> ****That's the way things work. Take a theory, test it, tweak it,
> test it again. Repeat until it's a workable solution. Fact is,
> human test subjects are needed in order to create a useable end
> product. Nothing else has the genetic makeup of the human animal. Of
> course, once we have mapped the human genetic code, we can run
> simulations ( remember those speedy computers I mentioned? ) that
> will give us an idea of how it will turn out. The real results won't
> happen until a real live test subject steps up to the plate and
> says, " Let's do this. . . "
A computer simulation can only go so far - most likely it would come up with
a result in a completely controllable enviroment, but irl there's too many
random variables that just can't get suffiently progammed in.
Then when you come to actually testing irl, all animal/human rights
activists, medical ethics and so on etc aside, there's the time factor for
actually doing the testing, irrespective of the level of technology there
mught be. You have to wait for embryos to grow and mature, you have to wait
to see what long term effects are. There's already this sort of problem with
genetically modified plants that'll be made into food and what effects
they'll have longterm too...
Not to mention this all so far is just the viability of growing such
creatures - In the end, you'll have to factor in sentience, consiousness,
psychology and the like not to mention determining what 'rights' the
resultant forms would have...
- MegaBrain
http://www.megabrain.tk
http://www.livejournal.com/~m3gabrain
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SonicComicsAnimeDoujinshis/
"Whatever you do, never underestimate the
fury of the ferret. You will understand... too late... "
Received on Fri Oct 18 2002 - 23:33:28 CDT