https://threatpost.com/adding-cia-to-dna/120360/

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130124-biohacking-fear-and-the-fbi

http://www.ethnography.com/2012/09/how-the-fbi-spreads-diybio/

well, that's certainly some interesting news. the safety and security concerns are a given yet quite valid.

i wonder how this will play out as time goes on.

Got a TL;DR or Pre-summary so that I know what I'll be looking into before I go reading every last bit of it?

Furrin_Gok said:
Got a TL;DR or Pre-summary so that I know what I'll be looking into before I go reading every last bit of it?

The sections aren't the whole articles, but.

TL;DR: Genetic engineering has been thrust into the public sphere with the advent of community biology labs run by these organizations. Expensive, previously unavailable tools are now becoming accessible to the populace at minimal cost. These groups follow their own code of ethics, some of which require members to research for exclusively peaceful purposes, while others do not. The FBI is watching them all.

Lance_Armstrong said:
The sections aren't the whole articles, but.

TL;DR: Genetic engineering has been thrust into the public sphere with the advent of community biology labs run by these organizations. Expensive, previously unavailable tools are now becoming accessible to the populace at minimal cost. These groups follow their own code of ethics, some of which require members to research for exclusively peaceful purposes, while others do not. The FBI is watching them all.

If you read it all can you answer me something since I'm on a time crunch?

What kind of advances are we talking here? Can we alter a human's DNA to form denser mucles and/or bones? Or add more FPS to our perception allowing for slower time percepion? Or modify how our cells work to allow cellular regeneration/Quickhealing/healing factor? Can we make it to were we can release adrenaline at will rather than waiting for a life or death situation? Can we manipulate our bodies to be flame or even cryo resistant? Can we alter the efficiency of our brains and bodies to be well-rested/fully rested with only 2 hours of sleep instead of 8?

Or is it something REALLY out there? Like can we create "conduits" like in inFamous? (I'm not sure what I wouldn't give to have conduit-like powers as well as conduit-like physical abilities.)

What kinds of "super" things can we do here according to this new technology report, if any?

And if none, what is the scope of these advancements? What should we come to expect?

Actually, I have a (by some standards) more important question:

Can we finally (legitamately) change our anatomical gender/sex yet?

So for the sake of myself, as well as all of those like me, can we do that yet? Can we possibly alter our genome to allow us to perhaps do like fishes can and change our gender?

(Or perhaps something similar that allows us to essentially change our sex and become a "natural-born female/male" instead of going though therapy and surgery to do it.)

@Lance_Armstrong:

Yeah but like just what are the upper bounds of genetic engineering

and just how long do drastic changes take to have any observable effect?

Kristal_Candeo said:
Actually, I have a (by some standards) more important question:

Can we finally (legitamately) change our anatomical gender/sex yet?

Why I ask:

As some may know, I always wanted be a female but I don't want to have it achieved artificially/by surgery and hormones. As I usually put it, I want to be a real female with all naturally formed, working parts and everything, as if by birth. But since it's literally impossible to achieve this and since I personally refute the idea of enduring the synthetic changes currently available myself, I'm stuck; forever trapped in my crappy Male human body.

So for the sake of myself, as well as all of those like me, can we do that yet? Can we possibly alter our genome to allow us to perhaps do like fishes can and change our gender?

(Or perhaps something similar that allows us to essentially change our sex and become a "natural-born female/male" instead of going though therapy and surgery to do it.)

@Lance_Armstrong:

I want to be a snail.

Si_288 said:
I want to be a snail.

i swear there was a Stand that could do that

Kristal_Candeo said:
What kind of advances are we talking here? Can we alter a human's DNA to form denser mucles and/or bones? Or add more FPS to our perception allowing for slower time percepion? Or modify how our cells work to allow cellular regeneration/Quickhealing/healing factor? Can we make it to were we can release adrenaline at will rather than waiting for a life or death situation? Can we manipulate our bodies to be flame or even cryo resistant? Can we alter the efficiency of our brains and bodies to be well-rested/fully rested with only 2 hours of sleep instead of 8?

lol still going after super powers? well, that last one WOULD be nice. i mean, i can go as low as 4 hours a day but...not right now since my sleep schedule is currently all over the place (stupid hot weather >:( ).

Kristal_Candeo said:
If you read it all can you answer me something since I'm on a time crunch?

What kind of advances are we talking here? Can we alter a human's DNA to form denser mucles and/or bones? Or add more FPS to our perception allowing for slower time percepion? Or modify how our cells work to allow cellular regeneration/Quickhealing/healing factor? Can we make it to were we can release adrenaline at will rather than waiting for a life or death situation? Can we manipulate our bodies to be flame or even cryo resistant? Can we alter the efficiency of our brains and bodies to be well-rested/fully rested with only 2 hours of sleep instead of 8?

Or is it something REALLY out there? Like can we create "conduits" like in inFamous? (I'm not sure what I wouldn't give to have conduit-like powers as well as conduit-like physical abilities.)

What kinds of "super" things can we do here according to this new technology report, if any?

And if none, what is the scope of these advancements? What should we come to expect?

Denser muscles are possible with myostatin inhibition. This alteration could be used to increase the meat on cattle. Myostatin mutations can occur naturally in humans.

Reducing the need for sleep seems possible. The military has drugs for that purpose, and some people naturally require much less sleep, maybe due to a mutation that could be copied.

Flame resistance seems like the least likely enhancement. This can be accomplished more easily with flame resistant clothing. However, burn victims will be able to heal much faster using a stem cell spray.

More on-topic for this forum would be the creation of anthros by giving animal traits to humans or uplifted ferals by boosting animal intelligence. This would be easier to do in the germline than in a full grown adult.

Kristal_Candeo said:
Actually, I have a (by some standards) more important question:

Can we finally (legitamately) change our anatomical gender/sex yet?

Why I ask:

As some may know, I always wanted be a female but I don't want to have it achieved artificially/by surgery and hormones. As I usually put it, I want to be a real female with all naturally formed, working parts and everything, as if by birth. But since it's literally impossible to achieve this and since I personally refute the idea of enduring the synthetic changes currently available myself, I'm stuck; forever trapped in my crappy Male human body.

So for the sake of myself, as well as all of those like me, can we do that yet? Can we possibly alter our genome to allow us to perhaps do like fishes can and change our gender?

(Or perhaps something similar that allows us to essentially change our sex and become a "natural-born female/male" instead of going though therapy and surgery to do it.)

Not yet. It's going to be fucking hard. The greatest impact current genetic engineering technologies can have is at the germline/embryo stage. An undeveloped human embryo looks the same as a fish embryo or other species. Gene expression causes radical and mostly permanent changes to body structure, which will continue throughout infancy and puberty.

I think that knocking out a male's genome and rewriting it to become a female genome, using a virus to deliver the changes to all cells, could become a significant improvement on the current surgical/hormone regimen. The next level so to speak. But this will not do wonders for your bone structure and genitals if you are already a full grown human. The species in nature that can spontaneously change gender are a lot smaller and simpler than humans.

The next level beyond a complete genomic rewrite could involve advanced surgery and tissue grafting. This needs to meet the following requirements: 1. tissues made from your own (altered genome) cells, no tissue donations, and no organ rejection. 2. The ability to replace as much as the body as possible. Let's chop off your limbs and grow four new ones. From-scratch genitals should be no problem. Both penises and vaginas can be grown or at least repopulated with new cells. If internal organs such as the liver or stomach don't need major changes, they should be skipped. How do we replace your manly bone structure? That's a billion dollar question. If new bones and joints could be extruded within the body at the time of surgery, that would be ideal. For example, your bone is removed, a biodegradable scaffold with feminine shape is put in there, and bone cell paste is squirted into place. This is not the kind of cosmetic procedure that will be available within 10 years. 3. No scarring or infection.

The level after massive surgery would be the full body/brain transplant. You grow a body to your specifications (your choice of gender, possibly anthro characteristics), and swap in your old brain. Surgically swapping a brain will be easier than electronic mind uploading, and avoid most of the complications of massive surgery.

While these advancements are difficult and will take hundreds of billions of dollars of research to fully realize, if you are in your 20s, your chance of getting access to this are exponentially better than the gender confused person in their 50s, because you will see more scientific progress and life extension.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
Yeah but like just what are the upper bounds of genetic engineering

and just how long do drastic changes take to have any observable effect?

Everything that you can imagine is easier and more effective to do to an embryo than in your own adult body. An anthro pioneer might graft lab-grown tails or ears onto themselves, but with genetic alteration, you could raise an anthro from scratch with no complex surgical bullshit. Unfortunately, discovering the necessary mutations will be difficult unless the changes can be simulated by a supercomputer. If you have to grow abominations by trial and error, you better be careful.

In the future, options for people who are already alive may get better. For example, you alter your genome to give yourself a fox tail. Then you use a targeted approach to artificially stimulate the growth of the tail bone. "Normally" you would grow the tail before being born, but with the right drugs/hormones, you could forcibly trigger your gene expression even in adulthood (this is after you have altered your entire genome). A mistake might cause cancer, growing an ear out of your arm or some other shit.

Si_288 said:
I want to be a snail.

Snail Simulator for the Oculus Rift?

Kristal_Candeo said:
So for the sake of myself, as well as all of those like me, can we do that yet? Can we possibly alter our genome to allow us to perhaps do like fishes can and change our gender?

No, and it will never be possible. DNA itself does nothing, there's complex mechanisms and processes that allow genes to be expressed or not. You would have to literally comb through the entire 3 billion base pairs of the human genome and reconstruct it, make sure only the genes you want to be expressed are, and do this for every single cell in the body. Oh, and make sure you take into account the lexicon that is human diversity. Oh, and make sure you can keep cells from not falling apart while you are doing this. Oh, and the massive ethical problems you would be dealing with.

T. bio major

Cactus said:
No, and it will never be possible.

T. bio major

Powered flight will never be possible. (I don't see a Nobel prize in your future.)

If you broaden the question and ignore the fishes, it will at least be possible to get a more effective sex change due to genetic alteration.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Powered flight will never be possible. (I don't see a Nobel prize in your future.)

If you broaden the question and ignore the fishes, it will at least be possible to get a more effective sex change due to genetic alteration.

Apples to oranges. Most fish don't even have the same sex determination system as mammals. Chickens don't either. Some fish, reptiles and insects have no male counterpart. This is pretty much science woo.

Lance_Armstrong said:
section? what section? no sections here.

seriously though, this talk of anthros also raises another good point. that being the psychological side of things. such as the obvious stigma and being treated as a freak by many people (as much as we'd all like to see anthros, this is also inevitably going to happen.) and the simple fact that they would pretty much stick out like a huge sore nose, at least, early on. the amount of stress and other problems that would likely cause...it probably won't be an easy shift to seeing anthros becoming considered a normal part of society. it's unfortunate but that's likely how the advent of anthros among humans will be, a pretty rough beginning.

of course, that'd probably change as time goes on and they become more common. probably shouldn't rush the whole anthro thing is all.

still, i would still like to see what this world will be like with anthros. it'd certainly be more...diverse. and not in a bad way.

DONT TOUCH MUH GUNNNNNNNNNNNNS

R-U-S-T-Y said:
DONT TOUCH MUH GUNNNNNNNNNNNNS

why would we care about your toys? after all, it's the person wielding them that kills, not the toys themselves. ;)

...unless you have some mental problems you'd like to talk about that would warrant the removal of said toys. o.O

R-U-S-T-Y said:
DONT TOUCH MUH GUNNNNNNNNNNNNS

where did that come from

nobody was talking about it until you showed up

treos said:
seriously though, this talk of anthros also raises another good point. that being the psychological side of things. such as the obvious stigma and being treated as a freak by many people (as much as we'd all like to see anthros, this is also inevitably going to happen.) and the simple fact that they would pretty much stick out like a huge sore nose, at least, early on. the amount of stress and other problems that would likely cause...it probably won't be an easy shift to seeing anthros becoming considered a normal part of society. it's unfortunate but that's likely how the advent of anthros among humans will be, a pretty rough beginning.

There are aspects of religion and class warfare that will be involved.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
where did that come from

nobody was talking about it until you showed up

Maybe he read the part about me chopping off all 4 limbs.

Changing genes is something that scares people. But it's just a thought you need to get used to. Getting rid of genetic diseases is a big plus. Getting super abilities have some drawbacks. You need more food. And we already have individuals with unique talents. Humans have also done selective breeding for a long, long time.

Something that interests me is what if you change the way a person thinks. While that idea may be frightining too, one must keep in mind that different species have different instincts and morals. There is no subjective good and evil. We have merely evolved to have morals that benefits us as a group. But to be fair our morals are not bad.
Technology is far more dangerous than genetic altering in itself because in the wrong hands...

Sorrowless said:
Technology is far more dangerous than genetic altering in itself because in the wrong hands...

Read the first section in first post. The technology is getting cheaper and easier to access. The community lab allows you to get hold of expensive equipment that would be difficult to buy or rent on your own, but it also subjects you to proactive FBI surveillance, limiting your capabilities.

Sorrowless said:
Something that interests me is what if you change the way a person thinks. While that idea may be frightining too, one must keep in mind that different species have different instincts and morals. There is no subjective good and evil. We have merely evolved to have morals that benefits us as a group. But to be fair our morals are not bad.

There is not a lot of basis for this. Animals (as far as we can determine) have not evolved to achieve the level of intelligence that humans have. According to the popular hypothesis, pre-homo sapiens humans experienced an "intelligence explosion" in which tool use and cooked food allowed more calorie consumption for bigger brains.

Morality is a social construct. Tribes of humans developed their own social norms, traditions, and laws, and these changed over time. Something like the Code of Hammurabi made sense at the time, but does not today. Humans have not undergone significant evolution in the time since the Code of Hammurabi was established... what changed were the ideas, which are independent of biology and derived by reason.

Individual humans already have different levels of "instinct". There are calm people, there are violent people. There has been some research into genetic mutation that are linked to a family history of violence or psychopathy.

Sorrowless said:
Getting super abilities have some drawbacks. You need more food.

The people most likely to edit themselves have access to more calories than they need. Some biotechnologies could directly access these calories, for example there are plans for implants that are powered by your body's glucose.

Now a big hypothetical, courtesy of the implants powered by glucose bit: how would this effect the emergency medical field? Glucose is one of a small amount of things EMTs can administer, for medical reasons. Suddenly, it being also possible to power implants with it can have several downsides if the EMTs did not know of said implants. And, would unintended effects occur with other over-the-counter or etc. drugs.

This also brings to topic how certain "super healing", for lack of better phrase, can actually negatively effect the person's health. If a fractured bone heals immediately, it will heal into the fractured state, damaging or disconfiguring skin and possibly crippling them. If they don't have resistance to disease or infection, a wound that closed too fast may not be disinfected properly, and can cause problems that may not be healed.

We can also introduce, in this, the problem of strains of bacteria and viruses that become resistant to vaccines (over time). Should super-immunities occur, long term viruses or bacteria may adapt and become unpreventable, with especially debilitating effects to the people who don't have implants. Consider it a super virus, one that can't be stopped in short term, causing ill effects until a vaccine is made. And the cycle repeats, ad infinitum.

Siral_Exan said:
This also brings to topic how certain "super healing", for lack of better phrase, can actually negatively effect the person's health. If a fractured bone heals immediately, it will heal into the fractured state, damaging or disconfiguring skin and possibly crippling them. If they don't have resistance to disease or infection, a wound that closed too fast may not be disinfected properly, and can cause problems that may not be healed.

Many people would not benefit from "super healing" (whatever you define that as, because it seems suspect to me) in the field, and would likely see accelerated healing only after a doctor's visit. No amount of genetic enhancement is going to save you after getting hit by a car going 120 kph. If there is super healing, it will be nanotechnology-based.

Siral_Exan said:
We can also introduce, in this, the problem of strains of bacteria and viruses that become resistant to vaccines (over time). Should super-immunities occur, long term viruses or bacteria may adapt and become unpreventable, with especially debilitating effects to the people who don't have implants. Consider it a super virus, one that can't be stopped in short term, causing ill effects until a vaccine is made. And the cycle repeats, ad infinitum.

This is another example where nanobots are the preferred solution, not biology. If pathogens can become resistant to artificial nanobots with detection capabilities and little lasers, then fuck everything.

Sorrowless said:
Getting super abilities have some drawbacks. You need more food. And we already have individuals with unique talents.

I defined super healing as the ability for injury and ailment that can be healed naturally, will be. You can't survive a car hit at such speeds, but the body still repairs it. If you go into hypothermic shock, you can't "heal" it, your body didn't create enough heat to treat that to begin with (hence why you went into shock).

You'd have to avoid super healing of any description because of the complications stated. It would only be beneficial to injury, not life. No amount of brain cell recreation can resuscitate a dead brain. It would need to be heavily controlled.

However, your statement on nanomachines: care to explain what they are, and how they will work?

Kristal_Candeo said:

Biology might not be the best way to obtain "powers". Non-biological means (such as a brain implant) could provide a more straightforward means to significantly improving your capabilities.

The caloric intake argument is interesting, but the only real downside would be a significant increase in the amount of calories needed combined with a post-apocalyptic scenario. For implants, the amount of energy needed should be negligible... milliwatts. The human brain is estimated to need 20 watts.

@Lance_Armstrong:
@Siral_Exan:

True, but then again a bit of super healing for a normal, not so rough living citizen of the world shouldn't be too bad of a thing. At least not for much smaller injuries.

Imagine getting a paper cut and then within the span of a few seconds it's gone. Completely healed. Or what if you are chopping some vegetables and you nic or slice your finger, then in as little as a minute "all-better"?

Even on these seemingly very minor things, I assure you that super healing would be much appreciated.

Siral_Exan said:
However, your statement on nanomachines: care to explain what they are, and how they will work?

Nanomachines, son!

They are defined as artificial structures that can be produced en masse and will spread throughout the body randomly, or to specific locations if so programmed.

What are the capabilities that nanobots could offer?

• Elimination of cancer. Immunotherapy is the cutting edge in cancer research. An ideal nanobot could find a cancerous cell and eliminate it using a tiny laser.
• Elimination of pathogens. Same as above.
• Genetic alteration. An alternative to viruses, a nanobot should be able to edit the genome or act as an extra layer of error correction for DNA. If small enough, it could enter the cell, find errors missed by correction enzymes, and repair the nucleotide sequence from a digital reference.
• Life extension. A nanobot could accomplish tasks that would ordinarily be done by enzymes such as telomerase. It could also remove cellular junk, curing diseases like Alzheimer's by removing amyloid plaque.
• Healing. If nanobots could detect a skin rupture and clot on location, it could keep a victim alive longer. This is pure speculation.

Kristal_Candeo said:
Even on these seemingly very minor things, I assure you that super healing would be much appreciated.

EMTs are beginning to use in-field cryogenics to lower the body temperature of stroke, heart attack, or accident victims. This increases the length of time you can survive before reaching a hospital, and minimizes brain damage.

For healing, lance, there needs to be specific things: the blood needs to clot, which then scabs over. The bots can force the blood to clot, stopping any bleeding, but it should then be left alone, let the scab do the rest. However, the bots could repair bone fractures, or tendon, muscle, and ligament injuries, but it would need to be precisely done. Bones can set and repair themselves in odd locations (you want an example, a major collar bone injury CANNOT be set, no method exists of making the bone bits perfectly meet), specifically, and I have not learned anything on the others, other than you'll need surgery to repair them.

To Krystal, healing agents should be avoided unless given by doctor. Injuries like that can also be treated by putting pressure on the wound for five minutes, and then putting on a bandaid / bandage. It would be neat, but not useful. Internal injuries may need something more than healing, and taking them can cause improper healing as a result. Like, the bones that don't break skin, setting in awkward positions.

Lance_Armstrong said:
EMTs are beginning to use in-field cryogenics to lower the body temperature of stroke, heart attack, or accident victims. This increases the length of time you can survive before reaching a hospital, and minimizes brain damage.

Not in California, then, but that is both theoretically good, but possibly bad. It depends on the injury and the argument of life or limb. Causing such can permanently damage skin, even in controlled places, but it IS possible to delay body functions with that. A little girl was able to survive under frigid water for over an hour, with no ill effects, because of hypothermia slowing the body functions enough to "prevent" further damage. Obviously, she needed to be resuscitated, but there was no damage to the body, organs, or brain.

@treos:
Yep. I have always wanted to be more than the weak, slow and dumb "human" that I am. And even if I was the very best human at literally everything, I'd still want to be way better.

If not for myself, for everyone else.

I guess you could say that when it comes to the idea of powers, I'm sort of a megalomaniac. But I assure you it's only in a good way. After all, the more powers I have, the more I could do. For myself and everyone else.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
where did that come from

nobody was talking about it until you showed up

I'm sorry I get like that anytime I hear/see mention of a government agency it's a reactionary thing

I for one am ready for the cyberpunk future to begin

Lance_Armstrong said:
Morality is a social construct. Tribes of humans developed their own social norms, traditions, and laws, and these changed over time. Something like the Code of Hammurabi made sense at the time, but does not today. Humans have not undergone significant evolution in the time since the Code of Hammurabi was established... what changed were the ideas, which are independent of biology and derived by reason.

Individual humans already have different levels of "instinct". There are calm people, there are violent people. There has been some research into genetic mutation that are linked to a family history of violence or psychopathy.

I don't think morality is entirely a social construct. It is shown in tests that babies naturally favors nice behavior towards others for example.

That is known as personality. Although, does personality go under instinct?
For individuals to have different personalities is also an evolutionary advantage. It ensures that some survives when new threats and conditions emerge.

@Lance_Armstrong:

I checked out what you linked about the myostatin inhibition, and I just wanted to go on record saying that's not what I mean when I refer to "Denser Muscles".

What I mean by denser muscles is not that your overall "Muscle Mass" is increased. I am not referring to the growth of "bigger, leaner muscles".

What I actually mean when I say "Muscular Density", or "Denser Muscels" is the molecular density and strength of the individual fibers that make up the Muscles, per a given surface area.

For example, how if you build a beamed structure out of a "weak" metal like tin or aluminum, it is not nearly as strong as the same exact beamed structure made of of a Stronger metal like Steel or Titanium (or even lead) due to the metal's molecular density. (Feel free to correct me if I got my exact science wrong on that, BTW.)

So to clarify, when I say I want Denser Muscles for superhuman strength, I'm not at all saying I want to have really big, bulky, lean muscles. (If that was the case, I would just excersize incredible amounts until I finally got them.) What I am asking for is a way to make the muscles we have so incredibly dense that I have much more strength than normal in them, even with really 'small' muscles. I want a way, (either through some sort of speapacial muscle condensing excersize/training, or some kind of device or technological advances) to be like the real world Jessica Jones; I want to have very small/normal sized muscles on all of the parts of my body, and that may even make me look like I am kind of weak/unexercised in comparison to how most other people look after they've been going to the gym or whatever because of how small they are, yet are so incredibly dense when I tense them up to use them thatI could punch a hole through a concrete wall, or throw a really huge, buff guy across the room, or pick up an entire effortlessly car with one arm, or "super jump" with my legs.

And even if not the that great of an extent, I still want to somehow be able to make my muscles really strong and dense, without increasing their size or making them at all more prominent.

Any ideas on how to do that?

(I heard that sending an electric current through your muscles trains them to be able to condense the fibers even tighter whenever you contract them, but I need some clarification on that, as well as a guide to doing it if that is true.)

Kristal_Candeo said:
@Lance_Armstrong:

And even if not the that great of an extent, I still want to somehow be able to make my muscles really strong and dense, without increasing their size or making them at all more prominent.

Any ideas on how to do that?

Sounds like a $64 billion question.

One thing you might have to do is increase bone mineral density: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9421240

Here is a different gene that can be inhibited, leading to the growth of denser muscles:

In an article appearing last week in the journal Cell, the Salk researchers and their collaborators reported on the results of experiments done in parallel on mice and nematodes. By genetically manipulating the offspring of these species, the researchers were able to suppress NCoR1, which normally acts to inhibit the buildup of muscle tissues.

In the absence of the inhibitor, the muscle tissue developed much more effectively. The mice with the mutation became true marathoners, capable of running faster and longer before showing any signs of fatigue. In fact, they were able to cover almost twice the distance run by mice that hadn’t received the treatment. They also exhibited better cold tolerance.

Unlike previous experiments that focused on “genetic accelerators” this work shows that suppressing an inhibitor is a new way to build muscle. Examination under a microscope confirmed that the muscle fibers of the modified mice are denser, the muscles are more massive, and the cells in the tissue contain higher numbers of mitochondria—cellular organelles that deliver energy to the muscles.

I get it. You want to look like a QT girl while beating people up like Jessica Jones. I won't promise a superhero-sized increase in strength, but the NCoR1 inhibition looks like a way to build better muscle without looking bulky. The downside is the need for more calories, which is barely a downside in Western society with supermarkets and a fast food place on every corner. This might be combined with a change that increases bone mineral density, but you would have to talk to an expert, since there may be some drawbacks.

Lance_Armstrong said:
*Stuff*

...I get it. You want to look like a QT girl while beating people up like Jessica Jones. I won't promise a superhero-sized increase in strength, but the NCoR1 inhibition looks like a way to build better muscle without looking bulky. The downside is the need for more calories, which is barely a downside in Western society with supermarkets and a fast food place on every corner. This might be combined with a change that increases bone mineral density, but you would have to talk to an expert, since there may be some drawbacks.

That's exactly what I am after. I think we are both on the same page now.

Also, thank You for this. I can't wait to give the a good study later.

So now my next question is this: Can I cause these changes in my current body, even if only on a small scale? And if so, how would I go about doing it?

Thanks, again.

Kristal_Candeo said:
So now my next question is this: Can I cause these changes in my current body, even if only on a small scale? And if so, how would I go about doing it?

You want a gene therapy. These use a virus or an enzyme to deliver changes to nuclear DNA. Many clinical trials are underway. If you are lucky, some group will create a therapy for medical purposes, such as NCoR1 inhibition in people with abnormal muscles. Given the implications, people like me will find a way to buy or replicate the therapy for athletic and cosmetic purposes. Becoming rich and involved with people in the industry would help you here.

CRISPR is known for its ability to edit genomes in single cells, but it is possible to use it to interfere with gene expression (such as NCoR1). This may provide a temporary rather than permanent effect. You can expect gene therapy to become cheaper in the future, to the point where it could be done by amateurs.

You should read about all of the related topics, use RSS feeds or Google News alerts to get more science news, and bookmark all relevant journals, such as Nature Biotechnology. Here's a relevant article from the current issue. You also need a way to read paywalled journal articles for free.

When can I alter my genes to become a wolf man

Forego gene therapy, research cybernetic augmentation.

Become Didn't Ask for This Guy.

Lance_Armstrong said:
You want a gene therapy. These use a virus or an enzyme to deliver changes to nuclear DNA. Many clinical trials are underway. If you are lucky, some group will create a therapy for medical purposes, such as NCoR1 inhibition in people with abnormal muscles. Given the implications, people like me will find a way to buy or replicate the therapy for athletic and cosmetic purposes. Becoming rich and involved with people in the industry would help you here.

CRISPR is known for its ability to edit genomes in single cells, but it is possible to use it to interfere with gene expression (such as NCoR1). This may provide a temporary rather than permanent effect. You can expect gene therapy to become cheaper in the future, to the point where it could be done by amateurs.

You should read about all of the related topics, use RSS feeds or Google News alerts to get more science news, and bookmark all relevant journals, such as Nature Biotechnology. Here's a relevant article from the current issue. You also need a way to read paywalled journal articles for free.

Just what I wanted to hear. Woo!

Much thankies, Lance.

know what i would love to have as a result of this R&D work? well, aside from the anthro or simply non-human thing.

increased heat/cold resistance and better overall efficiency of the human body. as is, if i step outside and it's 80-90+ i can come back indoors soaked with sweat all over after just a few minutes, if not seconds. as you might imagine, that is horrible.

being what's known as "hot natured", colder temps don't bother me NEAR as much. so yeah, i would like it if i could enjoy the weather year round without suffering in one season while being fine in the opposite season.

the efficiency part could be anything from needing less sleep to function, requiring less food/drink to survive, just an overall improvement on what we as humans already have. i suppose a side result of that might be a longer life span as well but that'd really just be a nice bonus once everything else is finished.

treos said:
being what's known as "hot natured", colder temps don't bother me NEAR as much. so yeah, i would like it if i could enjoy the weather year round without suffering in one season while being fine in the opposite season.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160901151933.htm

Lance_Armstrong said:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160901151933.htm

Yeah, but no.

I researched this early yesterday, and it's only about 4 degrees cooler, so that's no a significant enough difference for the given situation. No offense.

Kristal_Candeo said:
I researched this early yesterday, and it's only about 4 degrees cooler, so that's no a significant enough difference for the given situation. No offense.

If you would feel like 88 degrees and can feel like 84-85 instead, you will appreciate the difference.

There are other solutions, such as this one that uses both passive and active cooling. Charging could be done wirelessly, built into the back of a chair for instance.

Altering the genome to affect the sweat/caloric/bodytemp balance means fighting thermodynamics and making changes that could be deadly. It could be impossible to biologically replicate the results of synthetic materials and active cooling solutions.

Genetic alteration to reduce the need to sleep seems possible:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/genetic-mutation-sleep-less/
http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/in-twins-study-gene-linked-to-lessened-need-for-slumber/81250185/

The role of sleep is not fully understood, so tread carefully.

Lance_Armstrong said:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160901151933.htm

well...it's a start i suppose.

Lance_Armstrong said:
If you would feel like 88 degrees and can feel like 84-85 instead, you will appreciate the difference.

i keep the window unit in my room set to a cool 75. so when summer and the sun come around and start with the blazing hot temps in the 80-100+ range...yeah, this is a start but not nearly good enough yet.

Ryuzaki_Izawa said:
i swear there was a Stand that could do that

Weather Report's Heavy Weather from Stone Ocean

15 Recent Science Discoveries You Wont Believe

Well now. =^.^=

furballs_dc said:
15 Recent Science Discoveries You Wont Believe

Well now. =^.^=

wow, i already knew of work on some of these (nano-bots, a material harder than diamonds...) but that's still a good number of surprising achievements.

the bionic lens does sound interesting but i've never been a big fan of contact lenses so i doubt that'd be of too much interest to me. :/ if they could make lenses like that for normal glasses, that'd be better for me and more to my liking.

i bet theres a lot of people in the world who would love to get those anti-bodies for HIV.

Okay, so I've got (another) question:

So I recently was made aware that electric eels actually have an organ that generates actual electricity, (yeah, I just learned this because I'm dumb or whatever.) and that the eels actually can use this electricity not only to shock/electrocute their enemies, but also to sort of "ping" their environments with an electric pulse to detect other things around them.

My question is- Is it possible to give a human that same kind of organ, either one synthetically made to be compatible for humans or whatever, so that a human can generate electricity and use it in the same ways as a sort of superpower? Could we use this idea to make a IRL Static Shock-esque electricity-wielding super human?

I was thinking that if we could replicate that organ and it's functions synthetically to put in a human, we could replace a relativly useless organ (for example the appendix) with this new "electric" organ. Applications of this could be very far-reaching especially in the medical/emergency services field. (Imagine after an earthquake or other disaster that a specialized medical unit could be dispatched to "ping" rubble and dangerous areas for survivers to greatly further rescue efforts. Also, cops even being able to produce a non-leathal "zap" (let alone a lethal one) could easily stun (or in very extreme cases, kill) assailants, and medical response teams (and even bystanders) could possibly use it to "defib" those whom may need it during a crisis instead of needing to wait for equipment to do so if that particular crisis situation prevents equipment from being accessible.) (All of this being a possibility given that those equipped with this new power are given the proper training of how to use it of course.)

/// yes, @treos: I'm still pursuing powers. I can't help it, I've always wanted powers and probably always will. It's just my desire.

Kristal_Candeo said:
/// yes, @treos: I'm still pursuing powers. I can't help it, I've always wanted powers and probably always will. It's just my desire.

Since we are on a pornographic site it's fitting to ask; would you want to have your genes changed to become a sexual? As in no longer an asexual.

Kristal_Candeo said:
Or add more FPS to our perception allowing for slower time perception?

Sounds like a the drug Slo-Mo from Dredd created for... Well, yknow.

@aurel:

Holy crap. You, sir/madam, are absolutely amazing. Thanks so much for what you took time to go in-depth about on the topic I asked about.

Holy crap you (must be) smart. You were so helpful and you took it all so seriously too. Thanks!

PS: Aww, well. It was worth a shot, at least in therory I suppose. Maybe a different power/a different method of obtaining one could be persued in the cuter upon further inquisitive thinking.

Sorrowless said:
Since we are on a pornographic site it's fitting to ask; would you want to have your genes changed to become a sexual? As in no longer an asexual.

Or, without years of training and safety measures that come along with those years of training, it feels a lot more likely for an accidental superbug to form and accidentally hitch a ride on someone than accomplishing all these things that top scientists have been unsuccessful in doing.

aurel said:

"For example, how if you build a beamed structure out of a "weak" metal like tin or aluminum, it is not nearly as strong as the same exact beamed structure made of of a Stronger metal like Steel or Titanium (or even lead) due to the metal's molecular density. (Feel free to correct me if I got my exact science wrong on that, BTW.) "
I nearly missed this, its such a long and fun thread, have to split my rants into parts :D
NONE OF YOU ARE GETTING AWAY!!! :D
...Its not the density, density is good for some applications where you want a lot of mass in small space (what density is), like uranium discarding sabot rounds.
But strength of a material comes from ... eh screw it, ill just post this :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn9qhQSMCRk
wait? do you mean how close atoms are to each other, or how heavy the nucleus is?
I got confused, it looks like you are talking about nucleus weight (mentioning iron, then lead), but titanium is a fairly light metal.
Anyway, no, gold is a really heavy metal, yet it is not strong, for a metal being exceptionally soft, so much that it needs some copper and other alloys to keep its shape. (note the video, thats how strength alloys work, add other metals to build a secondary structure and prevent it from bending that much)

When not talking about alloys,
swords :D : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4qLhq5V2-o
why is iron so hard, yet kinda brittle, and copper so soft, reusable, inert to chemical reactions.

All hail aurel, god of intermediate level sciences!

(This is not sarcasm nor a slander despite my use of the word "intermediate" here. This is genuine praise. Kudos on how intelligent, mature and articulate you are in these field of study, pal. I am impressed.)

aurel said:

@lance on crispr
I'm not sure those clinical trials things are truly represented, its the media we are talking about anyway.
As far as i have heard, crispr editing has something like a 1/5th success rate per cell. In lab, perrfect, its not one in a thousand basic things like gene guns do, and just into the trash 4 out of 5 samples go. But on people? its best we got, but I wouldnt consider it good enough.

Error rates are well known and have already been lowered by other teams. You were half right about media misrepresentation - ethicists and the media played up error rates as a scare tactic, and the first team to edit human embryos could have gotten lower error rates. Other enzymes can be used, molecular switches can be used (such as CRISPR controlled by light), and CRISPR is not the final gene editing technique, just the one that made gene editing practical and cheap. Error rates don't matter much when you can spam it on individual embryos or cells and pick out the ones where it was successful. The technique is not suitable for gene editing in an already grown human. That means it would be easier and more effective to make a full anthro from scratch than influence the appearance of an adult or child. Making you grow a tail would also require something invasive to restart developmental changes, not unlike hormone replacement therapy but possibly with worse side effects.

Also a note, to insert something into a genome you need to cut dna, and insert desired sequence in. Can we target it that well to not cut anything important in half? Do we even know?

They can precisely target where the cuts should be made. The problem is that CRISPR can make off target cuts. That problem is SOLVABLE:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151118155446.htm

If you don't keep up with this subject, you are going to miss a lot. And that's only considering the information that has been made public.

Kristal_Candeo said:
Um... I apologize, but I don't think I understand the question. Asexuality isn't a genetic thing as far as I know. It's kind of a choice/preference, so changing ones genes won't really change one from asexual to otherwise.

(Now to humor the thought, hypothetically speaking maybe there is some weird genetic code that we have yet to discover that somewhat influences how one would mentally view sexual intercourse/sexual preference, and if on the off chance that such is true and we discover it in the future then 1) good on you for being a genius, and 2) I don't know if I would get my genes changed just to alter my sexual preferences. I personally don't think that would be a valuable investment of my time, money and energy if that were somehow a possibility. Please don't hate me, anyone.)

Now, to answer the more direct question of "would I get rid of my Asexuality if it were possible?", I honestly don't know. (Sorry if that's a lame answer, BTW.)

You see, though this may sound cliche, I can't really "miss" something until it's gone. Therefore, since I am a virgin I don't really know if I WANT to be straight or gay or bisexual or whatever because I haven't had a chance to find out if any of it suits me at all. And so without ever experiencing something myself, I can't really know what I'm missing out on.

(I have had the chance to have sex many times before, but it just doesn't interest me. So since I always decline the opportunity I have never had the chance to just "experiment". I always feel like the other person expects me to already know everything and to be a certain way, so without a real means to experiment and discover things comfortably the way I would like to, I just rather not at all.)

By the same token, if I did do whatever it was I could hypothetically do to become "not asexual" then I'm not sure I would because I'd be afraid that I'd miss being Asexual. "You don't know what you have until it's gone", and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", so since at the moment I don't really have a personal issue with being the way I already am, why would I risk changing it?

I'm blissfully unaware of what I could possibly gain from being "not asexual", and as such I suppose I am just not willing to give up the comfort I know for the potential gain I don't. Especially when said gain could very well turn out to be a loss given how happy I already am as an Asexual.

I hope that all makes since.

And just as a side note: The truth is I haven't quite figured out what/who I really am on the sexual nor the romantic front of things. Sure, I know that I don't like sexual intercourse with another person, (aka. I'm asexual) but beyond that I just don't really know what I like and don't like/ what I want and don't want sexually/romantically. And I admit that I have always wanted to try a sort of "hands on learning experience" with a female in the bedroom, but I want it to be done 1)with a female I already know as a close friend and can fully trust, (which is genuinely impossible because I have deep-rooted trust issues with literally all humans. no offense to any/all humans, BTW.) 2)in a comfortable, judge-free environment, and 3)in a way that gives me enough time and resources to figure out what I do and don't like about it all, and what my own preferences are. And even then, I'm not ever sure I'd want to because my mind automatically links it all with some terrible past memories/emotions and I'd just end up feeling like I am evil and that I took advantage of another person inso doing. And I just can't deal with those deep-rooted guilty thoughts ravaging my mind forever after.

Plus, that whole idea is just so weird/dumb. What am I, a highly perverted scientist? I mean, jeez.

(...Man, talk about a f***ed up psyche, huh? According to my brain having consensual sex with another person=I'm an manipulative, creepy, evil prick. Yet forcing myself to suffer perpetual loneliness and heartache despite what I truly want in this world= totally normal and somehow the best thing I can ever do with my private life for the greater good... What even, right? Oh, well. It's nothing a few daily jokes and occasional public displays of humor and heroics can't distract me from dwelling on, I suppose.)

Anyway, long story short, I just honestly don't know. I'm not one for making such an important life decision uninformed, and honestly I just don't know enough about what I'm supposedly missing out on nor what I would be giving up inso doing to say a definite yes or no. I do very much hope that answers your question, pal. And thanks so much for asking, BTW.

That was quite a lot of everything. Where do I start? I think you have mentally set yourself in an awkward position.
And asexuality is purely choice? I won't believe that until more facts are presented. We know today that homosexuality is genetic. However I also think you can consciously change direction somewhat. (Asexuals have a gender preference, don't they?)

I agree with you that you are often better off without getting a taste for something. Past memories can also hurt if you change. I'm not sure if I would prefer to be switched to asexual myself. Being sexual give you more options as it doesn't necessarily stop you from being romantic. However, being sexual can have its drawback. Lust on your mind can prevent you from getting to know someone. Or being more productive.

Back to you. What's with the guilt thoughts? Did you have bad experience? Something I've been thinking to ask an asexual is what they think of sexual taboos. Do they even make sense?
Consensual sex isn't an evil thing. If you have doubts, talk to the person. Sort it out. Maybe they're into cuddling? Are your trust issues getting in the way for this? The way I see it; someone wanting to have sex with someone else is a quite flattering thing. More so if the person wanting is female (amorous females, what a beautiful thing). An exception is if the other person is quite sexy. The fact that you have had the chance several times makes me think if you are a sexy person in body or personality. A bit of irony there.

You can hardly be a prick with sex unless you do something like not having contact afterwards knowing they want to or if you brag about it. Or not trying to please your partner a considerable amount.

In the end this is something you need to figure out. Also, lets try not to make too many posts on this subject as it's off topic for this thread.

Sorrowless said:
*stuff*

...In the end this is something you need to figure out. Also, lets try not to make too many posts on this subject as it's off topic for this thread.

You are probably right about that.

And yeah, we best not continue to flood this forum with off-topic stuff.

@aurel

Nice ramble! I will just point out that:

1. There may be "tradeoffs" that explain why we don't have supermuscles or other mutations, but even today's poorer Americans have access to much more calories than humans did 1,000, 5,000, or 50,000 years ago.
2. Whether or not you think it is bullshit, the government is already spying on scientists and amateur scientists. There is already some overlap because of the Drug War and war on terrorism, but you can expect the spying to get worse. Especially if amateur cloning or gene editing experiments go public and cause outrage.