Honestly? The phrase "if a gene is found that can support the marriage between flesh and computer" is just a really dumb, weird-kid-in-8th-grade level of understanding science. Might want to read a little more science-fact and a bit less science-fiction.More than welcome to point out how Im an idiot,Mist . This is a forum after all, not reddit.
It won't be genetics that are needed for cybernetics. That is exclusively a tech issue. We are still at the beginning stages for making devices that can properly interact with neurons. That is ultimately the only barrier. Once we have connectors that can feed into the neural pathways we will be able to manufacture devices that can replace and/or augment our sensory inputs.More than welcome to point out how Im an idiot,
So, are there not genes that increase inflammation? Are there not genes that program how white blood cells react to foreign objects? Are there genes that would suppress inflammation? What kind of 1700's weird-old-fuck kind of understanding do you have? Might want to be a little more open minded instead of a constant fucking cunt.
You would never want to suppress the genes that cause those reactions. They're fundamental parts of the immune system.
So are you doubling back now and saying that there are genes that can do what was proposed? Interesting. Obviously genes do a lot of different things that would be "bad" if they were turned off. So lets flip it to the other side - We have people allergic to gluten, peanuts and more that could be changed with genes to no longer create the condition, as an example. Also, as Im sure you're going to what-about me with the bullshit that Peanuts still cause inflammation in a non-allergic person (because you like to ignore entire posts and pick apart and make a big deal out of the one single thing you disagree with, rightfully or ignorantly of). But if they found the gene that changes the way the body reacts to certain materials? Well fk me sideways,
Mist
! That would be like a marriage between flesh and computer! Never mind all the other medical benefits that leave the patients in a constant state of fighting massive amounts of inflammation (hip replacements, spine surgeries etc.)
You might want to turn off immune response locally for specific clinical reasons but you wouldn't want to suppress, alter, or remove those genes completely. The benefit we get from having a robust immune response is so much greater than anything we'd get from sticking random metal parts inside. The human immune system is an absolutely fucking insane evolutionary advantage, and is in fact the only part of our bodies that evolves in real-time.So are you doubling back now and saying that there are genes that can do what was proposed? Interesting. Obviously genes do a lot of different things that would be "bad" if they were turned off. So lets flip it to the other side - We have people allergic to gluten, peanuts and more that could be changed with genes to no longer create the condition, as an example. Also, as Im sure you're going to what-about me with the bullshit that Peanuts still cause inflammation in a non-allergic person (because you like to ignore entire posts and pick apart and make a big deal out of the one single thing you disagree with, rightfully or ignorantly of). But if they found the gene that changes the way the body reacts to certain materials? Well fk me sideways,
Huh? The future is already here.
Red Cross urges gamers to obey laws of war while playing first-person shooters: 'Even wars have rules' | Fox News
Humanitarian group wants to fight against the normalization of war, even for people playing games from their couchwww.foxnews.com
The ICRC listed four rules for gamers around the world to follow that apply to the rules of war.
The first rule: "When an enemy is down and can’t respond, you can’t keep shooting at them."
The second rule: "Bots that don’t fire unprovoked are considered civilians, and you can’t target or harm them."
The third rule: "In any given game map, houses, schools, or hospitals are considered safe zones that you cannot harm. When fighting in these spaces, you must do everything you can to avoid damage."
Red Cross urges gamers to obey laws of war while playing first-person shooters: 'Even wars have rules' | Fox News
Humanitarian group wants to fight against the normalization of war, even for people playing games from their couch
The ICRC listed four rules for gamers around the world to follow that apply to the rules of war.
The first rule: "When an enemy is down and can’t respond, you can’t keep shooting at them."
The second rule: "Bots that don’t fire unprovoked are considered civilians, and you can’t target or harm them."
The third rule: "In any given game map, houses, schools, or hospitals are considered safe zones that you cannot harm. When fighting in these spaces, you must do everything you can to avoid damage."
