Major Inventions

[Angilion]

[..]
CRISPER (the dna slicing tool thingy mabob) [..]

That could still be dismissed as being an improvement on an existing thing rather than a new thing. So I think it's another good example of how flawed that approach is. CRISPR is a tool for genetic engineering and genetic engineering isn't new, but the difference is so large that it's a bit silly to say it's not new. The biggest restriction on what can be done with CRISPR is caution. That's a good thing because it's a monumentally powerful technology.

Random example: Because of CRISPR it's possible, right now, to eradicate mosquitoes. Utterly wipe out a species or every species of mosquito. On the one hand, that would eradicate one of the worst disease vectors. Countless lives would be saved. On the other hand...what? We don't know what the effect of such a huge global change would be. Should we do it? Once it's triggered, it's impossible to stop. This isn't theoretical - it's already a done deal. The work has been done. The process could be triggered today.

Strange ethical questions will soon require answers. Some of the answers won't exist. Our ability to edit genes exceeds our understanding of genetics. That will be a problem.

 

[Devrij]

Ahh awesome there's an MIT video of them moving balls etc with the same stuff

It's hard to get across in a video when you can't see or feel it, but this is something cool we're doing with Dell and Meta. That bar at an angle in front of the person provides haptic feedback for all of the gestures used in the video

 

[Tefal]

That could still be dismissed as being an improvement on an existing thing rather than a new thing. So I think it's another good example of how flawed that approach is. CRISPR is a tool for genetic engineering and genetic engineering isn't new, but the difference is so large that it's a bit silly to say it's not new. The biggest restriction on what can be done with CRISPR is caution. That's a good thing because it's a monumentally powerful technology.

Random example: Because of CRISPR it's possible, right now, to eradicate mosquitoes. Utterly wipe out a species or every species of mosquito. On the one hand, that would eradicate one of the worst disease vectors. Countless lives would be saved. On the other hand...what? We don't know what the effect of such a huge global change would be. Should we do it? Once it's triggered, it's impossible to stop. This isn't theoretical - it's already a done deal. The work has been done. The process could be triggered today.

Strange ethical questions will soon require answers. Some of the answers won't exist. Our ability to edit genes exceeds our understanding of genetics. That will be a problem.

How would it be possible to wipe out all mosquitos?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

How would it be possible to wipe out all mosquitos?

If I recall correctly, i think they have changed female mosquitoes in a lab environment to go sterile after multiple generations. It basically introduces a ticking time bomb gene in a way that spreads at an incredible rate in ecosystems. Even though the female bugs cant reproduce after so many generations, the male ones will still pass it onto the offspring of non sterile female it breeds with.

 

[DaleTheWhale]

Fidget Spinners

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Fidget Spinners

I get why they might be popular for people who fidget but i cant see why these have become a school craze/fad, as you cant really do anything but spin them.

Pogs, Yoyos, collectable cards and stuff like this you can at least play with and swap them with people to get a set or something. Surely kids are not meeting up and just spinning these things in a group talking about how one is better than the other?

I bet you that even the guy who made the original fidget spinner is sitting there in his piles of cash going 'WTF?!'

 

[adolf hamster]

That could still be dismissed as being an improvement on an existing thing rather than a new thing. So I think it's another good example of how flawed that approach is. CRISPR is a tool for genetic engineering and genetic engineering isn't new, but the difference is so large that it's a bit silly to say it's not new. The biggest restriction on what can be done with CRISPR is caution. That's a good thing because it's a monumentally powerful technology.

Random example: Because of CRISPR it's possible, right now, to eradicate mosquitoes. Utterly wipe out a species or every species of mosquito. On the one hand, that would eradicate one of the worst disease vectors. Countless lives would be saved. On the other hand...what? We don't know what the effect of such a huge global change would be. Should we do it? Once it's triggered, it's impossible to stop. This isn't theoretical - it's already a done deal. The work has been done. The process could be triggered today.

Strange ethical questions will soon require answers. Some of the answers won't exist. Our ability to edit genes exceeds our understanding of genetics. That will be a problem.

agreed that caution is worthwhile, although one might argue that if this technology can be used to make mosquitoes become sterile, it could also be used to perhaps de-nature the various diseases they spread, or alternatively be used to breed mosquitoes that will be susceptible to the diseases they carry and letting the natural shift to disease free bugs.

tbf, come to think of it, that's probably why it hasnt been released yet, keeping it in reserve whilst trying to work out a less environmentally damaging solution

 

[Tefal]

Hi

I get why they might be popular for people who fidget but i cant see why these have become a school craze/fad, as you cant really do anything but spin them.

Pogs, Yoyos, collectable cards and stuff like this you can at least play with and swap them with people to get a set or something. Surely kids are not meeting up and just spinning these things in a group talking about how one is better than the other?

I bet you that even the guy who made the original fidget spinner is sitting there in his piles of cash going 'WTF?!'

Actually the inventor is poor and about to lose her house.

They invented them a ages ago couldn't afford to renew the patent and so every man and his dog started making them.

 

[DaleTheWhale]

I get why they might be popular for people who fidget but i cant see why these have become a school craze/fad, as you cant really do anything but spin them.

Because facebook told them to buy them, as that's what all the cool kids are doing!

In a serious response, would say In-memory data storage and the whole birth of 'big data', has made a huge impact on efficiency.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Hi


Actually the inventor is poor and about to lose her house.

They invented them a ages ago couldn't afford to renew the patent and so every man and his dog started making them.

This makes me sad

 

[ikillbears]

I've jumped through the thread but there is an interesting bbc series about this very thing.

here we go : http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b1g3c/episodes/downloads

some of the things you wouldn't have thought about

 

[Baron C]

Glass

 

[Angilion]

agreed that caution is worthwhile, although one might argue that if this technology can be used to make mosquitoes become sterile, it could also be used to perhaps de-nature the various diseases they spread, or alternatively be used to breed mosquitoes that will be susceptible to the diseases they carry and letting the natural shift to disease free bugs.

tbf, come to think of it, that's probably why it hasnt been released yet, keeping it in reserve whilst trying to work out a less environmentally damaging solution

While millions of people die who could be saved. Is that the best course of action? Maybe. Maybe not. There are major questions without clear answers.

There's another line of research that's being worked on - engineering mosquitoes that are immune to the diseases, starting with malaria. A mosquito that can't be infected with the malaria parasite probably can't pass it on when it bites. I'd guess there's aan outside chance if it bites an infected animal/person and then bites another soon afterwards, but I might be wrong. I don't know exactly how the transmission occurs.

Malaria's not something we have to worry about here, but it's the biggest single cause of death of humans in known history and by some estimates has killed more humans than every other cause of death combined. Even more worryingly, the death toll is rising again due to the parasites evolving resistance to the rather small number of effective drugs. The question of how far to go in fighting it is a genuine one.

 

[Narj]

Strong username/topic correlation.

 

[adolf hamster]

While millions of people die who could be saved. Is that the best course of action? Maybe. Maybe not. There are major questions without clear answers.

There's another line of research that's being worked on - engineering mosquitoes that are immune to the diseases, starting with malaria. A mosquito that can't be infected with the malaria parasite probably can't pass it on when it bites. I'd guess there's aan outside chance if it bites an infected animal/person and then bites another soon afterwards, but I might be wrong. I don't know exactly how the transmission occurs.

Malaria's not something we have to worry about here, but it's the biggest single cause of death of humans in known history and by some estimates has killed more humans than every other cause of death combined. Even more worryingly, the death toll is rising again due to the parasites evolving resistance to the rather small number of effective drugs. The question of how far to go in fighting it is a genuine one.

its tricky, problem is we can't really know fully what effect mosquitoes have on the environment, we could let lose the extermination and cure malaria to suddenly find all the crops stop growing or somesuch from a chain reaction.

i'm absolutely not against wiping it out, but i can see where the caution to not accidentally create another problem is coming from.

 

[StriderX]

The best we can do with CRISPR is to edit our own sequence to ignore/defeat malarial disease, using it on a biosphere is just incredibly stupid.

 

[Angilion]

The best we can do with CRISPR is to edit our own sequence to ignore/defeat malarial disease, using it on a biosphere is just incredibly stupid.

Using it on humans is both very risky and not practical. In order to eradicate malaria that way you would need to engineer everyone. That's technically possible, but bogglingly expensive and obtaining universal consent would be an issue. Not impossible (it was done with smallpox vaccination), but an issue. The technique that would work on mosquitoes wouldn't work on humans because of the huge differences in lifespans and life cycles and it would be a massive ethical issue in itself.

But leaving aside practical considerations for a moment...since the end result is unknown, is doing it to humans really less risky than doing it to mosquitoes?

Genetic engineering on humans has been done, but only on a very limited scale and with genes humans are absolutely sure about and when the effects are known for certain. It's been purely a matter of replacing a known faulty version of a gene with a known working version, with full knowledge that the known working version has no unexpected effects (because it's present in almost all humans). That's a massive thing in itself, since there are a slew of really bad medical problems that fit those criteria. The current target, for example, is cystic fibrosis. It's a single gene and a straight swap to a known pre-existing working version of the gene and shouldn't pose any problems and they're still hugely cautious about it. Creating entirely new genes and splicing them into people is a very different thing.

Of course, disease is only the start. What constitutes a medical problem? If it becomes possible to engineer humans to have greater strength and fitness and intelligence, does it become a medical problem to not have those things? Is it then ethical to not engineer your children that way? They'll be at a big disadvantage if you don't.

Then there's the weirder stuff. Bioluminescent humans could be made right now and it would be inheritable. How about fur, a full on pelt? Shouldn't be difficult. Cat ears? A tail? Hypermuscularity? That's another one that could be done easily - it's already done in animals with only selective breeding. There really isn't much that couldn't be done with accurate genetic engineering and CRISPR provides that.

Interesting times ahead.