Re: Legislature banning animal-human hybrids
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:03 am
Nonsense Pariah, only good can come of human/animal hybrids.
Only good.
Only good.
This is the home of united werewolf fans across the globe. Searching to improve the image of the werewolf in popular culture, known as... The Pack
https://thepack.network/thepackboard/
We don't know that. Who's to say that, by the time we get to the point when we can do it, that cultural sensibilities won't have changed so drastically that they'll be welcomed with open arms? It could happen. I don't see it as the most likely timeline, but to pass a law because of what we think could happen, given reasonable possibility of numerous alternatives, is not valid logic. We just don't have either the technology nor the cultural intellect to deal with the issue. So, they're trying to outlaw the issue from ever coming up. But, if it's technically possible, sooner or later, someone is going to do it. I'd rather it not be a clandestine underground. Yes, it's possible that the first hybrids will be pigs with human hearts, used for slaughter for transplants. And yes, it's possible that the first human / wolf hybrid could end up being a corporation's slave to be pitted in staged arena fights for reality show TV. But, it's not hard to find willing subjects on this forum who would gladly turn themselves into wolf / human hybrids, and it's also perfectly imaginable that human / other-animal hybridization might be a way to, say, colonize an alien planet for which we're not very well-fit, but a genetically modified being is; or, that animal hybridization could be done as a way of solving some present or future problem, such as ensuring that we biological organisms can keep up with rapidly evolving AIs.I actually think the ban is a good idea for the same reason I support the pit bull ban. It's not because human hybrids or pit bulls don't deserve to live, but because there is very little hope of them ever having a decent life...
PariahPoet wrote: If you're born a human hybrid your only option is to live in a cage in a lab and eventually be killed for your organs.
I can't help but think back to the "Dog Boys" from Shadowrun. They were this race of genetically engineered creatures that were half human, half canine. They were designed specifically to act as engineered soldiers. The bad guys created them using canine genetic material because they wanted their territoriality as well as their pack mentality and their tendency to bond to humans from their "pack", so to speak. They were also intended to be entirely expendable. Very dark stuff.Aki wrote: I'm sure using animal DNA to make super-soldiers is something they desperately want as well.
Not to veer off topic, but I think the main argument behind Pit Bulls is the idea that they are instinctively more prone to violence than other breeds, and that it is because of this instinct that people choose the Pit Bull as an attack dog.Scott Gardener wrote: Children born from poverty-stricken mothers are, by raw statistics and ignoring political or ethical interpretations, more likely to grow up to be criminals. By this argument, one would also have to advocate laws forbidding people below the poverty line from reproducing. (Note: I'm not actually advocating this! I'm presenting a reductio ad absurdum argument.)
Or if you don't mind a more camp example, the kangaroo-men from Tank Girl.Uniform Two Six wrote:I can't help but think back to the "Dog Boys" from Shadowrun. They were this race of genetically engineered creatures that were half human, half canine. They were designed specifically to act as engineered soldiers. The bad guys created them using canine genetic material because they wanted their territoriality as well as their pack mentality and their tendency to bond to humans from their "pack", so to speak. They were also intended to be entirely expendable. Very dark stuff.Aki wrote: I'm sure using animal DNA to make super-soldiers is something they desperately want as well.
I don't know. I can imagine a rationale getting traction that engineering troops could be beneficial. Forget super-soldiers. Think -- troops who are designed to have just enough intelligence to carry out their missions and a built in obedience, as well as (most importantly) no family to get pissed off if they feel that their son or daughter was either mistreated, or sent off to die stupidly. Hell, simply test-tube-breeding your troops as opposed to trying to recruit them might be appealing to the Pentagon. Right now, the number one problem concerning the U.S. Army is recruiting. Not combat casualties, not weapon system development, not even general funding -- recruitment. They were having problems back during the good years. Right now, with two very unpopular wars going on, they're basically screwed. Having the ability to design in extras like enhanced sight, hearing, and smell, would just be icing on the cake.Terastas wrote:As long as there are people willing to join the army to try and pay their way through college, anyone that even thinks of breeding auto-drafted super-soldiers is going to have to keep those thoughts to themselves lest their entire career be compromised.
If super-soldiers ever do come into existence, it will be through surgery, not genetics;
These two statements seem to contradict each other. If I saw a Golden Retriever I didn't know, for example, I would not be apprehensive about going near it. Unlike a pit bull. I'm not advocating any kind of extermination agenda or anything like that, but the anecdotal evidence of attacks against normal people who did not mistreat or mis-train their pit bulls (even animals with no history of aggression or abuse whatsoever,) is too widespread to ignore. Seriously, google "pit bull mauls owner" and then google "Golden Retriever mauls owner." The difference is night and day. I can understand that this evidence may seem too sensational, due to the overblown and propaganda-like nature of news. But still.Scott Gardener wrote:Berserker, about pit bulls: Actually, no. Pit bulls are not inherently more aggressive than other dogs.
If I saw one I didn't know, I'd be pretty apprehensive about going near the beastie.
I don't know about the rest of you, but personally, I see enough crap on the news every day to think the "definition of what human is" SHOULD be challenged.Aki wrote:I love how the best defense/argument the guy can muster is "The definition of what human is will be challenged!"
Definitions of things change, humanity included. The future has never been known for suffering lightly fools who attempt to hold steadfast to old definitions and practices.
RedEye wrote:Hmmm... With the technology we have today, about the only creature we could hybridize with humans...
Is a Chimpanzee.
I'll leave it there. Let your imaginations provide the requesite grossness.
RedEye wrote:Hmmm... With the technology we have today, about the only creature we could hybridize with humans...
Is a Chimpanzee.
I'll leave it there. Let your imaginations provide the requesite grossness.
I don't see how someone proposing the creation of a warrior class would compromise someone's career. Aside from some moral arguments, such as "forcing or brainwashing" them into fighting against their will, the populace will be in love with the idea that their friends and family members will be that much less likely to suffer injury or death while in the armed forces. Those same arguments could be applied to your proposed surgical method, if you're tinkering around in there, what's to say that the doctors aren't doing things other than what's listed on the brochure? If someone is given, say, grafts of muscle tissue to allow them to carry heavier loads, hit harder, along with "stress management" treatments, I'll bet you good money it won't take long for the "brainwashed killing machine" accusations and protests to start. Someone's poor baby boy can now crush a Voltswagon with his hands, and has the empathy of your average Bowflex machine. He's been 'traumatized' and now he's fit only for combat.Terastas wrote:As long as there are people willing to join the army to try and pay their way through college, anyone that even thinks of breeding auto-drafted super-soldiers is going to have to keep those thoughts to themselves lest their entire career be compromised.
If super-soldiers ever do come into existence, it will be through surgery, not genetics;
...What?Berserker wrote:..people who did not mistreat or mis-train their pit bulls
Are you kidding me? Pit bulls aren't just bred for fighting other dogs, they're bred to be aggressive period. It is in their genes.Set wrote:
So yes, those people, nice as they may seem, DID in fact screw up.
What do you need operators for? Seriously. We already have autonomous weapons systems that possess very, very primitive AI that already are given limited "kill discretion." The U.S. Navy's Aegis air defense system is designed to operate as a command node for a battle group, with the subordinate escorts acting as slave nodes. When put into "autonomous" mode, the computer takes complete control, and the FCs on all the various ships in the battle group just sit back and watch. And for those of you who get flashes of Terminator and "Skynet," yes, there have already been fatal accidents. Back in the 90s sometime, during an exercise with the Turkish Navy, U.S.S. Saratoga (CV-60) fired a Sea Sparrow missile into a Turkish destroyer when the FC on the battle group's air defense flagship accidentally put the group into autonomous mode.Wingman wrote: Which is why robotics would be the more likely course taken, with operators controlling drones.
Well, you pretty much rebutted this for yourself already, but I'll say it anyway:Uniform Two Six wrote:I don't know. I can imagine a rationale getting traction that engineering troops could be beneficial. Forget super-soldiers. Think -- troops who are designed to have just enough intelligence to carry out their missions and a built in obedience, as well as (most importantly) no family to get pissed off if they feel that their son or daughter was either mistreated, or sent off to die stupidly.
Or just put a LAW into it... or run a tank over it. Same result.Terastas wrote: Besides, I'm having a hard time imagining "super soldiers" being as super as they're being described in this thread sometimes. Why would the military need soldiers that can rip a car in half with their bare hands (wouldn't it be cheaper to just give him a chainsaw)?
Tapetum lucidum, or usually referred to as eyeshine. I have heard some scuttlebutt about quantum dot injections that do the same, without requiring much mucking about that could make you go blind or something. Would be nice, though everyone with it would be running around as a Riddick clone, which wouldn't be a bad thing. In fact, aside from his attitude, I'd say Riddick would probably be a fairly ideal supersoldier.Uniform Two Six wrote: Seriously though, I could think of a few "super-soldier" modifications that would actually have utility on the battlefield. Being able to grow the reflective layer at the back of the retina (can't quite recall the medical term for that organ) and mucking around with the cone/rod structure ratio, so that a trooper can see in the dark without the need of an AN/PVS-7 (which goes through batteries like nothing else). Having a sense of smell like a canid. There's a reason military working dogs are in such high demand right now. Being able to simply smell IEDs would be awesometastic.
Of course, Cyberpunk's always dark like that. Even if it's fantasy-cyberpunk like SR.Uniform Two Six wrote:I can't help but think back to the "Dog Boys" from Shadowrun. They were this race of genetically engineered creatures that were half human, half canine. They were designed specifically to act as engineered soldiers. The bad guys created them using canine genetic material because they wanted their territoriality as well as their pack mentality and their tendency to bond to humans from their "pack", so to speak. They were also intended to be entirely expendable. Very dark stuff.Aki wrote: I'm sure using animal DNA to make super-soldiers is something they desperately want as well.
Even in the future it would be more likely to be using robotic/controlled drones like that. The Army currently has one that's the size of a hummer that can sit and wait for weeks, doing nothing but watching and watching and waiting...Uniform Two Six wrote: Truthfully, however, if this level of genetic manipulation ever becomes possible (never mind economically feasable) it probably won't be in our lifetimes. More likely (although still probably in the quite distant future) would be the use of artificial intelligence paired with robotic technology. Very early prototypes are already in service for precisely these reasons; You will be far more willing to sacrifice an EOD drone or a Predator when you know that the worst that can happen is that a piece of equipment is destroyed (as opposed to a living breathing person who necessitates another flag draped coffin). Even better, a robot that is outwardly just a box with wheels or a Predator drone or something, doesn't elicit that "Awwwww" response in the taxpayers that a lovable furry creature might (as the Army found out the hard way when it got out that they were "surplussing" German Shepherd dogs who -- despite being attack trained -- had outlived their usefulness. Americans love dogs).
All sorts of reasons. Carrying injured comrades, hand to hand combat, more strength means increased carrying capacity, etc. A soldier who can rip a car in half with his bare hands can walk into battle with signicantly more ammunition, supplies and armor. He can also do severe damage in close quarters.Terastas wrote: Besides, I'm having a hard time imagining "super soldiers" being as super as they're being described in this thread sometimes. Why would the military need soldiers that can rip a car in half with their bare hands (wouldn't it be cheaper to just give him a chainsaw)?
There's a couple of practical problems with controlled drones, though. Without fully controlling AI, you still need an operator. Either the operator is remote in CONUS which means that you have to use precious satellitte bandwith (the secure stuff is getting more and more scarce each year), or he's in theatre which means that he can still be killed by simply targeting his base. Another concern is electronic signals warfare. Now, you don't have to worry too much about this kind of thing when you're fighting primarily illiterate hicks (like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda), but remember, just because they're kicking our a** doesn't mean they're a first rate adversary. You go up against a technically sophisticated opponent (say the PRC, for instance), and you have to worry about the security of your signals. One bad thing that can happen is that if your operator is in theatre, there's a danger that they can figure out his location and hit him with artillery or airstrikes. This means that if they can force you to go EMCON for force protection reasons, then you lose your drone support. A worse problem would be if they managed to crack your signals, at which point they can get control of the drones and use them against you. Army and Air Force don't really worry about this scenario, because they have a great deal of confidence in our encryption technology. That's dangerous. The Germans had the same kind of confidence in their signals security in World War II, and they learned that lesson the hard way.Aki wrote: Even in the future it would be more likely to be using robotic/controlled drones like that. The Army currently has one that's the size of a hummer that can sit and wait for weeks, doing nothing but watching and watching and waiting...
Again the problem is control. The only really effective way to control a Predator is by satellitte. That assumes that you have the satellittes. The Russians (and possibly the Chinese) are working on "birdkiller" systems to take out American satellittes. The Predator has an autopilot feature that allows it to fly unassisted, but only for navigational purposes. Once it gets to the AO, it needs operator input, which means that you need the satellitte.Aki wrote: And of course the Predators are, due to their design, largely silent and can be affixed with a couple missles. the only warning any threat would get before being killed is the whine of the props and the roar of the missles.
Actually, they've found that the lightly built folks are better in the field because heavily muscled people tend to have much poorer endurance and a higher metabolism, meaning they can't go as far on the same amount of food. I'm not kidding. Defense has actually done studies on this. If you don't believe me, just take a look at somebody in special forces. I was passing through NAS North Island (real close to the SEAL base in Coronado) when these guys came into the exchange. They looked emaciated, no lie. I actually thought to myself that if there was anybody on the base that I could take in a fight, it would have to be these guys. They looked like Holocaust survivors or something. Then I saw they were all wearing SEAL badges. Whoops (I am so glad I didn't open my mouth and embarrass myself).Aki wrote: A soldier who can rip a car in half with his bare hands can walk into battle with signicantly more ammunition, supplies and armor.