CRISPR / CAS9

[LupusExMachina]

Well, you won't believe it, as it is unbelieveable. Stay nevertheless. I want to know what you guys think about the implications of the "news".
Basically genetic engineering just got super easy, super cheap, super precise and super fast. (Actually it happened 2012 but in december of last year the technique was more or less perfected)
Right now an arbitrary genome can be modified as you please.
Whoever watched the movie Prometheus. We now posess the toolbox of the engineers.
I know it still sounds like I'm completly mad and might wear a tinfoilhat right now. I don't judge you, I would believe the same. Nevertheless, it is there and it won't go away.

I was excited at first, then I got scared as the full extend of the possibilities sunk in. Right now I'm hopeful again, but that might change. As I don't have anyone to talk about it right now I turn here. I want to know how others think about ethical problems nobody expected to be relevant in our lifetime.

The short version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pp17E4E-O8

An little more complex:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnYppmstxIs

And the Einstein of our century:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuAxDVBt7kQ
(edit: To be clear and give credit where it is needed: Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna made the final discovery)

Welcome to the future gentlemen, the start of the 21st century saw the emergence of genetic tailoring. You have been there, you have seen it.

[jorgebonafe]

Yes... The future.. Such promise. Such wonders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfoVOGMz054

[LupusExMachina]

Thats what I meant. What you posted is a science fiction story. What I wrote up there is true. It sounds like science fiction. It is not.
We're talking about it being used right now. We're talking about cancer (in that particular case leukemia) being most likely cured.

I said it is unbelievable.

[jorgebonafe]

What do you mean, "science fiction"? You saying I can't make my own meat machines?

:'(

[LupusExMachina]

Not with your technique. With Crispr you can. Well, with quiet some work, but you can do it.

Removing some genetic defect or curing cancer is a lot simpler than creating completly new life forms it seems.

edit:
Oh yeah, right, leukemia "cured" last august in london in a one year old girl by modifying some of her T-Cells. (The "" come from the whole cancer thing, it takes years to be sure they got every cell. Right now it's looking pretty good though)

[Sarudak]

I think it's wrong to put so much significance on CRISPR. Granted it's a big step but it's just one more step on the biotech staircase we've been climbing for the past couple decades. Big data analytics combined with rapid decreases in the cost of genome sequencing and now genome production are also huge advancements.

[LupusExMachina]

That is actually true. It's just the last piece of the puzzle to make the picture whole. But I guess that is the reason why it is so big. Everything is there now, a complete toolbox. Nevertheless, Crispr is used to improve Crispr, it's a self accelerating discovery. At least for the moment things are moving incredible fast. Ideas which have been gathered over the past 30 years can finally be put to work and tested properly. If Crispr would have been there first, the visualization technology would have been marked as the moment all of this became viable. But well, it's this way around.

[Wafflewaffle]

Not worried. We have been modifying genes for a very long time now (unwittingly or unknowingly but still). Dont expect to see genetic fashion modifications or supersoldiers programs anytime soon. Its probable that this tecnology will be used for medical, engineering or farming purposes, think clone transplants, plastic eating bacteria and disease resist crops.

Wake me up when we get some major portable battery breaktrought. Then shits gonna get real crazy.

[LupusExMachina]

Not worried. We have been modifying genes for a very long time now (unwittingly or unknowingly but still). Dont expect to see genetic fashion modifications or supersoldiers programs anytime soon. Its probable that this tecnology will be used for medical, engineering or farming purposes, think clone transplants, plastic eating bacteria and disease resist crops.

Wake me up when we get some major portable battery breaktrought. Then shits gonna get real crazy.

Right now it's still pretty much a wildcard. Being able to conduct 200 perfectly precise modifications in a week vs. one most likely successfull modification in three years is a huge leap. When you consider these modifications cost less than a 1000 dollars vs. 100000 for the single one done by the old technique this becomes even more marvelous. It is a breakthrough, something that catapults us forward 60 years on the normal scale of cost reduction, efficiency and precision.

So, if you have a technological leap in battery design or another field doesn't matter that much. It's a leap and it will change the world fundamentally.

It will most likely take some time to notice in everyday life. A couple of years maybe, but the first products are either there and will enter the market this year, in this case an apple with completly reactivated natural defense mechanisms, or are in the pipeline.
There is a mosquito in a lab which would, if released into the wild, make all mosquitos in a whole population resistant against malaria in a matter of 2 years. And yes, it's not planned, it is done, it is there, open the cage and malaria deaths will drop sharply.

[FlowerChild]

Yes... The future.. Such promise. Such wonders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfoVOGMz054

AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

That's some straight out David Cronenberg shit right there. Love the top comment on that vid too :)

[FlowerChild]

BTW: Didn't mean to be dismissive of the OP with the above. I'm entirely focused on watching the grand finally of the primary process in the U.S. today, so I wanted to reserve going over the material for when I have a little more available processing power for it ;)

[Sarudak]

That is actually true. It's just the last piece of the puzzle to make the picture whole. But I guess that is the reason why it is so big. Everything is there now, a complete toolbox. Nevertheless, Crispr is used to improve Crispr, it's a self accelerating discovery. At least for the moment things are moving incredible fast. Ideas which have been gathered over the past 30 years can finally be put to work and tested properly. If Crispr would have been there first, the visualization technology would have been marked as the moment all of this became viable. But well, it's this way around.

Er. Actually I have to disagree with you much more strongly here. This is not the last piece of the puzzle and we're not really that close to having a whole picture. We still need a good understanding of how changes to DNA relate to changes in biological processes. I really like this comic in explaining that. And that doesn't even address how our genetics have co-evolved with environmental stimuli (think gut bacteria). More advanced editing techniques will allow us to experiment more quickly and advance our ability to understand that puzzle but the puzzle is really really hard and for now we're still taking shots in the dark in regard to engineering organisms kinda like a novice copying and pasting code without actually understanding it. That might work for some simple modifications but is likely to result in unexpected side effects and will never allow you to create something of significant complexity.

EDIT: Not to be too negative I'm really happy about how much biotech has advanced and am looking forward to the future. Personally I think an indefinite healthy life for humans is not too far off.

[LupusExMachina]

-snip-

Depends on where you see the puzzle. XKCD set it at biology as a whole. If you see it as genetic engineering, we are there. We can read, write, copy, paste, activate, deactivate, regulate and do some other pretty scary things with DNA with ease right now. And the mention of the optimization process in biology is pretty on point. After all, the crispr/cas9 is a naturally occuring complex. It's actually a bacterial immune system. Humanity just found out what it can do and is utilizing this.

And yes, the research speed just went through the roof. Two teams of researchers set out to systematically switch off genes in the human genome to see whats vital for the cells. They are done by now. Before crispr this work alone would have taken the team several tens of thousands of years to complete and cost about two billion dollars up (calculating with 20000 human protein creating genes and 100000 dollar per edited gene and one year work per gene). Not that the data points to anything specific right now, but the data is there and it is big :)

[Gilberreke]

That's pretty cool, I wonder how it ties in to what Luca Cardelli is doing?

Here's a talk he gave to illustrate the concept:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrF_lZW61A


Basically, he's programming with RNA, he makes RNA that acts like AND/OR/NOT/whatever gates. This should allow us to eventually create an RNA computer.

Imagine combining the two: you make a computer that can create any RNA sequence, but the sequences it creates are CRISPR-cas9. You can now create a computer that lives inside cells and intelligently makes decisions and can alter RNA of the host on the fly. Example: you send an astronaut to a hostile environment (new planet) and the RNA computer detects certain chemicals coming in. As a response, it dynamically generates DNA to specifically protect the host against the particular environment of that planet.

[jorgebonafe]

This is end of the world stuff you guys are talking about...

[Sarudak]

End of the world and/or beginning of something better

[Gilberreke]

If you're a programmer, I highly recommend watching that Luca Cardelli talk, it's mind alteringly blowingly.

[LupusExMachina]

This is a long one, first part is technical stuff that shows how unlikely it is what is happening (basically outpacing moores law for genetics a couple of decades), the second part is more interesting for everyone and a point everyone really needs to think about.
I turn here with the discussion because I see a lot of thinkers around here that are not exactly the average dude. It's hard to find a place to actually get some viable other viewpoints on the matter.

--first part

Those that might have read about crispr/cas9 will eventually stumble across the off-target problem. When Crispr targets DNA sequences that are similar, but not identical to the guideRNA code. Well, when I said things are moving fast, it was not an understatement. As it turns out, crispr/cas9 has far more binding energy than needed to lock onto a target, which also makes it prone to lock onto places which show lower values of binding energy. That gave researches a lot of wiggleroom to change the cas9 part of the machine to reduce binding energy.
The result: spCas9-HF1. A variation that shows practically no detectable off-target activity while retaining the on-target effects at comparable levels.

https://www.genomeweb.com/gene-silencin ... et-effects

So currently we're talking about less than one off-target per billion. Which on the one hand doesn't mean there will be an actual effect at that off target place but also means there could be, which still makes crispr unsuitable for everyday usage. In the above mentioned article, there has been a single cut in the whole experimentation line. It is definitely good enough to treat some forms of fatal disease directly in the living patient, but not good enough for say an anti-aging cream.

The current roadblock that is there, is the detection of off targets. While current systems have been more than sufficient for pre-cas systems, they don't cut it when it comes to the precision of crispr. So right now it is not possible to distinguish unwanted crispr effects from detector noise (which is already incredible low).

I stumbled upon this

https://www.genomeweb.com/gene-silencin ... ity-crispr

I can't completly wrap my head around it, but as far as I undestand it, that technique does not allow to see off-targets, but enables prediction of those. Which might be a workaround to the problem with detection as there are different detection methods of which some are magnitudes more precise than those used in everyday research. They just fall in the realm of not being feasible time and money wise if you are basically stepping through the dark searching for something. If you know what you are looking for, things change.

--second part (the actually important one, the first is just to show how urgent things are)

So, to come to the point of all of this. Societies, everyone here, actually everyone, really needs to think about what we want from this, what we want to do with it. Genetical modification is a reality nobody expected to be confronted with in their lifetimes. Or at least we might have thought that it would show up on the horizon and give us time to think about it before it really hits in. And yet it came out of the blue. It is here and it will stay. We not only aquired the ability to eradicate a lot of sicknesses, but also entire species at our whim. We can produce modified humans.
In know we can't create new traits, but we can effectively paste in existing sequences and as there are 7 billion of us, there is a lot of info out there on what specific genetic sequences can do in a body. While heightened athletic abilities are nothing we can produce out of the blue, there are ethnic groups which show those desired abilities. Those can be copy pasted and used.
The system allows to target subspecies, so those ethnic groups could also be specifically targeted for a desired effect. This might seem like a possibility nobody wants to think about, but that doesn't cut it. It's part of the technology, it's a dangerous and promising. We need social norms about the usage of the technology. Where is a line you will not cross?
Is the line eradicating all mosquitos?
Is the line at the point of altering all mosquitos to be immune to malaria and effectively eradicate the disease (Yes, right now all it takes is to open a cage at the right location)
Is the line at the point of improving living humans? We do that with more crude technologies already, think about glasses.
As the use of the technology is not detectable, laws will not be suffice to regulate it. As its boons are so incredible, banning it is neither an option.

So, I think, as societes and humanity as a whole we need to determine what use of the technology is a disgusting atrocity and what is acceptable concerning the tradeoffs. Our children will need to know what will repel them on a fundamental level. We are at a point where the future is shaped and everyone of us has a vote on it in the form of the way he thinks about the technology and communicates it to out fellow humans. Will we talk about it enthusiastically, with fear or differentiated?

I don't know for myself. My head is joyous, my gut is worried.

--and third... a little reply :)

That's pretty cool, I wonder how it ties in to what Luca Cardelli is doing?

Here's a talk he gave to illustrate the concept:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrF_lZW61A


Basically, he's programming with RNA, he makes RNA that acts like AND/OR/NOT/whatever gates. This should allow us to eventually create an RNA computer.

Imagine combining the two: you make a computer that can create any RNA sequence, but the sequences it creates are CRISPR-cas9. You can now create a computer that lives inside cells and intelligently makes decisions and can alter RNA of the host on the fly. Example: you send an astronaut to a hostile environment (new planet) and the RNA computer detects certain chemicals coming in. As a response, it dynamically generates DNA to specifically protect the host against the particular environment of that planet.

As I'm still reading about crispr I can't really say if this is possible. If RNA can directly translate into a protein it might be possible, but the combination of the two technologies seems pretty far out right now. On the other hand, things are moving so fast... who knows.

[Rianaru]

Ok, so I know the main conversation petered out a couple of days ago, but I've been keeping up on the thread since it started and doing some research since then. I also hold a BS in molecular biology with a minor in bioinformatics, and CRISPR/CAS9 has been a special area of focus for me over the time I spent in university, which means I should probably pitch in my two cents here, especially since this is such a hot topic.

I guess I'll start off by saying that I view this system as the equivalent of the development of high-grade steel at the beginning of the industrial revolution. We now have access to the most versatile 'material' in biology, but barely have any idea what to do with it. This is where bioinformatics comes in, which I view to be the equivalent of standard metrics, also historically developed around the same time. This is to say that bioinformatics provides us with an information system that is easy to understand and easy to manipulate, and above all, is standardized between all researchers. Ultimately I think this means that its almost literally impossible to predict what will happen in the future because of these developments. No one could have predicted the world of 2016 from what happened in the late 1700s, and the change in what my professors liked to call the 'genetic revolution' is likely to be orders of magnitude faster than its industrial counterpart. That's not to say we shouldn't speculate on the future, but we should do so with a grain bucket of salt. There have been thousands if not millions of doomsday predictions based on new technology since the beginning of the industrial revolution, but not a single one of them has come to pass. There will likely be many more doomsday predictions based on genetics(and there already are), but like all the others, I think not one of them is actually likely to happen.

The other implication that this analogy has is that we really have very little idea how to properly utilize this system other than to collect more information about how our tools and the systems they operate on work. Scientists know how to use CRISPR/CAS9, but usually in very simple respects, such as engineering E. coli that fluoresce using a green fluorescence protein(GFP), a common undergraduate experiment, or to delete single genes to create mutant models of organisms in order to understand various genetic interactions. The knowledge to do more technically does exist, but it is not fully understood, and the sad reality is that cultural stigma against science of this kind means that research will be hamstrung and limping pitifully forward until we can get over these mental blocks. Human embryo editing is universally illegal except in the very earliest stages of development, and those embryos cannot be carried to term or be allowed to develop. Even en vivo (gene editing in a living organism) modification in humans is almost entirely illegal, with what few gene therapies(currently a very imperfect form of gene editing) that do exist being tightly controlled. Even non-human gene editing is tightly controlled and restricted. And everyone knows about the anti-GMO movement. Im not saying that we should go full mad scientist, but currently its so tightly controlled as to make it nearly impossible to progress. There are some notable workarounds, including the leukemia treatment mentioned above, but laws still restrict research so that this knowledge can't be developed to benefit humanity as a whole. So none of us can expect to see the benefits of this research for a very long time, or at least until people are actually educated on the issue and can improve their understanding. I actually have been called a servant of the devil before for telling someone I was studying genetics, which speaks volumes as to how the public looks at the issue, at least where I live.

That XKCD comic hit the nail on the head pretty well IMO, but it honestly only scratches the surface. That's kinda why we need so much computational power to solve biological problems, its simply too much information and pattern recognition for humans to do, no matter what. And I believe that many people misunderstand how much we know about cellular processes, without even involving multicellular organisms, cell to cell communication, tissue organization, intercellular protein scaffoldings, etc. Major new discoveries in this field continue to be made on a yearly basis. For example, in 2013, something called a nuclear pore complex(NPC) was studied in detail for the first time, revealing that its actually the tip of the iceberg in a system that recognizes and regulates the moment of DNA and RNA to and from the nucleus, based on extremely specific sequences that are continually reprogrammed by the cell. To put it bluntly it turned the entire fields of gene expression and viral defense on their heads, just three years ago. People say that we almost fully understand cellular processes, but in reality we only fully understand about half of them, and that's ignoring the processes involved when cells have to cooperate, which we have comparatively very little understanding of.

I'm currently watching the Luca Cardelli lecture, about halfway through. It seems to me like he's explaining how proteins already work to non-biologists. He does put forward some edited and formalized structures that force proteins to behave "exclusively" like logic gates. I put exclusively in quotes because protein interactions, especially the "switch" interactions that Cardelli talks about, work on a mechanism of protein concentration gradients. What this means is essentially that its technically impossible to have a protein give a binary output or receive a binary input. The behavior of proteins is usually read as what is called a sigma curve(the line graph looks like the greek letter sigma), which by definition has a slope and cannot be binary. I do grant that the chemical energy of protein interactions can be modified to make the slope extremely steep and mimic a binary input/output, but they can't be binary, very strictly speaking. The same goes for gene expression, since its controlled by protein interactions. As far as creating an RNA computer, I would compare the level of technology we have now to the first transistor. There was a bit of time, and quite a few scientific and engineering breakthroughs before transistors and all the other parts of a computer were able to be put together as a single working unit. Much more time and exponentially more breakthroughs were required to get us to the relatively 'smart' computers of today. While the idea of an RNA computer is fascinating, I doubt that we have the knowledge to make it feasible in the near future. Not to mention you would have to code CRISPR/CAS9 to be able to simulate electrochemical tendencies and organic reactions in order to custom-write RNA sequences to achieve a specific goal, which is something that traditional computers and models still struggle with.

As for RNA acting as proteins, RNA served as the main vehicle for chemical interactions before ribosomes and the genetic code of DNA were fully evolved to support a protein based chemistry, and continue to fulfill those functions on a limited basis in eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and archaea. tRNA(transfer), which is responsible for chaperoning the correct amino acid to the peptide chain based on the mRNA(messenger) codon presented. This goes without mentioning the ribosome itself, which is mostly comprised of rRNA(ribosome) machinery in addition to a few peripheral proteins. There are hundred if not thousands of more examples, but I'm sure you're all smart enough get the picture. There's also about another dozen classifications for RNA types that are essential in genetic regulation and other functions as well, including miRNA and wiRNA in case anyone wishes to look it up.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that the genome and its peripheries already do serve as a computer, even if it is one that was naturally created vs artificially. However, it is one that can change its structure and programming at will, unlike circuit based computers. What Cardelli proposes is simply cleaning up the "code" to make the biological computer more efficient. Simplifying code, removing unnecessary redundancies, making sure all the "hooks"(transcriptional modification proteins) match up to the proper "classes"(gene operons), etc. I'd be very surprised if the creation of an RNA computer were achieved by creating new systems rather than tweaking the ones that already exist. Ultimately I think this will be done based on a DNA code rather than an RNA code, since DNA is much more stable and immutable than RNA, and already has many mechanisms for modification by both RNA and proteins. RNA would most likely degrade too quickly on a chemical level to be useful for storing information long term, such as you might want on a functional computer.

snip

Unfortunately the articles you posted were inaccessible without an account, but I can say that specificity(how identical a protein or sequence needs to be to interact with its intended target) is a major issue in genetic modification and even just in studying previously existing gene interactions. Unfortunately there's not really a way around it as far as I know, professionals simply have to do the tedious math in studying the chemistry of the molecules in order to increase the specificity towards the target sequence. I was able to find another article on the variant you mentioned, and it seems like that's how it achieves its goal, although it does it on a semi-systematic level with this variant, which is definitely convenient. You're right that it's nowhere near accurate enough for daily/industrial levels of use, and any variant would likely need to be orders of magnitude more accurate before that could happen.

And you're right about danger in the future too, although our universal policy of being overcautious in these fields is hampering progress. I think that a more suitable pursuit in this day and age would be to educate the public on these issues. After all, one cannot achieve the wisdom of when to use knowledge without first being aware of the knowledge itself and the application of it. Caution can be a good thing, but it shouldn't preclude the ability to progress, as it is doing now to a large extent. I don't want to extend this into politics, I just want to make the general statement that an educated opinion is better than an uneducated one, and is important to have in this day and age.

EDIT: grammar

[Gilberreke]

I'm currently watching the Luca Cardelli lecture, about halfway through. It seems to me like he's explaining how proteins already work to non-biologists. He does put forward some edited and formalized structures that force proteins to behave "exclusively" like logic gates. I put exclusively in quotes because protein interactions, especially the "switch" interactions that Cardelli talks about, work on a mechanism of protein concentration gradients. What this means is essentially that its technically impossible to have a protein give a binary output or receive a binary input. The behavior of proteins is usually read as what is called a sigma curve(the line graph looks like the greek letter sigma), which by definition has a slope and cannot be binary. I do grant that the chemical energy of protein interactions can be modified to make the slope extremely steep and mimic a binary input/output, but they can't be binary, very strictly speaking. The same goes for gene expression, since its controlled by protein interactions. As far as creating an RNA computer, I would compare the level of technology we have now to the first transistor. There was a bit of time, and quite a few scientific and engineering breakthroughs before transistors and all the other parts of a computer were able to be put together as a single working unit. Much more time and exponentially more breakthroughs were required to get us to the relatively 'smart' computers of today. While the idea of an RNA computer is fascinating, I doubt that we have the knowledge to make it feasible in the near future. Not to mention you would have to code CRISPR/CAS9 to be able to simulate electrochemical tendencies and organic reactions in order to custom-write RNA sequences to achieve a specific goal, which is something that traditional computers and models still struggle with.

There's probabilistic models of computing (for example fuzzy logic) and error recovery models that allow you to work around the binary problem you state. Besides that, there's some equilibriums reached that are predictable, but basically, there's already a form of computing happening in cells that uses this fuzzy equilibrium logic to get it mostly right, with a robust control system. I think that once we can satisfactory resolve the protein folding complexity problem, together with biological computing, and DNA control, the sky is the limit.

I also don't believe in the doomsday stuff. No, this technology won't usher in the apocalypse, just like the atom bomb didn't light the atmosphere on fire or the LHC didn't destroy the earth. If we believed every apocalypse theory and let that stop us, we'd still be in a cave, afraid of the almighty sun god.

[FlowerChild]

I also don't believe in the doomsday stuff. No, this technology won't usher in the apocalypse, just like the atom bomb didn't light the atmosphere on fire or the LHC didn't destroy the earth. If we believed every apocalypse theory and let that stop us, we'd still be in a cave, afraid of the almighty sun god.

Pffft. That's a nigh religious statement that can never be disproved. I find the faith required to believe that we are incapable of destroying ourselves far more akin to religion than a healthy skepticism with regards to new technology. The point with stuff like the H-bomb and LHC potentially killing us all is that there was no reason to believe they wouldn't before they were turned on. Sure, they've been proven in retrospect to have been relatively safe, but your statement seems to imply that was always a given and that our universe must have built in safety rails that would prevent us from ever crossing the line into our own destruction. To me, that represents a fanatic religious belief that someone is looking out for us, or that we have a destiny as a species that can not possibly be derailed through our own actions. A belief so fanatic that staking all our lives on it seems like a perfectly reasonable gamble.

Following the rest of the thread is a difficult proposition for me due to ongoing vision problems, but the above rather jumped out at me. I'm sure you're aware that one of the themes I was exploring with the mod was the cost and dangers of technology progress, and of the related conversations on these forums in the past, so I'd ask you to please refrain from ideologically trolling me so directly with statements like the above ;)

[Sarudak]

For the LHC we did in fact have strong evidence it wouldn't do anything catastrophic as we had already detected cosmic rays striking the Earth with energies 40 million times that that would be imparted by the LHC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ra ... ly_effects

Also with the nuclear bombs there was research done into the possibility of a fusion chain reaction in the atmosphere. https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/d ... 329010.pdf The man concerned about it had his math way off.

I just want to point out that we weren't just trusting in chance or some kinda of nondescript benevolent force but potential issues were considered. As we continue to advance technologically we are harnessing more and more potent abilities. I fully believe that we could unleash something catastrophic. For me the most likely thing that could actually completely wipe out humanity would be AI but there are other things that could make for a really really bad day species-wise. I think we should be cautious. On the other hand I have a personal vested interest in this technology going forward because I think it's critical to the advancements that will ultimately allow us to conquer cancer, disease and aging.

@Flowerchild - I'm really sorry to hear that you're still having vision problems. :(

[Gilberreke]

Pffft. That's a nigh religious statement that can never be disproved. I find the faith required to believe that we are incapable of destroying ourselves far more akin to religion than a healthy skepticism with regards to new technology. The point with stuff like the H-bomb and LHC potentially killing us all is that there was no reason to believe they wouldn't before they were turned on. Sure, they've been proven in retrospect to have been relatively safe, but your statement seems to imply that was always a given and that our universe must have built in safety rails that would prevent us from ever crossing the line into our own destruction. To me, that represents a fanatic religious belief that someone is looking out for us, or that we have a destiny as a species that can not possibly be derailed through our own actions. A belief so fanatic that staking all our lives on it seems like a perfectly reasonable gamble.

Following the rest of the thread is a difficult proposition for me due to ongoing vision problems, but the above rather jumped out at me. I'm sure you're aware that one of the themes I was exploring with the mod was the cost and dangers of technology progress, and of the related conversations on these forums in the past, so I'd ask you to please refrain from ideologically trolling me so directly with statements like the above ;)

Just acknowledging that I read this and won't go further into detail. I disagree with certain parts, agree with others, but am mostly apathetic to a lot of it, but it's not a big fight I want to win in any way :). BTW, you'll really love this article on post-cyberpunk: https://medium.com/the-last-night-devbl ... .s5u0m6jjf

Sorry to hear the vision issues persist :(

[FlowerChild]

For the LHC we did in fact have strong evidence it wouldn't do anything catastrophic as we had already detected cosmic rays striking the Earth with energies 40 million times that that would be imparted by the LHC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ra ... ly_effects

The thing that really bothered me about the LHC was the official explanation that even if a black hole were created, Hawking Radiation would cause it to dissipate before it could cause any damage. Hawking radiation is a theory, on top of a theory, on top of a theory (or at least was at the time... haven't kept on top of it since). What actually worried me about the LHC wasn't the talk about the possibility of a black hole, it was that the people in charge would throw out a bullshit explanation like that in response, which made me doubt whether they really had any idea what they were doing :P

Also with the nuclear bombs there was research done into the possibility of a fusion chain reaction in the atmosphere. https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/d ... 329010.pdf The man concerned about it had his math way off.

And that one I shall look into further before responding to it :)

On the other hand I have a personal vested interest in this technology going forward because I think it's critical to the advancements that will ultimately allow us to conquer cancer, disease and aging.

There's a potentially interesting conversation there as well, as I am truly torn on whether technology has improved my life or not, and what, if anything I hope it will improve in my life in the future.

When I was younger I had great interest and desire for technology and was excited by each and every development. Now, I think my greatest hopes for it involve not being subjected to excessive surveillance, and it not killing me before my natural lifespan is exhausted :)

I am beginning to see some real upsides that I didn't anticipate mind you, especially with regards to the accessibility of information. I'm noticing a real change in how people communicate over time as a result. IMO, younger people are becoming far more concerned with accuracy of information in general communication with requests for references and such becoming a day to day part of life. I'm realizing that in the past there was a boatload of false info that would fly around during your average conversation due to the laborious nature of fact checking, that simply wouldn't fly today.

That's a very positive sign to me, and when I realized it was happening it put a big old smile on my face. I think there's a potential for young people growing up today to be far more educated, and effectively intelligent, on average, as a result.

So, maybe the trade-offs will be worth it in the long run, and maybe I'm just an old coot that's too attached to outdated concepts of privacy and such.

@Flowerchild - I'm really sorry to hear that you're still having vision problems. :(

Thanks man. I don't much like to talk about it but it makes reading large volumes of text difficult, so keeping up on threads like this becomes a problem. Some days are better than others though, so hopefully I'll be able to catch up here soon.

[FlowerChild]

Just acknowledging that I read this and won't go further into detail. I disagree with certain parts, agree with others, but am mostly apathetic to a lot of it, but it's not a big fight I want to win in any way :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to observe or participate in a lively debate on the topic. Just given the wording, specific examples you provided, and history involved, it was hard not to take it as a jab / mild troll. No biggy, just a reminder that it's a topic near and dear to me.