Pentagon to Rewrite Evolution, Create Immortal Life

[ShadowKatt]

Fifth page before I get to comment. No one's going to see this.

I'm going to through out a theory that will probably be labeled conspiracy theorist, but this whole thing seems like another step towards the NWO. Consider the following: The government runs this program with the promise of immortality while working on both sides of the coins. What tney do is build the DNA segment to create the termination code, and bioengineer an airborne virus to carry it. Vaccinate the heads of corperate america and government, and then release the virus. I won't go into how viruses work, you can look that up on your own, but the virus swaps out a segment of DNA and puts in the kill code, and when the cell replicates, it replicates the kill code, and suddenly you have population enslaved. Political dissention can be quelled with a gas canister that causes cellular death on a mass scale, or purhaps a chemical in a dart.

I love technology, but I don't trust anyone in the government to use it in any humane way. I still believe nuclear technology could be used to further civilization. Instead we used it to level two cities in Japan. Necessary, yes, but what did we do afterwards? Build more and stockpiled them, and there they sit.

Don't trust the government.

 

[Kollega]

I'll just restate the obvious. Letting military guys toy around with bioengineering is a bad, bad, bad idea. There's so much ways they could abuse these technologies it's not even funny. Besides - what they want is biological robots, and it's not an easy thing to create.

Their plans can be neatly summed up in one phrase: "jumping over their head".

 

[Jark212]

So the world ends in 2012 in the hands - or claws - of genetically engineered mutant velociraptors designed by Pentagon.

Raptors are peaceful by nature...

Spoiler

It's those Genetically Engineered octopuses we should be worried about...

 

[Ataxia]

Natural Selection not random selection, of what you NEED and removes what you don't, which is why humans aren't the strongest animals ever).

Well, kudos for not panicking, but this touches another sore spot. Natural selection doesn't "direct" everything to a particular form. Given a certain situation, some things will have a better chance of making it through than others. Things that survive have a better chance of having kids. Some traits or collections of traits happen to be correlated with this survival, and as a result, it gets passed onto more and more offspring. So natural selection isn't about taking out the bad; it's about advantageous traits gaining more and more prominence. And yes, this means that natural selection is operating on you right now, but I'm not going to get into that.

So my main point is that when people age they're bodys functions will shut down such as reproduction and senses. So immortality has negatives.

I think the distinction between immortality and eternal youth has been made quite a bit. A lot of the research into extending life has also considered the flipside, which is that quality of life tends to be inversely correlated with quality of life after, oh, six decades or so. At any rate, even if immortality were a reasonable worry here, I'd be more concerned about this sort of issue. [http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1554]

Never woulda thought of that sort of issue, lol. Thanks for correcting me on the natural selection thing what you said is what I ment so you get the idea.

 

[TheStickman]

Oh God, now they're playing God. It's only a matter of time before they destroy everyone with a super army. Who else wants to form a mob?

 

[Dr Ampersand]

Spoiler: poiumty's Quote

Allow me to address the anxieties underlying your concerns, rather than try to answer every possible question you might have left unvoiced. First, let us consider the fact that for the first time ever, as a species, immortality is in our reach. This simple fact has far-reaching implications. It requires radical rethinking and revision of our genetic imperatives. It also requires planning and forethought that run in direct opposition to our neural pre-sets. I find it helpful at times like these to remind myself that our true enemy is Instinct. Instinct was our mother when we were an infant species. Instinct cuddled us and kept us safe in those hardscrabble years when we hardened our sticks and cooked our first meals above a meager fire and started at the shadows that leapt upon the cavern's walls. But inseparable from Instinct is its dark twin, Superstition. Instinct is inextricably bound to unreasoning impulses, and today we clearly see its true nature. Instinct has just become aware of its irrelevance, and like a cornered beast, it will not go down without a bloody fight. Instinct would inflict a fatal injury on our species. Instinct creates its own oppressors, and bids us rise up against them. Instinct tells us that the unknown is a threat, rather than an opportunity. Instinct slyly and covertly compels us away from change and progress. Instinct, therefore, must be expunged. It must be fought tooth and nail, beginning with the basest of human urges: The urge to reproduce. We should thank our benefactors for giving us respite from this overpowering force. They have thrown a switch and exorcised our demons in a single stroke. They have given us the strength we never could have summoned to overcome this compulsion. They have given us purpose. They have turned our eyes toward the stars.

Finally my question is answered [http://www.hlcomic.com/index.php?date=2005-06-07]

I see somebody is trying to impersonate the Combine. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you pretty much saying we should wipe our own Instincts like the urge to reproduce so we can kill ourselves? If you remove the urge to reproduce we could go exstinct (instinct:exstinct..Wonder if theres a connection...) as a species besides you can't stop progress so there's no need to fight instincts and this is what we have SENTIENCE FOR to choose between instincts and what our brain says.

Actually I was just responding to a quote with a comic strip I find funny. I don't believe we should wipe out our instincts.

 

[Ataxia]

I used yours because it had the quote in it but sorry if it came across wrong.

 

[brunothepig]

This is so awesome. Can't wait to see how this goes. Although there's probably going to be a mass of protesters. It will be at least as heated as the abortion issue.

 

[britterly]

It's those Genetically Engineered octopuses we should be worried about...

This reminds me, they've learned how to use tools: http://museumvictoria.com.au/coconut-carrying-octopus

Soon they'll have opposable thumbs!

 

[sumanoskae]

Somewhere, Commander Sheppard feel's like a maid

 

[traceur_]

Let's just hope none of them go all Alex Mercer on us.

 

[reg42]

OMG America. Why? Just why?

 

[NoNameMcgee]

As someone else said, this is fascinating and, to me, unbelievable. Is this kind of thing really possible?

Also, where is that picture of the plastic mad scientist guy from? It scares the shit out of me.

 

[ottenni]

As long as a get my robotic exoskeleton and my flying lunch-box car i'm happy.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

[/chop]

In sum, I don't really see a terrible lot here to be worried about, except that millions of dollars are being poured into this as opposed to helping NASA, oh I don't know, keep up manned space flights? There is one way I could see this being turned to something more nefarious than has been brought up here, but it's an application that has been looming over the world's heads for a while, and I don't feel like adding to the Luddite panic.

As far as the ways in which this is playing God (altering DNA, creating recombinant lifeforms), a lot of your taxpayer dollars are going towards laboratories that are already doing such things. So if you're having ethical conflicts now, I suggest you leave the first world countries.

Reading the article and thread comments, I very much suspected that relatively mundane processes were being construed as grandiose and unusual. Thanks for your post, sartezalb, as it describes some possible explanations. If the article described the process of making bacterial insulin medication in the same alarmist and condescending tone, the readers here would likely cry "science gone mad!" over that, too.

As for evolution, it is a natural process. It is not ideal, it just... is. There is no reason not to increase or supplement its desirable effects- and reverse the undesirable- if it will improve peoples' lives, although I acknowledge the complexity and uncertainty involved. Natural selection favors the fittest traits, but I think people misunderstand what is meant by 'fittest'. 'Fittest' does not have to coincide with 'most desirable'- I would guess it rarely does. In any case, I think sartezalb pointed out why it is probably a moot point anyway.

New technologies may be abused or raise ethical concerns, but so may everything else. This world isn't so free from suffering that we need mad scientists to remind us what it is. Besides, existing technologies are easy enough to abuse. Mary Shelley never even knew about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Talk about science gone mad*.

*Before I get called out, I'm aware that Hiroshima-scale slaughter was possible (if not so deliciously practical) before we had 'the bomb'.

 

[Dyp100]

Why is everyone saying: Man isn't meant to play God, This won't end well, Etc.

Nothing was meant to happen, everything is "luck", what is the point of holding back potential? This could be great, what brings us into an age of true Godhood, the one humanity creates.

I just really hope we don't get a load of Christians complaining about everything, I mean, what right do people have to hold back science?

But...One thing I'm scared about is that fast the Pentagon is doing is, I mean...-Facepalm- World domination right there.

 

[grimdeath999]

sounds like something will go wrong qat it will be like you see in movies, a group of survivors trying to survive by the time they turn on us

 

[sartezalb]

Never woulda thought of that sort of issue, lol. Thanks for correcting me on the natural selection thing what you said is what I ment so you get the idea.

Dinosaur Comics turns out to be way more insightful than more formal channels sometimes. And I didn't mean to pick on you, to be clear. The way I was combing for responses, you happened to come up twice, and I didn't realize until you quoted me there.

Reading the article and thread comments, I very much suspected that relatively mundane processes were being construed as grandiose and unusual...

...'Fittest' does not have to coincide with 'most desirable'- I would guess it rarely does. In any case, I think sartezalb pointed out why it is probably a moot point anyway...

New technologies may be abused or raise ethical concerns, but so may everything else. This world isn't so free from suffering that we need mad scientists to remind us what it is. Besides, existing technologies are easy enough to abuse. Mary Shelley never even knew about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Talk about science gone mad*...

Well hell, perhaps the internet's not so pointless. Thanks!

As far as "human evolution" goes, here's a funny article, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm] but I wouldn't treat it as gospel. Just kinda something to "think" about.

As far as the abuse of technologies, it might be interesting to think on Richard Feynman's statements regarding his work on the atom bomb; paraphrased, his work on splitting the atom was scientific work, but his work on making a feasible bomb was engineering work. Does the distinction matter? I think that's ultimately a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Ataxia]

Reading the article and thread comments, I very much suspected that relatively mundane processes were being construed as grandiose and unusual...

...'Fittest' does not have to coincide with 'most desirable'- I would guess it rarely does. In any case, I think sartezalb pointed out why it is probably a moot point anyway...

New technologies may be abused or raise ethical concerns, but so may everything else. This world isn't so free from suffering that we need mad scientists to remind us what it is. Besides, existing technologies are easy enough to abuse. Mary Shelley never even knew about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Talk about science gone mad*...

Well hell, perhaps the internet's not so pointless. Thanks!

As far as "human evolution" goes, here's a funny article, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm] but I wouldn't treat it as gospel. Just kinda something to "think" about.

As far as the abuse of technologies, it might be interesting to think on Richard Feynman's statements regarding his work on the atom bomb; paraphrased, his work on splitting the atom was scientific work, but his work on making a feasible bomb was engineering work. Does the distinction matter? I think that's ultimately a matter of personal opinion.[/quote]

My only problem with the article is on medicine reliance I understand relying on medicine will result in weaker immnue systems but since we've already fought evolution with medicine multiple times we've eliminated certain diseases off the face of the thing (Example you ask? Small pox.) though using purell too much or not washing your hands before you use it is even worse then letting the germs live because things like a common cold that doesn't kill you makes your immnue system stronger so if you keep killing them what happens? When you get a really strong virus then it'll blow on your immnue system and the whole thing topples because it never had any practice.
Cool comics/article things .