Comments
[deleted] t1_iz1j7fl wrote
[removed]
schizoscience OP t1_iz227ak wrote
Also, if you like this, please subscribe to my free substack blog for more content like it. I also have my own little baby subreddit: r/SchizoScience
[deleted] t1_iz4g15y wrote
[deleted]
maymaynibba t1_iz1p862 wrote
I did not go through the entire thing however I feel like it makes sense. When it comes to the future, we always imagine cyborgs, AI robots and what not.
But the the thing is we're reaching a point where Technology and Biology are merging, we're starting to be able to reprogram genetic code to acquire new skills, by updating the genetic code and if we keep at it in time we'd be able to design new organs that greatly improve human capabilities, like a super organ that can instantly detect & eliminate pathogens before the symptoms show, stop biological aging .
Maybe in time we'll be able to design organic transmitters that are in sync with our brains and we might be able to communicate via telepathy, download and upload skills and memories using organic components instead of implanting machines to do so
schizoscience OP t1_iz22n5s wrote
Implantable devices are actually one of the main applications that people are exploring organic electronics for. We need biocompatible materials to do that, and a lot of metals are toxic
Quiet_Orison t1_iz4bnyb wrote
Skills are learned behaviors. Thus far, we have not shown that genetics cause learned behaviors. The question of whether or not learned behavior was heritable the subject of intense study and debate among early proponents of genetics.
maymaynibba t1_iz4dab1 wrote
Let me put it this way: With Brain Computer Interface we'd be able to control machines with our thoughts. The BCI picks on our thoughts and converts it into commands for the machine to understand.
Similarly, when we achieve mastery over genetic programming, instead of a BCI tech, we can command the cells to form an organic one instead, To create a new organ that works closely with the brains.
With this new organ maybe in a similar manner to BCI we will be able to upload/download thoughts, which will eventually pave the way for exchanging experiences and skill sets. I hope you get what I am trying to say. We'd be gaining skills not by genetic engineering but by exchanging our experiences with each other.
Quiet_Orison t1_iz4i6se wrote
There's a vast gulf between "updating genetic code" to impart a new skill or knowledge and using a synthetic intermediary to exchange experience or memory.
Mr_Nicotine t1_iz22xj1 wrote
I would like to chip in. I do believe that this comes from the idea of our consciousness being "pure" and separated from our bodies. This means that, our consciousness grants our bodies some sort of "ritualness" and pureness...
Do you walk everyday thinking that you are walking everyday by sending signals to your muscles, which contracts via tendons to move your bones? Like, imagine yourself as a container made of skin, and your muscles getting signals/blood, and then contracting and moving your legs? No, you don't, because we see our bodies as a projection of our consciousness.
So, unless we try really hard to achieve this mentality, we will always resort to external agents. This is just my opinion, I know that there are of course tons of more relevant or explicit drawbacks to achieve a biopunk society.
schizoscience OP t1_iz2a4up wrote
There is a quote from J.B.S. Haldane's Daedalus that I have always liked a lot:
>The chemical or physical inventor is always a Prometheus. There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god. But if every physical and chemical invention is a blasphemy, every biological invention is a perversion. There is hardly one which, on first being brought to the notice of an observer from any nation which has not previously heard of their existence, would not appear to him as indecent and unnatural.
>
>Consider so simple and time-honored a process as the milking of a cow. The milk which should have been an intimate and almost sacramental bond between mother and child is elicited by the deft fingers of a milk-maid, and drunk, cooked, or even allowed to rot into cheese. We have only to imagine ourselves as drinking any of its other secretions, in order to realise the radical indecency of our relation to the cow.
>
>No less disgusting a priori is the process of corruption which yields our wine and beer. But in actual fact the process of milking and of the making and drinking of beer appear to us profoundly natural; they have even tended to develop a ritual of their own whose infraction nowadays has a certain air of impropriety. There is something slightly disgusting in the idea of milking a cow electrically or drinking beer out of tea-cups. And all this of course applies much more strongly to the sexual act.
So yes, I would definitely agree that there is a certain "yuck factor" that people tend to ascribe to biotechnology. I don't know if it's necessarily because we see bodies as "projections of consciousness," but there is definitely a predisposition to see life as somehow being sacred and inviolable. Still, as Haldane says, we have grown highly accustomed to utilizing the tools of life for a lot of things. Milking a cow, producing wine and beer through fermentation, even agriculture itself...
So if biotechnology proves its usefulness, and is shown to have significant advantages relative to other approaches to achieve specific things, people most likely will get used to it sooner or later in my opinion.
Mr_Nicotine t1_iz2b0d0 wrote
Nice, yes, that's exactly what U was thinking about. I honestly think that the best series that frames this problem is Altered Carbon on Netflix, there is always going to be someone against something.
itsfunhavingfun t1_iz2d1xz wrote
“I would like to ‘chip’ in”...I see what you did there.
Quiet_Orison t1_iz4c0g1 wrote
The entire field of biology is predicated on the fact we are mobile flesh tubes full of sodium, potassium, calcium, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous.
I don't think alienation from nature and the chemistry of life is insurmountable.
FuturologyBot t1_iz19xtc wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/schizoscience:
Futurism and science fiction have traditionally given comparatively less importance to biotechnology and the biological sciences, preferring instead to focus on other fields such as artificial intelligence and space exploration. In this article, I explore the potential of a "biopunk" world, where the fields that have traditionally constituted the main focus of futurism progress only modestly while the biological sciences and biotechnology progress tremendously. This is not exactly an effort at prediction, but merely an exploration of a distinct set of possibilities. My intent was to explore the limits of what can be achieved relying on life and biological and bio-inspired systems alone. Topics discussed in the article include:
- Biological nanotechnology (using DNA and proteins as biological nanobots), which I believe to be built on a stronger chemical foundation than the classical "Drexlerian" view of nanotechnology.
- Organic electronics and biological information processing systems (DNA computing) and others.
- Potential applications of biotechnologies to architecture and transportation
- "Conventional" uses of biotechnology (for medicine, food production, etc), discussed more briefly because I wanted to focus on less talked-about ideas.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zdetue/biopunk_or_what_can_we_reasonably_expect_out_of/iz15hbq/
phine-phurniture t1_iz29myj wrote
There is a definite bias towards tech but there are good examples of biopunk.... william gibsons universe... blade runner..... the warden diamond by j chalker. I think it is harder to pull off the biopunk concept but as the science advances it will appear more and more...
To me the best scifi was based in actual theoretical science and postulates inferred from the state of the art.
schizoscience OP t1_iz15hbq wrote
Futurism and science fiction have traditionally given comparatively less importance to biotechnology and the biological sciences, preferring instead to focus on other fields such as artificial intelligence and space exploration. In this article, I explore the potential of a "biopunk" world, where the fields that have traditionally constituted the main focus of futurism progress only modestly while the biological sciences and biotechnology progress tremendously. This is not exactly an effort at prediction, but merely an exploration of a distinct set of possibilities. My intent was to explore the limits of what can be achieved relying on life and biological and bio-inspired systems alone. Topics discussed in the article include: