Cybernectics vs Genetic Engineering

[bladevalant546]

Out of advances in cybernetics and genetic engineering. Which one you think will win out?

[Anomalocaris]

What do you mean "win out"? Genetics is unlikely to enable you to shoot lasers out of your eye balls, where as cybenetics is unlikely to remedie the fact that you are congenitally sterile.

[frankiej]

I'd like both, but I really want some nipple lights like Franky in my avatar.

[pocaracas]

We are the Borg. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is Futile.

[bladevalant546]

What do you mean "win out"? Genetics is unlikely to enable you to shoot lasers out of your eye balls, where as cybenetics is unlikely to remedie the fact that you are congenitally sterile.

Indeed you ask an valid question, this mainly has something to do with the concept of what will profit the most. Since both will bring about some interesting biological implications, which one through corporations will out do the other if that is the case. It is a sci-fi story I am working on , however wanted to see if any biologists have opinions on this.

[Anomalocaris]

For the near future, it appears to me human genetic engineering have more potential to better address a more diverse range of life threatening issues. So I think the total revenue involved in human genetic engineering will be larger.

In the long run, obviously cybernetics has much more potential because its capabilities are not coupled to the intrinsic limitation of biochemistry and the working of genetic mechanisms of life. So eventually the impact of ybernetics on the society will overwhelm that of genetic engineering.

If we postulate cybernetics will also develop along nanotechnology lines, then I think it is reasonable to suppose the line between genetic engineering and cybernetics will blur, as nano machines might be used to directly interfere and manipulate celluar protein synthesis (ie the other important role of genes besides heritability of biological traits) in real time to achieve the desired cyberno-genetic results.

[bladevalant546]

For the near future, it appears to me human genetic engineering have more potential to better address a more diverse range of life threatening issues. So I think the total revenue involved in human genetic engineering will be larger.

In the long run, obviously cybernetics has much more potential because its capabilities are not coupled to the intrinsic limitation of biochemistry and the working of genetic mechanisms of life. So eventually the impact of ybernetics on the society will overwhelm that of genetic engineering.

If we postulate cybernetics will also develop along nanotechnology lines, then I think it is reasonable to suppose the line between genetic engineering and cybernetics will blur, as nano machines might be used to directly interfere and manipulate celluar protein synthesis (ie the other important role of genes besides heritability of biological traits) in real time to achieve the desired cyberno-genetic results.

That observation is reasonable, I found that it is rather interesting prospect of our future. Granted such advances are supressed to the everyday man. I think it is an area to explore considering it is in the near future. Concerning nanobots, I am curious on what kind of outcome will begot from that technology. I believe to some extent it might replace biological life.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't think such advances will be denied to the everyday men for very long. The real profit obviously comes from marketing such technologies as cybernets to as wide and audience as possible, sort of like iphones.

In my opinion, nanobots will have a much more dramatic impact on human lives than either genetic engineering or macro-scale cybernets. Given the experience with semi-conductor manufacturing and Moore's law, I think it is reasonable to suppose once nanobots begin to become feasible, its prices will sooon fall, capabilities and the number in which it can be manufactured will soon increase along an exponential curve. Within a few decades of the first nanobot, I imagine nanobots will become as pervasive as grains of sand. They would become cheap enough to sell in lots of thousands, or million, and instead of individually being a kind of specific appliances, they can become almost like intelligent raw material.

You can for example manufacture nanobots that can act as a sort of sand in cement, giving buildings made from this cement the ability to change shape arbitrarily on command. You can have nanobots that can float through your blood like redblood cells and make specific targetd repairs at cellular level. You can scatter nanobots in the billions like dust in the wind, and track them and have them report temperature, humidity, etc to produce incredibly detailed and therefore accurate and precise weather forecast. Such nanobots can also enforce surveillence society of a kind that will give NRA ejactulations. These nanobots can be sprinkled like dust onto the unsuspecting and give those who spy on you access to literally everything you seem tough, smell and feel, along with others, without you ever being the wiser.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd say gen engi. The roi on an inserted gene is massive.

[Tonus]

I'm hoping that we'll be genetically engineered to grow our own cybernetic limbs.