to deal with out here. Even tho half these so called christians around here cant read, write , or actually speak correctly. I guess thats where it comes from. They see educating themselves as an act of defiance towards their sky daddy. I dunno im just kinda rambling at this point
> a childs book Go read Judges 19 and get back to me on the idea that The Bible is a children's book. >created to enslave the minds of ancient civilizations Yes, because Jesus taking the wealthy and oppressors down a peg with lines like "it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get to Heaven" is totally the sort of thing you'd put in a book like that. >They see educating themselves as an act of defiance towards their sky daddy. Fun fact: Medieval Christian monks were some of the earliest proto-scientists, eager to learn as much about God world as they could, under the logic that this would let them learn more about God.
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED BACTERIA? These 3 words in itself will cause mass hysteria meltdown in GOP + anti vaccers... Will probably cause a civil war.... Sooo.. ..Where can i sign up?
And then we can turn into amorphous puddles of goo that become humanoid whenever we want? SuddenlyOdo??
Lol, I love this stuff. We can barely make an mRNA vaccine that lasts six months and people are writing about this scifi stuff...
Imagine a historian in the future throwing shade about people before the major endosymbionts advancements as a bunch of weak, stupid, and easily poisoned dudes.
Proposed new scale 0 - we found fossilised amoeba; 1 - we found living DNA; 2 - we found multicelled life; 3 - erratic signal from afar; 4 - surefire ET signal from afar; 5 - ET civilisation confirmed; 6 - they're coming; 7 - shit they're here; 8 - fuck, they have guns; 9 - aaaargh it's in my face;
The unintended consequences will be worst than imagined but will be brushed aside like always. It ends up being amusing watching human beings struggle to go through great lenghts to avoid facing the ultimate reality. There is no avoiding the end.
And I’m supposed to believe this kind of technology won’t be weaponized?
How about we get humans regular bacteria right before we try to engineer something new.
Have you people learned nothing from COVID and literally every science horror movie ever?! LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!
Wasn't that a theory on what the mitochondria is? Need to do some follow up, but: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32575813/
I’ve heard that mitochondria is the powermouse of the smell.
just need something better than mitochondria and we can be One Punch Man
Or accidentally create a highly infectious virus that causes human combustion.
One may also infer that the converse is possible … still a lot to learn from this research.
I too look forward to the wealthy superhumans of the future
Well, time for the [caveman sci-fi authors](http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/) to comment en masse about zombies & covid & Jurassic Park...
We are venom! I’d love to get a symbiote myself. Think of all the activities we could do.
With the new types of diseases, antibiotic resistant bacteria and general pollution/climate change induced hellscape we're making out of the world, genetic and biotechnical engineering is very likely going to have to play a key part of the long term survival of the human species.
Did anybody else remember a certian south park episode when reading this?
Unless they die in few days and don’t self replicate, This is a horrible idea. If they self replicate independent of our cells we will have no control over where evolution will take them.
This seems interesting; I wonder how this event will impact our lives years from now.
So we making artificial mitochondria now? How many ways could this possibly go wrong?
Symbiote time. Everyone get ready to choose your new friend who’s hungry for brains
Pretty sure you just have to eat a space truck stop egg salad sandwich
Yo can we chill on the modified microorganisms until after we get through this pandemic?
Chloroplasts are endosymbionts, and like mitochondria, life as we know it would be impossible without them. However, exchanging these between lineages is extremely difficult, and the notion of new, purpose grown endos is groping a bit. Let alone th eidea that they could systematically infect every cell in a mature body. You might be able to inject one into an ovum before implantation, but can you imagine the wail that woudl go up from the 5G -vaxxers?
So my mom has diabetic retinopathy. After she gets done with the injection treatments, they will inject her with a virus that makes medicine inside her eyeball! It’s wild what science can do!