Synthetic Life

[Glurf]

Article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4H0Q00&show_article=1)

To summarize, scientists are close to creating life, from scratch. They think they can use the lifeforms for useful purposes, like getting rid of toxic waste, or getting rid of green house gasses to fighting disease. What do you guys think of this?

[TheHighwaySong]

Somewhere, somebody will have a problem with it.

Can they create a human without feelings or morals?

[snap1o5]

It's not necessarily human, it's just a life form.

[Matterialize]

Cool.

Except - by "life" they just mean a bunch of chemicals combined in such a way that they'll begin to support themselves and reproduce, etc. This is sort of like nanotechnology. In fact, Glurf, the uses that you stated are exactly what some of the practical uses of nanobots are.

It's not so much "synthetic life" as it is "organic robots". If that makes sense.

[Derelict]

I'd like to be the first to welcome our nanotech overlords.

It's not so much "synthetic life" as it is "organic robots". If that makes sense.
Like Optimus Prime?!

[Mr Anorexia]

More like cloning Matt Melvin.

[Infammo]

The media industry has taught me that any major innovation in science will inevitably lead to our doom.

[Glurf]

Its probably unicellular, they said you have to look at it under a microscope. So unicellular, or a few cells. I'm waiting for the "Humans need to stop playing god" post.

[Derelict]

The media industry has taught that any major innovation in science will inevitably lead to our doom.

Not only that, but a black man will almost always save us.

[I am homosexual]

Not only that, but a black man will almost always save us.

Or a really hot white guy. :science:

Personally, I'm all for it. If they can be made to take care of toxic waste, then maybe Yucca Mountain can be closed in two million years instead of ten.

[CnGy]

End of the world.

I don't want nanobots eating me.

[ArKaiN]

Kickass.
What's the definition of life anyway? Eats and reproduces? That's it?

[Infammo]

There is no definition of life. Its just a term we came up with to convince ourselves that we're more important than rocks.

[SLjimbolian]

Such an advancement won't take place until the next 25 or 50 years.

[ArKaiN]

There is no definition of life. Its just a term we came up with to convince ourselves that we're more important than rocks.

As much as that thought tickles me, I'm pretty sure there's something in the Encyclopedia Britannica under "Life".
Got it:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.


So under current definition, that's not life.

[Glurf]

They haven't created it yet anyways, 3 to 10 years. It may be capable of that when they create it.

[Kass]

Wouldn't it be easier to selectively breed bacteria as opposed to creating life from scratch?

[Glurf]

They did that somewhat, it does seem easier. They bred bacteria to eat oil, to clean up oil spills.

[Casalen]

As much as that thought tickles me, I'm pretty sure there's something in the Encyclopedia Britannica under "Life".

If the Encyclopedia Britannica said to jump off a cliff, would you?

They have an entry for all sorts of terms which have been debated for centuries by philosophers, but that doesn't mean that some person working on their staff has the absolute final say as to the answers. Maybe that's not it, and things should be rethought, made more simple or more complex. Even if that's fine for now, words change not because a dictionary or encyclopedia editor says so, but because use of that word within a culture changes. Except for the French, who have an organization for that.

[Rsdx]

If the Encyclopedia Britannica said to jump off a cliff, would you?

Most out of context saying used on Explosm, possible ever.

And no, they're not creating life, they're making robots in an organic way.

[Infammo]

Its impossible to say something original out of context.

[Kevosk]

Wouldn't it be easier to selectively breed bacteria as opposed to creating life from scratch?

I imagine it would be pretty feckin' hard to breed bacteria to fire laser cannons.

(Or clean up oil whatever)

Which by the way would be AWESOME.

[RabidMonkey]

There is no definition of life. Its just a term we came up with to convince ourselves that we're more important than rocks.

Life is pretty much anything that respires.

Cool.

Except - by "life" they just mean a bunch of chemicals combined in such a way that they'll begin to support themselves and reproduce, etc. This is sort of like nanotechnology. In fact, Glurf, the uses that you stated are exactly what some of the practical uses of nanobots are.

It's not so much "synthetic life" as it is "organic robots". If that makes sense.

And no they would not be organic robots. They would synthetic life. Meaning it was created by man. It would basically be a cell, like a bacteria, but made by man. Evolution would take over, if it could be of use, natural selection would allow it's continued existence, otherwise, it would die unless cared for and evolved in a laboratory. But if they developed a type of bacteria that changed CO3 (Carbon monoxide) into oxygen and carbon dioxide, so basically it inhales CO3 and produces small amount of oxygen and large amounts of CO2. Then the plants could convert the CO2 into oxygen, this would limit the amount of CO3 in our atmosphere, which is poisonous. Or if they made a bacteria that helped clean up waste products, especially toxic, this would most likely help them evolve. Again, natural selection would wipe out the mutated ones that were pointless, but the mutated ones that helped would live on.

[Kass]

I imagine it would be pretty feckin' hard to breed bacteria to fire laser cannons.

(Or clean up oil whatever)

Which by the way would be AWESOME.

There already are bacteria that clean up oil.
And bacteria that eat shit from your septic tank. (If you have one, anyway)
And bacteria that eat cyanide.
And many more that we've selectively bred.

[Dream_Catcher]

There is no definition of life. Its just a term we came up with to convince ourselves that we're more important than rocks.

what about rocks that cause continent sized destruction?

[RabidMonkey]

They're called meteroids.
And the likelihood of being hit by one is scarily large.
Just recently in the south island of New Zealand, a rock about the size of a truck (Tractor unit + 2 trailers, or so they reckon, I reckon more like that size of a mini) entered the atmosphere, creating a sonic boom that was heard over most of the south island, it did burn up on impact, but still... and every day, space throws shit at us, millions of tonnes of shit hits us every year.

[Fatbot]

Life is pretty much anything that respires.



And no they would not be organic robots. They would synthetic life. Meaning it was created by man. It would basically be a cell, like a bacteria, but made by man. Evolution would take over, if it could be of use, natural selection would allow it's continued existence, otherwise, it would die unless cared for and evolved in a laboratory. But if they developed a type of bacteria that changed CO3 (Carbon monoxide) into oxygen and carbon dioxide, so basically it inhales CO3 and produces small amount of oxygen and large amounts of CO2. Then the plants could convert the CO2 into oxygen, this would limit the amount of CO3 in our atmosphere, which is poisonous. Or if they made a bacteria that helped clean up waste products, especially toxic, this would most likely help them evolve. Again, natural selection would wipe out the mutated ones that were pointless, but the mutated ones that helped would live on.

Just thought you might like to know that CO3 is ozone not carbon MONOxide. Since carbon monoxide has the prefix mono that means that there is only one oxygen atom.:facts2:

[Kenneh]

Just thought you might like to know that CO3 is ozone not carbon MONOxide. Since carbon monoxide has the prefix mono that means that there is only one oxygen atom.:facts2:

O3 is Ozone you bastard.

CO is Carbon Monoxide.

[Cristo]

That's really fucking cool, God I love science.

I'm sure some Bible belt people will have a fit and try to condemn us all though.

[Fatbot]

O3 is Ozone you bastard.

CO is Carbon Monoxide.
My bad, CO3 is carbonate, not ozone. I was still correct about CO being carbon monoxide though.

[innerearth]

I say we breed bacteria or make organic robots that will eat the Bible belt

[Jallen]

IT'S UNGODLY!!! IT'S UNGODLY!!!

[Dacada]

I'd like to be the first to welcome our nanotech overlords.
Nanobots are even scarier then regular robots. They could do something dastardly like go into your food pantry and crunch up all your cereal into DUST, if they were programmed evil enough. DUST, MAN

[slurba]

I think it's a great idea to use them for our advantage. Of course, there are going to be protestors saying the single-celled organisms have feelings too, but it's not like we havn't used other forms of life to our advantage. I remember how scientists were a talking about genetically modifying bacteria until there basically completely different than they were before, and I suppose this is like playing god considering it's not even the type of cell it was originally.

[CheesePlease]

I'm going to laugh when they create flesh eating super-humans by accident.

[FlamingPeanuts]

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

He is right, this is the common description of life and is taught in school. But they are hoping of making something that can survive, It will follow the basic rules that allow this, eg. reproduction, but will only properly live when it evolves to respond and if it does survive this will happen,

probably faster with 8 parts of dna rather than 4 right? more to go wrong? Correct me if i'm wrong.


Anyway this is awsome, if we can do this by adding chemicals we have further more evidence for how man came to be.

[getpigglywithit]

Gasp! Edumacated speak on an explosm forum? I am now convinced you are all nanobots!