Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:07:42 +0100
I've been wandering about the rather ambiguous claims in Shadowrun
material regarding "Vat grown" body parts.

Today we can clone creatures. Exact replicas of living creatures. (I'll
leave it to Pete to argue about cloning extinct species..) ;) Oh and
it is possible to clone dinosaurs. I know it is, and can prove it.
Pete is a living example of this tech (unless he really is a survivor of
that era.)

Now, if SR tech can grow body parts for replacement, and a Platinum
contract with Doc Wagon certainly seems to hint they store body parts
for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people? I don't mean
accelerated growth cloning, there is the intelligence factor and brain
development to take into consideration there. An accelerated clone
would be pretty much a vegetable, but.

Military. Special services etc.

What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
soldiers, and cloning them. Thousands of super warriors all waiting to
be born from tanks/vats/whatever. This could also be turned towards
other things. Thinking of Bladerunner and Space: Above and Beyond here
where clones undergo conditioning, special treatment. They are designed
to fight wars, work in places that are unsafe for "normal" people, and
other purposes such as exploration and hostile environment application.
They are instantly disposable (maybe the clone doesn't think so, but
they are not real people, they're grown - so not yet recognised, much
like slavery of the past.)

I don't want to get into the political ramifications of cloning, but the
possibility and application of cloning.

Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
and....

Well you get the picture. Yes I know BBB2 was released before genetic
cloning was proved to be possible, but there have been sourcebooks since
then that haven't addressed this side of human achievement.

Also, isn't there a damn good chance that Aztechnology, Saeder Krupp,
Renraku would be aggressive enough to pursue human cloning regarding of
any laws that are ratified in the current Congress - not that anything
the American's make illegal affects the rest of the world anyway. <grin>

Ideas and opinions?

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 2
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:37:12 -0500
<SNIP>
> What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
> soldiers, and cloning them. Thousands of super warriors all waiting to
> be born from tanks/vats/whatever. This could also be turned towards
> other things. Thinking of Bladerunner and Space: Above and Beyond here
> where clones undergo conditioning, special treatment. They are designed
> to fight wars, work in places that are unsafe for "normal" people, and
> other purposes such as exploration and hostile environment application.
> They are instantly disposable (maybe the clone doesn't think so, but
> they are not real people, they're grown - so not yet recognised, much
> like slavery of the past.)
>
> I don't want to get into the political ramifications of cloning, but the
> possibility and application of cloning.
>
> Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
> this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
> luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
> and....
>
> Well you get the picture. Yes I know BBB2 was released before genetic
> cloning was proved to be possible, but there have been sourcebooks since
> then that haven't addressed this side of human achievement.
>
A large part is of course the timing of the books. That may change
when they update the timeline, but I doubt it.
The simplest reason I can think of, FASA can use the excuse of the
Crash of '29, to explain where all the records, info, experiments etc
on cloning went. That lets them set the level they want the tech to be at.
And actually even if you clone animals, you still have to have food
for them to eat, and space to keep them.
In the last year or so, I've actually ran a couple of adventures based on
corps developing better cloning tech. We had a huge discussion of this
right after Dolly was first cloned. I believe it got out of hand
and had to be stopped, but I could be wrong. :)

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker (850)644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality is moral only when it is voluntary.
Message no. 3
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 15:55:47 -0400
At 01:07 PM 6/30/98 +0100, you wrote:
>I've been wandering about the rather ambiguous claims in Shadowrun
>material regarding "Vat grown" body parts.
>
>Today we can clone creatures. Exact replicas of living creatures. (I'll
>leave it to Pete to argue about cloning extinct species..) ;) Oh and
>it is possible to clone dinosaurs. I know it is, and can prove it.
>Pete is a living example of this tech (unless he really is a survivor of
>that era.)

Yes, we can clone exact creatures right now. But not like in the moveis.
First, I think that for the whole sheep cloning thing the success rate was
about 10%. Not real impressive. And then Dolly was still implanted into a
regular sheep, and matured to full term like a normal sheep.

>Now, if SR tech can grow body parts for replacement, and a Platinum
>contract with Doc Wagon certainly seems to hint they store body parts
>for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people? I don't mean
>accelerated growth cloning, there is the intelligence factor and brain
>development to take into consideration there. An accelerated clone
>would be pretty much a vegetable, but.

The novel Streets of Blood was supposed to contain the first full human
cloning project. There was accelerated growth, along with some magical
stuff that was supposed to be REAL BAD (tm) for Astral Space. And it was
implied in Shadowtech somewhere that the forced growth/tube growth stuff
was bad for develpoment.

>Military. Special services etc.
>
>What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
>soldiers, and cloning them. Thousands of super warriors all waiting to
>be born from tanks/vats/whatever. This could also be turned towards
>other things. Thinking of Bladerunner and Space: Above and Beyond here
>where clones undergo conditioning, special treatment. They are designed
>to fight wars, work in places that are unsafe for "normal" people, and
>other purposes such as exploration and hostile environment application.
>They are instantly disposable (maybe the clone doesn't think so, but
>they are not real people, they're grown - so not yet recognised, much
>like slavery of the past.)

Making the superwarriors thing starts to get into the whole nature/nurture
debate about skills and thought. I'm sure you could find the absolute best
soldiers and get DNA for clones. But you either wait for them to mature
normally, or force grow them. I can't believe that you would be able to
physically develop them well, since they can't excercise to get muscle tone
or anything. AS for skills, you could give them high end skillwires and
skillsofts, but at that point the ware and growing costs are getting up to
500-600 k. Cheaper to spend 200k on training some kid from the Bronx.

>I don't want to get into the political ramifications of cloning, but the
>possibility and application of cloning.

>Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
>this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
>luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
>and....

I'm sure that most food is genetically modified one way or another, the
same way that's been happening for thousands of years. If a farmer in Egypt
saw that his grain was growing faster in one field than another, he used
the seeds from the faster grain to grow next year. The best steers are put
out to stud to get better beef. We've just gotten more direct about it lately.

Sure we can clone those sheep, cows and chicken. But they all need room to
grow and graze, room to move around to that the muscles develop and the
meat gets lean, and all of that other stuff that makes it more expensive.
Cheaper just to put up a soy farm. Although I do think that they make a
little too much of the whole soy thing, if for no other reason than game
flavor. If the population is the same, or slightly greater, than it is now,
ther should still be enough area around to grow it. Some of it will have
been screwed up because of the environment, but still...

>
>Well you get the picture. Yes I know BBB2 was released before genetic
>cloning was proved to be possible, but there have been sourcebooks since
>then that haven't addressed this side of human achievement.
>
>Also, isn't there a damn good chance that Aztechnology, Saeder Krupp,
>Renraku would be aggressive enough to pursue human cloning regarding of
>any laws that are ratified in the current Congress - not that anything
>the American's make illegal affects the rest of the world anyway. <grin>

Possibly the UN could do something about it. They mention that Sasquatches
were declared sentient in 2048, and they maek a few other referrences every
once in a while. So the UN declared it illegal. Or the Corporate Court did,
if you want it to be someone with clout:)
>
>Ideas and opinions?

Always! Did you want good ones though?
>
>--
>Blaze
>http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
>Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Sommers
"The thought of 2 of me has made 3 friends right letters to Congress
against cloning."
Message no. 4
From: John E Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 15:12:47 -0500
Blaze wrote:
>
> I've been wandering about the rather ambiguous claims in Shadowrun
> material regarding "Vat grown" body parts.
>
> Today we can clone creatures. Exact replicas of living creatures. (I'll
> leave it to Pete to argue about cloning extinct species..) ;) Oh and

We can clone, but the "exact replicas" part applies only genetically.
Environmental factors (hormonal levels, for instance) involved in the incubation
of the developing critter can still cause changes in its development.

> it is possible to clone dinosaurs. I know it is, and can prove it.
> Pete is a living example of this tech (unless he really is a survivor of
> that era.)

That's hard to say... I mean, Pete *is* pretty old (j/k)

> Now, if SR tech can grow body parts for replacement, and a Platinum
> contract with Doc Wagon certainly seems to hint they store body parts
> for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people? I don't mean
> accelerated growth cloning, there is the intelligence factor and brain
> development to take into consideration there. An accelerated clone
> would be pretty much a vegetable, but.

Yep. If we can do it now (and we can, though the chances of success are just
this side of astronomical), they should be able to do it then. It's not terrbily
difficult when you start looking at it and the information is practically in the
public domain now, so I would think that enough of that information would be
around to at least point them in the rigth direction if the originals are lost
to the Crash Virus.

> Military. Special services etc.
>
> What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
> soldiers, and cloning them. Thousands of super warriors all waiting to
> be born from tanks/vats/whatever. This could also be turned towards
> other things. Thinking of Bladerunner and Space: Above and Beyond here
> where clones undergo conditioning, special treatment. They are designed
> to fight wars, work in places that are unsafe for "normal" people, and
> other purposes such as exploration and hostile environment application.
> They are instantly disposable (maybe the clone doesn't think so, but
> they are not real people, they're grown - so not yet recognised, much
> like slavery of the past.)

Ethics and politics are the only things that will stop them if the technology
exists. And if those two forces can be effectively avoided or ignored...

> I don't want to get into the political ramifications of cloning, but the
> possibility and application of cloning.

Check. No philosophical arguments:)

> Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
> this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
> luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
> and....

...and it's still expensive. Livestock still requires room and food to grow,
even if you speed up development, you don't significantly reduce either
requirement (you can put more animals through the feedlot in a given period of
time, but your feedlot will still need be there, and increased development and
growth rates mean more energy and thus food is required for proper development).
Real estate is expensive and getting rarer, so unless you propose creating a few
artificial islands to raise cows on (which isn't a cheap option, either, but it
might be a more feasible suggestion than purchasing land from within the
mainland UCAS), you have problems finding enough room at a price you could
reasonably afford. Especially when the UCAS (I'm focusing on the UCAS because I
am admittedly rather ignorant of the rest of the world in these respects) lost a
lot of its grazing land to the NAN. Fungus you can grow in a basement and
bacteria will live in a test-tube.

> Also, isn't there a damn good chance that Aztechnology, Saeder Krupp,
> Renraku would be aggressive enough to pursue human cloning regarding of
> any laws that are ratified in the current Congress - not that anything
> the American's make illegal affects the rest of the world anyway. <grin>

In theory, yes. Although, I would think there might be reasons against it
(mainly PR).

> Ideas and opinions?

It sounds like you've been talking with Pete:) I think he brought up something
similar some time ago...

--
John Pederson otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Albert Einstein
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" Number Two -- with a bullet!
Message no. 5
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 03:50:44 -0700
Blaze wrote:

> What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
> soldiers, and cloning them.

Half a dozen military theorists arguing that ability is equal parts
nature and nurture -- that is, although you might be genetically suited
to developing larger muscles, you still have to be raised in a
high-calorie, protein rich atmosphere .. er, household.

So, why should the military pick up the tab on a handful (I might even
give you thousands) of 'super-soldiers' when they can simply recruit and
augment, same as they've always done? It saves them eighteen years of
diaper-changes and education. Quite a bill, that. Especially when it
just cries out for the ACLU to protest to death.

OTOH, a handful of 'nobodies' - literally - could make an interesting
premise for a runner team. Extremely deniable.

(Off-the-wall Shadowrun idea: CAS military discovers Aztlan/Aztech
using genetic super-soldier idea, cultivates virus specific to *their
exact DNA* (no one else!). Runner team must deliver germ and escape.
Twist: Runners are clones themselves.)

> Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
> this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
> luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
> and....

...and have to feed them. Animals consume more than they're worth,
nutritionally speaking.

> Also, isn't there a damn good chance that Aztechnology, Saeder Krupp,
> Renraku would be aggressive enough to pursue human cloning regarding of
> any laws that are ratified in the current Congress - not that anything
> the American's make illegal affects the rest of the world anyway. <grin>

Well .. yeah. Just like people will still have clones in their game, no
matter how unrealistic I say it is. :)


- Matt

------------------------------------
Quid gignitur ex hyaena et psittaco?
Animal uiribus ridendi in ioca sua eximum.

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 6
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:05:10 EDT
In a message dated 98-06-30 18:11:31 EDT, you write:

> (Off-the-wall Shadowrun idea: CAS military discovers Aztlan/Aztech
> using genetic super-soldier idea, cultivates virus specific to *their
> exact DNA* (no one else!). Runner team must deliver germ and escape.
> Twist: Runners are clones themselves.)

Better yet: The runners are each part of a group of six clones, so that
whenever one dies, he can be replaced with an exact replica.

Nexx, the paranoiac
Message no. 7
From: ArcLight <arclight@**************.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 01:13:10 +0200
Blaze wrote:

> Today we can clone creatures. Exact replicas of living creatures.

some scientists think that the (in)famous sheep Dolly (TM) is no *real*
clone at all...

> Now, if SR tech can grow body parts for replacement, and a Platinum
> contract with Doc Wagon certainly seems to hint they store body parts
> for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people?

It is said (Shadowtech maybe?) that nerve tissue cannot be reproduced.

< Snip mil clone-soldiers >

> Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
> this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
> luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
> and....

to produce 1 kg of meat, it takes app. 20 kg of corn/crop (again : ?)

By the way: in japan, a sheep was born in a tank...

--
ArcLight
ICQ#14322211
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A train station is a station where a train stops.
But what the hell is a workstation?
Message no. 8
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:54:42 +0100
In article <359946BF.77BCFD5F@******.rose-hulman.edu>, John E Pederson
<pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU> writes
>Blaze wrote:
>>
>> I've been wandering about the rather ambiguous claims in Shadowrun
>> material regarding "Vat grown" body parts.
>> Today we can clone creatures. Exact replicas of living creatures. (I'll
>> leave it to Pete to argue about cloning extinct species..) ;) Oh and
>
>We can clone, but the "exact replicas" part applies only genetically.
>Environmental factors (hormonal levels, for instance) involved in the incubation
>of the developing critter can still cause changes in its development.

Oh please John, don't get technical on me and start arguing semantics.
:)
I meant in the general not molecular sense. :)

>> it is possible to clone dinosaurs. I know it is, and can prove it.
>> Pete is a living example of this tech (unless he really is a survivor of
>> that era.)
>
>That's hard to say... I mean, Pete *is* pretty old (j/k)

LOL. Oh he's going to hate me when he sees that. :)

>> for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people? I don't mean
>> accelerated growth cloning, there is the intelligence factor and brain
>> development to take into consideration there. An accelerated clone
>> would be pretty much a vegetable, but.
>
>Yep. If we can do it now (and we can, though the chances of success are just
>this side of astronomical),

From what I saw at the weekend it's not so much of the astronomical
anymore. The experience gained cloning the animals has gone a /long/
way to making human clones a more likely prospect. I don't suppose we
can expect to see one anytime soon, but outlawing them in Europe and the
US won't prevent the more, erm, aggressive countries from attempting it.

>they should be able to do it then. It's not terrbily
>difficult when you start looking at it and the information is practically in the
>public domain now, so I would think that enough of that information would be
>around to at least point them in the rigth direction if the originals are lost
>to the Crash Virus.

I would prefer to ignore the crash of '29 for these purposes, simply
because there are some anomalies about the crash that don't sit very
well with me. The theory is great, and has left the field wide open for
a return of the virus and I /want/ to know what that "dark presence on
the edge of the matrix" is. :)

>> Military. Special services etc.
>>
> other purposes such as exploration and hostile environment application.
>> They are instantly disposable (maybe the clone doesn't think so, but
>> they are not real people, they're grown - so not yet recognised, much
>> like slavery of the past.)
>
>Ethics and politics are the only things that will stop them if the technology
>exists.

Yes, and I fully expect that certain parts of the world would abhor the
process, outlawing it beyond question, and there would be movements
against cloning people, but the possibilities that could be applied to
clones, especially in the world of SR makes it a tempting way to go.

>And if those two forces can be effectively avoided or ignored...

Exactly. What /really/ goes on in the "secret" (hah) research labs
today? What little toys are they playing with and who really knows?
Take that to the heightened secrecy and paranoia of SR, and there would
be labs around that are a part of a corp, that nobody except the corp
knows about. Perhaps inhabiting some of the abandoned places left by
the old US. The Nan seems to encompass the majority of the military and
research bases in the US by the map, so I suppose that nation would have
the largest concentration, and easiest access to materials and research
projects.

>> I don't want to get into the political ramifications of cloning, but the
>> possibility and application of cloning.
>
>Check. No philosophical arguments:)

:) Please. I would prefer that these didn't crop up.

>> Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
>> this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
>> luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
>> and....
>
>...and it's still expensive.

Expensive now. But in 10 years when the technology has been refined?
Beyond that there's what 60 years? A long time in the life of man. How
expensive is it to genetically alter a field of wheat? It can't be that
high because farmers are doing it.

>Livestock still requires room and food to grow,

Which there is. VITAS and what have you has depopulated the world to
current population levels, rather than what it would be in 60 years.
The US has broken up. Now, it appears that the Nan owns most of the
arable and fertile land of the US (at least the map seems to indicate
this), so they have the greatest chance to profit as a nation from
trading in meat. I can't see the beef and dairy herds of today suddenly
being abandoned and everyone turning to soy products just because...
There's money in them thar steers. :) But seriously, it's illogical in
some ways, and not at all like human nature.

>even if you speed up development,

No, that's one thing I mentioned. Without speeding development. Any
increased speed in growth would result in errors, producing god only
knows what at the end of it. Growing to full size could involve
steroids and antibiotics same as it does now, but I don't see that
happening as a viable prospect. Grow the foetus until it is at normal
birth size, and "hatch" it. The facility and tech to feed newborn is
available now, so 2059 shouldn't be any different, in fact veterinarian
and medical training and facility has improved massively, so keeping a
newborn alive would not be fraught with the difficulties we have today.

That animal/human could then grow as normal. Add a little genetic
tinkering into it, such as today (to add strength, resistance to
disease, increase size) and things might be different. There are
several fears regarding the genetic fiddling that goes on with wheat,
barley and other products today, in 60 years, if food is such a problem,
that tinkering would be even more rife because of the need

>you don't significantly reduce either
>requirement (you can put more animals through the feedlot in a given period of
>time, but your feedlot will still need be there, and increased development and
>growth rates mean more energy and thus food is required for proper development).
>Real estate is expensive and getting rarer, so unless you propose creating a few
>artificial islands to raise cows on

Why artificial islands. Real estate within the metroplexes is getting
rare and expensive, but the abandoned towns and villages, the wide open
spaces, irrigation into the Nevada and Texas deserts (much as they're
doing in Africa now), and the problem is less of a "problem". The
existence of Metroplexes is already recognised today, and I think New
York was announced as the worlds first Metroplex in last year's Habitat
Talks - I'll have to check but I'm sure that's right.

The gravitation of people towards the cities is evidenced today, in the
future that FASA portray, it would be even more so, with isolated
settlements outside, much like the old west used to be.

>(which isn't a cheap option, either, but it
>might be a more feasible suggestion than purchasing land from within the
>mainland UCAS),

Or the people who own inland UCAS could profit from the need of the
cities. An arrangement could be agreed, one that would be mutually
beneficial. I find it difficult to believe that the UCAS and NAN would
spend so many years threatening war with each other without trying to
come to some sort of solution. It makes economic as well as common
sense.

>you have problems finding enough room at a price you could
>reasonably afford. Especially when the UCAS (I'm focusing on the UCAS because I
>am admittedly rather ignorant of the rest of the world in these respects) lost a
>lot of its grazing land to the NAN. Fungus you can grow in a basement and
>bacteria will live in a test-tube.

Exactly my point. The land is still there, owned by the Native American
Nations. 40 million people I think is the total. 40 million people
doing /what/ for a living? Getting back to nature and playing in
teepee's? I don't think so, not all of them, no way. :)

>> Also, isn't there a damn good chance that Aztechnology, Saeder Krupp,
>> Renraku would be aggressive enough to pursue human cloning regarding of
>> any laws that are ratified in the current Congress - not that anything
>> the American's make illegal affects the rest of the world anyway. <grin>
>
>In theory, yes. Although, I would think there might be reasons against it
>(mainly PR).

Only if it becomes public knowledge. There was something in Shadowrun
(module I think) that detailed the experimental release of a toxin on
the down and outs and gangs of an area of Seattle, the runners had to
find out what had happened. Another module involved a young dragon and
somebody's experiments to link the thing to the matrix, there are other
examples that the corps /are/ doing things without general consent, so
it's not implausible.

>> Ideas and opinions?
>
>It sounds like you've been talking with Pete:)

Yes I have. He's been toying around with clones in his game, and has
been exploring the whole thing. I thought it might be interesting to
explore more in the Shadowrun world, his is somewhat "changed" from
canon. :)

>I think he brought up something
>similar some time ago...

Last year sometime I think. I can't remember when or I'd hunt the logs
for it, but I do remember that it got quite heated when religion and
politics got dragged into it.

I'm trying to explore it from a different point though. Using what we
do today, and the way that it's done and taking that 60 years into the
future.

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 9
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:09:22 +0100
In article <199806301837.AA22188@*****.scri.fsu.edu>, Lehlan Decker
<decker@****.FSU.EDU> writes
><SNIP>
<hack>
>> Well you get the picture. Yes I know BBB2 was released before genetic
>> cloning was proved to be possible, but there have been sourcebooks since
>> then that haven't addressed this side of human achievement.
>>
>A large part is of course the timing of the books. That may change
>when they update the timeline, but I doubt it.
>The simplest reason I can think of, FASA can use the excuse of the
>Crash of '29, to explain where all the records, info, experiments etc
>on cloning went.

I know the reasons why it's not addressed and I don't hold that against
FASA nor do I expect them to address the issue, especially considering
the religious and political problems that the technology has brought
about. I was interested in list opinions regarding the possible uses of
cloning to get a general feel for the subject before I write something
about it for my site. :)

>In the last year or so, I've actually ran a couple of adventures based on
>corps developing better cloning tech. We had a huge discussion of this
>right after Dolly was first cloned. I believe it got out of hand
>and had to be stopped, but I could be wrong. :)

I remember it vaguely, but that got into all sorts of things that I
really have no interest in discussing here, such as the two most flame
persistent subjects; politics and religion.

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 10
From: William Ashe <wmashe@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:43:23 -0700
>Nexx, the paranoiac

The computer is your freind
Message no. 11
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 06:33:36 -0700
William Ashe wrote:

> >Nexx, the paranoiac

> The computer is your freind

You are not cleared for that level of knowledge. Report to Sector B-B-Q
immediately for a Happy!Friendly!Self-Combusting!Surprise.


- Matt

------------------------------------
Quid gignitur ex hyaena et psittaco?
Animal uiribus ridendi in ioca sua eximum.

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 12
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 02:30:42 +0100
In article <359A1484.2D03@**.netcom.com>, Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
writes
>Blaze wrote:
>
>> What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
>> soldiers, and cloning them.
>
>Half a dozen military theorists arguing that ability is equal parts
>nature and nurture -- that is, although you might be genetically suited
>to developing larger muscles, you still have to be raised in a
>high-calorie, protein rich atmosphere .. er, household.

Yes, agreed. But these people could be brought into the doctrine from
scratch, have total programmed loyalty to the "mother company" and be
educated to think and act /precisely/ how the company wants. Much more
so than somebody from the streets who strolled into a recruitment
centre. If you are interested in current military problems regarding
recruitment from the public, ask Avenger for the US government paper on
"Street Gangs" in the modern military. It's staggering stuff.

>So, why should the military pick up the tab on a handful (I might even
>give you thousands)

Ok, thousands was a bit of a silly number to use.

>of 'super-soldiers' when they can simply recruit and
>augment, same as they've always done?

Because people recruited have their own beliefs and the education they
went through, including all the socially embedded beliefs that come with
that. Clones do not.

>It saves them eighteen years of
>diaper-changes and education.

But creates other problems

>Quite a bill, that.

Yes, but cheaper than the problems caused by standard recruitment, also
loyalty would almost never be brought into question. The indoctrination
program for clones in Space: Above and Beyond is what gave me the idea
in the first place.

>Especially when it
>just cries out for the ACLU to protest to death.

If they know about it, sure.

>OTOH, a handful of 'nobodies' - literally - could make an interesting
>premise for a runner team. Extremely deniable.

That would perhaps make more sense than large bodies of similar
individuals marching around on a parade ground. But think how unnerving
it would be for a PC to walk around the corner of a building to find
themselves face to face with the man they just killed. <eg>

>(Off-the-wall Shadowrun idea: CAS military discovers Aztlan/Aztech
>using genetic super-soldier idea, cultivates virus specific to *their
>exact DNA* (no one else!). Runner team must deliver germ and escape.
>Twist: Runners are clones themselves.)

Why would that be a twist, unless they came from the same gene pool? As
clones, assuming they were raised in the corporate environs, they
wouldn't question their actions anyway. If the virus affects them, they
came from the same pool, and they would die.

>> Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
>> this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
>> luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
>> and....
>
>...and have to feed them. Animals consume more than they're worth,
>nutritionally speaking.

Yes, but why do we breed stock animals /now/ if they're so uneconomical?
Why are there farms across the world, and herds of beef in the US. It's
obviously not cost effective is it? That's why people do it, they love
losing money rather than making a profit.

>> Also, isn't there a damn good chance that Aztechnology, Saeder Krupp,
>> Renraku would be aggressive enough to pursue human cloning regarding of
>> any laws that are ratified in the current Congress - not that anything
>> the American's make illegal affects the rest of the world anyway. <grin>
>
>Well .. yeah. Just like people will still have clones in their game, no
>matter how unrealistic I say it is. :)

OK, I'll bite. Why is it unrealistic? Cloning /is/ possible. It's
been done. Some people don't like that it was the UK that made the
breakthrough, and I believe the Japanese are already experimenting with
tank growth... Why is unrealistic? Not only has it been one of the
fundamental building blocks of science fiction, it is now science fact.

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 13
From: John E Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:11:14 -0500
Pieces snipped without warning...

Blaze wrote:
>
>In article <359946BF.77BCFD5F@******.rose-hulman.edu>, John E Pederson
><pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU> writes
>>We can clone, but the "exact replicas" part applies only genetically.
>>Environmental factors (hormonal levels, for instance) involved in the incubation
>>of the developing critter can still cause changes in its development.
>
>Oh please John, don't get technical on me and start arguing semantics. :)
>I meant in the general not molecular sense. :)

Picky, picky, picky. I'm afraid it's a bad habit of mine that I picked up some
time ago. And now I'm attending what is possibly the most toolish engineering
college I've seen, am rooming with and/or hanging out with folks that put some
of the nerdiest folks I know IRL to shame:) So it's probably not getting better.
But I digress (a lot:)

>>That's hard to say... I mean, Pete *is* pretty old (j/k)
>
>LOL. Oh he's going to hate me when he sees that. :)

Which is what makes it fun;)

>>Yep. If we can do it now (and we can, though the chances of success are just
>>this side of astronomical),
>
>From what I saw at the weekend it's not so much of the astronomical
>anymore. The experience gained cloning the animals has gone a /long/
>way to making human clones a more likely prospect. I don't suppose we
>can expect to see one anytime soon, but outlawing them in Europe and the
>US won't prevent the more, erm, aggressive countries from attempting it.

Well certainly. And in U.S. even now it's only illegal for government agencies
and government-sponsored programs to engage in research into human cloning. So,
if Disney wants to clone ol' Walt... Well, nothing can stop them provided they
can do it without government dollars.

>>they should be able to do it then. It's not terrbily
>>difficult when you start looking at it and the information is practically in the
>>public domain now, so I would think that enough of that information would be
>>around to at least point them in the rigth direction if the originals are lost
>>to the Crash Virus.
>
>I would prefer to ignore the crash of '29 for these purposes, simply
>because there are some anomalies about the crash that don't sit very
>well with me. The theory is great, and has left the field wide open for
>a return of the virus and I /want/ to know what that "dark presence on
>the edge of the matrix" is. :)

I've totally missed a lot of that stuff, myself. I finished Technobabel a week
or so ago (not a bad book, and better than I expected), but I've been far enough
out of touch with most the world events in SR the couple of years that it
borders on the absurd. <g> But I have my excuses.

>>Ethics and politics are the only things that will stop them if the technology
>>exists.
>
>Yes, and I fully expect that certain parts of the world would abhor the
>process, outlawing it beyond question, and there would be movements
>against cloning people, but the possibilities that could be applied to
>clones, especially in the world of SR makes it a tempting way to go.

Hell, there are movements against cloning people *now* :) As for the
possibilities... Most simply don't occur to me, but I'll see what I can do:)

>>And if those two forces can be effectively avoided or ignored...
>
>Exactly. What /really/ goes on in the "secret" (hah) research labs
>today? What little toys are they playing with and who really knows?
>Take that to the heightened secrecy and paranoia of SR, and there would
>be labs around that are a part of a corp, that nobody except the corp
>knows about. Perhaps inhabiting some of the abandoned places left by
>the old US. The Nan seems to encompass the majority of the military and
>research bases in the US by the map, so I suppose that nation would have
>the largest concentration, and easiest access to materials and research
>projects.

I dunno... I really don't think that the NAN would be terribly into human
cloning. They'd do research (*everybody* would probably do research), but I
don't see them as getting much into actually *doing* it. In many ways, I don't
see very many governments at all actually bothering with that kind of program
outside of funding research into cloning in general for medical and agricultural
purposes (ag. purposes besides an infinite number of Johnny Farmhands:).
Politics and all that other stuff you didn't want to get into:)

Corporations on the other hand... Not having Corporate Shadowfiles, I can't
really say which ones would have the best resources for this kind of thing, but
I'd guess that the Aztlanners would at least attempt it. S-K *maybe*, but I'd
think Loffy might not be too happy with his underlings growing other people.
Renraku... I don't know much about 'raku, but they were my second bet after the
Azzies (the Azzies were getting cliché:) when I started thinking on this line
about a year or so ago (pre-Dolly, I think). I toyed around with the idea of
sending a group of runners to do an extraction on a corp's (probably one of
Renraku's) geneticist/biologist-type folks (Dammit Jim! I'm a programmer, not a
school teacher!) who was working (unbeknownst to the runners, of course) on a
human cloning experiment which involved using a sample of various magicians' DNA
to look for common factors and incorporate them using gene sequencing into an
embryo which would be brought to full development (slightly sped up mental and
physical development probably involving hormonal and genetic tampering and
simsense loops) and tested for possible magical activity. At which point, the
corporation then uses the information discovered to work up a sort of
super-soldier capable of magical involvement in addition to physical involvement
on the battlefield... Just to finish up the plot I was rambling about, the
project was being shut down when the runners were sent to extract this guy --
and he wants to bring along his son, who is actually the one successful 'clone'
the project generated.

>>> I don't want to get into the political ramifications of cloning, but the
>>> possibility and application of cloning.
>>
>>Check. No philosophical arguments:)
>
>:) Please. I would prefer that these didn't crop up.

But they always seem to be so amusing! I mean, why else would the list traffic
become completely swallowed in a single thread for days on end...
:)

>>...and it's still expensive.
>
>Expensive now. But in 10 years when the technology has been refined?
>Beyond that there's what 60 years? A long time in the life of man. How
>expensive is it to genetically alter a field of wheat? It can't be that
>high because farmers are doing it.

Altering a field of wheat doesn't carry the same politico-ethical burdens
cloning does. It will almost certainly not advance at the same rate genetics and
genetic manipulation has/could/will. But, politics aside, raising those animals
is *still* expensive.

>>Livestock still requires room and food to grow,
>
>Which there is. VITAS and what have you has depopulated the world to
>current population levels, rather than what it would be in 60 years.
>The US has broken up. Now, it appears that the Nan owns most of the
>arable and fertile land of the US (at least the map seems to indicate
>this), so they have the greatest chance to profit as a nation from
>trading in meat. I can't see the beef and dairy herds of today suddenly
>being abandoned and everyone turning to soy products just because...
>There's money in them thar steers. :) But seriously, it's illogical in
>some ways, and not at all like human nature.

Depends. The NAN may not be much for the whole back-to-nature, living in
teepees, etc (well, there *are* the pinkskins. But there are oddballs in any
group:), but I don't think they'd be real big on roaming cattle. Cattle eat a
*lot*. Two cows could keep four acres of grass well grazed (in my experience),
four and it won't need mowing anywhere at all in that area, six and the grass
will be down to little green nubs in the dark brown earth. And that's above and
beyond water and feed and hay. Admittedly, we're *not* farmers (thank God above
we're not farmers), and the ranchers do make quite a bit of money on steers. But
I don't think the NAN would have all that many ranchers or steers, because
free-ranging cattle do quite a bit of damage to the land, they're not part of
the natural eco-system. And real food hasn't been abandoned. IIRC (which I may
not have, my books aren't within arm's reach at the moment and it's been a while
since I read the relevant section of the BBB), Middle through Luxury class folks
do get real food. Middle class may not get much of it, but they do see it every
once in a while. Upper class folks probably see about fifty-fifty and the Luxury
class probably eat "real" food all the time. So, it's still around, it's just a
lot more expensive (since most would have been brought across borders, and most
of that likely flown in from another continent).

>>even if you speed up development,
>
>No, that's one thing I mentioned. Without speeding development. Any
>increased speed in growth would result in errors, producing god only
>knows what at the end of it. Growing to full size could involve
>steroids and antibiotics same as it does now, but I don't see that
>happening as a viable prospect. Grow the foetus until it is at normal
>birth size, and "hatch" it. The facility and tech to feed newborn is
>available now, so 2059 shouldn't be any different, in fact veterinarian
>and medical training and facility has improved massively, so keeping a
>newborn alive would not be fraught with the difficulties we have today.

I was thinking only of minor genetic tweaking so that a food animal would be
ready for the dinner plate a little sooner:) Nothing more than slightly
increased natural output of certain hormones.

>That animal/human could then grow as normal. Add a little genetic
>tinkering into it, such as today (to add strength, resistance to
>disease, increase size) and things might be different. There are
>several fears regarding the genetic fiddling that goes on with wheat,
>barley and other products today, in 60 years, if food is such a problem,
>that tinkering would be even more rife because of the need

AFAIK, most of the fears have to do with genetic diversity. If everybody is
growing the same wheat, raising the same cattle, etc, then you run into a
situation where a single bacterium or viral agent could wipe out the entire
population of that species. With a genetically diverse population, you don't
have that problem, because at least a few of your population are bound to have
*some* natural resistance to whatever it is by nature of probability.

>The gravitation of people towards the cities is evidenced today, in the
>future that FASA portray, it would be even more so, with isolated
>settlements outside, much like the old west used to be.

Depends on where you're talking. I don't think you'd get many of those in the
UCAS, because population is pretty dense all over anyway, but NAN would likely
have quite a few, but also fewer large cities/metroplexes.

>>(which isn't a cheap option, either, but it
>>might be a more feasible suggestion than purchasing land from within the
>>mainland UCAS),
>
>Or the people who own inland UCAS could profit from the need of the
>cities. An arrangement could be agreed, one that would be mutually
>beneficial. I find it difficult to believe that the UCAS and NAN would
>spend so many years threatening war with each other without trying to
>come to some sort of solution. It makes economic as well as common
>sense.

Common sense isn't, and economic sense occassionally gets thrown out the window
as well (Marxism being a case in point). But you're right. The economic
situation between the UCAS and the NAN is likely similar to that between the US
and its closest neighbors now. Still, those folks in the UCAS probably profitted
quite a bit from their real-estate. A lot of it is probably metroplex:)

>>you have problems finding enough room at a price you could
>>reasonably afford. Especially when the UCAS (I'm focusing on the UCAS because I
>>am admittedly rather ignorant of the rest of the world in these respects) lost a
>>lot of its grazing land to the NAN. Fungus you can grow in a basement and
>>bacteria will live in a test-tube.
>
>Exactly my point. The land is still there, owned by the Native American
>Nations. 40 million people I think is the total. 40 million people
>doing /what/ for a living? Getting back to nature and playing in
>teepee's? I don't think so, not all of them, no way. :)

But enough of them motivated in that direction to keep agricultural development
to lower point that it is currently... Yes, I do think so. Right now, the
American Midwest puts out way more food (grain, anyway) than is necessary. In
205x, I wouldn't be at all surprised, though if a lot of that agricultural
burden has been moved somewhere else.

>>> Also, isn't there a damn good chance that Aztechnology, Saeder Krupp,
>>> Renraku would be aggressive enough to pursue human cloning regarding of
>>> any laws that are ratified in the current Congress - not that anything
>>> the American's make illegal affects the rest of the world anyway.
<grin>
>>
>>In theory, yes. Although, I would think there might be reasons against it
>>(mainly PR).
>
>Only if it becomes public knowledge. There was something in Shadowrun
>(module I think) that detailed the experimental release of a toxin on
>the down and outs and gangs of an area of Seattle, the runners had to
>find out what had happened. Another module involved a young dragon and
>somebody's experiments to link the thing to the matrix, there are other
>examples that the corps /are/ doing things without general consent, so
>it's not implausible.

Missed both of those. I think we were making about the same point though:
they'll do it, they'll just keep it nice and quiet.

>--
>Blaze
>http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
>Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Nice looking site, btw. I haven't looked too hard at it, but it looks nice:)

--
John Pederson otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Albert Einstein
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" Number Two -- with a bullet!
Message no. 14
From: Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:26:28 -0400
On 30 Jun 98, at 21:11, John E Pederson wrote:

> >Blaze
> >http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
> >Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
>
> Nice looking site, btw. I haven't looked too hard at it, but it looks
> nice:)

Yes it does. BTW, Blaze, I agree with you about magic. :)

--

=================================================================
- Tim Kerby - drekhead@***.net - ICQ-UIN 2883757 -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality is the only obstacle to happiness." - Unknown
Message no. 15
From: William Ashe <wmashe@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:58:51 -0700
>William Ashe wrote:
>
>> >Nexx, the paranoiac
>
>> The computer is your freind
>
>You are not cleared for that level of knowledge. Report to Sector B-B-Q
>immediately for a Happy!Friendly!Self-Combusting!Surprise.
>
Oh goody I love surprises ... foosh

Hello citizen ... the computer is your freind
Message no. 16
From: Steven McCormick <stardust@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:21:52 -0500
At 03:55 PM 6/30/98 -0400, Sommers wrote:
>I'm sure that most food is genetically modified one way or another, the
>same way that's been happening for thousands of years. If a farmer in Egypt
>saw that his grain was growing faster in one field than another, he used
>the seeds from the faster grain to grow next year. The best steers are put
>out to stud to get better beef. We've just gotten more direct about it
lately.

I know this is just a typo but... I guarantee you that nobody is going to
put a STEER out to stud :)

BlueMule
Message no. 17
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:17:42 -0700
Blaze wrote:

> >> What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
> >> soldiers, and cloning them.

> >Half a dozen military theorists arguing that ability is equal parts
> >nature and nurture -- that is, although you might be genetically suited
> >to developing larger muscles, you still have to be raised in a
> >high-calorie, protein rich atmosphere .. er, household.

> Yes, agreed. But these people could be brought into the doctrine from
> scratch, have total programmed loyalty to the "mother company" and be
> educated to think and act /precisely/ how the company wants. Much more
> so than somebody from the streets who strolled into a recruitment
> centre. If you are interested in current military problems regarding
> recruitment from the public, ask Avenger for the US government paper on
> "Street Gangs" in the modern military. It's staggering stuff.

Wellll -- at least from this side of the barracks, US military
recruitment seems to be doing all right. Currently all four branches
host, what, a million soldiers? Not one of them raised from a creche,
either.

I'm of serious doubts about the ease of programming and the lack of
side-effects that clone-soldiers would require; that's even coming from
a strict Catholic upbringing. ;) SR does have a slight advantage, in
that skillwires and virtual tutors are present, perhaps meaning that
less time is needed to be trained in 'normal' skills, so more time can
be spent on the daily brainwashing.

SR doesn't allow for (that I've seen) the main prerequisite for clone
soldiers, though: accelerated aging. That means fifteen years of
diapers and schoolbooks, areas that the military isn't well-equipped to
deal with; it also means having the foresight to begin a plan that has
absolutely zero strategic value for well over a decade.

> >So, why should the military pick up the tab on a handful (I might even
> >give you thousands)

> Ok, thousands was a bit of a silly number to use.

Well - it's hard to imagine the military getting involved unless it
involves a fairly large number.

If it's merely in the dozens, I'm sure they can sort through
off-the-street recruits for people willing to become deniable assets.
The 2050's would seem to be a potential breeding ground for nationalists
and patriots of all sorts.

The smaller the number, though, the easier the program is to support,
meaning the more secretive in can be.

> >of 'super-soldiers' when they can simply recruit and
> >augment, same as they've always done?

> Because people recruited have their own beliefs and the education they
> went through, including all the socially embedded beliefs that come with
> that. Clones do not.

Mm, clones don't, until they find out that they're clones. May sound
silly, but I'm more trusting of people that have willingly chosen to
adapt a particular value system. Indoctrinees have a bad habit of
swinging 180 degrees once they're out of the cage.

> >It saves them eighteen years of
> >diaper-changes and education.

> But creates other problems.

Problems, it seems, that they've been dealing with for quite some time
already. Why fix what ain't broken?

> >Quite a bill, that.

> Yes, but cheaper than the problems caused by standard recruitment, also
> loyalty would almost never be brought into question. The indoctrination
> program for clones in Space: Above and Beyond is what gave me the idea
> in the first place.

I don't know about unquestionable loyalty: maybe that's just the
humanist in me. Aceclerated aging doesn't help much in this regard:
'real-time' training has the drawback that you have to maintain
fifteen-plus years of strict regimen, without publicity, all carefully
created; accelerated aging means whatever 'reality' you create has less
hold, since it has less experience to back it up with.

> >Especially when it
> >just cries out for the ACLU to protest to death.

> If they know about it, sure.

Well - I get the feeling we're going to end up agreeing to disagree on
this one. When you get human rights issues like this one, all that's
needed is the hint that it's happening and - instant expose'.

> >OTOH, a handful of 'nobodies' - literally - could make an interesting
> >premise for a runner team. Extremely deniable.

> That would perhaps make more sense than large bodies of similar
> individuals marching around on a parade ground. But think how unnerving
> it would be for a PC to walk around the corner of a building to find
> themselves face to face with the man they just killed. <eg>

Hehehe. "OK - is this the guy we met before that I shot in the chest,
or the guy we met before that I chopped the arm off of, or the guy that
we met before that I inscribed all the tattoos on?"

> >(Off-the-wall Shadowrun idea: CAS military discovers Aztlan/Aztech
> >using genetic super-soldier idea, cultivates virus specific to *their
> >exact DNA* (no one else!). Runner team must deliver germ and escape.
> >Twist: Runners are clones themselves.)

> Why would that be a twist, unless they came from the same gene pool?

I'm assuming most runner teams aren't clones.

> As clones, assuming they were raised in the corporate environs, they
> wouldn't question their actions anyway. If the virus affects them, they
> came from the same pool, and they would die.

..That's the idea. Self-preservation has this habit of overriding years
of training.

> >> Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
> >> this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
> >> luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
> >> and....

> >...and have to feed them. Animals consume more than they're worth,
> >nutritionally speaking.

> Yes, but why do we breed stock animals /now/ if they're so uneconomical?
> Why are there farms across the world, and herds of beef in the US. It's
> obviously not cost effective is it? That's why people do it, they love
> losing money rather than making a profit.

No, it's because most people don't like gluten. (Blecch.) Soy --
yarf. Gimme a barbecue, any day of the week.

But - why doesn't cloning solve all hunger? Because you still have to
feed them, you still have to distribute the food; it has all the
problems that raising non-clones animals has. Plus the potential to
breed meatier/milkier/eggier animals. Minus the cost of determining
genetic dispostion to continue improving the stock.

> >> Also, isn't there a damn good chance that Aztechnology, Saeder Krupp,
> >> Renraku would be aggressive enough to pursue human cloning regarding of
> >> any laws that are ratified in the current Congress - not that anything
> >> the American's make illegal affects the rest of the world anyway.
<grin>

> >Well .. yeah. Just like people will still have clones in their game, no
> >matter how unrealistic I say it is. :)

> OK, I'll bite. Why is it unrealistic? Cloning /is/ possible. It's
> been done. Some people don't like that it was the UK that made the
> breakthrough, and I believe the Japanese are already experimenting with
> tank growth... Why is unrealistic? Not only has it been one of the
> fundamental building blocks of science fiction, it is now science fact.

It's not cloning that I'm disputing; it's wide-scale cloning (in the
near future) without accompanying social changes. Although I don't
think it's as big a deal as many people are making it out to be, it does
raise a host of ethical questions. Kidnapping a young (unborn) child
and indoctrinating them to feel and act a specific way - hello, David
Koresh - only confirms that the company acted in the wrong, "for the
good of the nation" or no.

Counterpoint: If a lifetime of upbringing by the military breeds pure
loyalty, why haven't they started an adoption program? No need for
abortion clinics: the gov pays the bill (and a small bonus), takes care
of the child and inculcates in them a nice military discipline. Takes
care of unwanted babies, welfare mothers, and a few other social
problems in one fell swoop; the one advantage that isn't gained is
genetic determinancy. But since cloning wasn't thought feasible until
rather recently, why hadn't the military adopted a similar policy before
that?


- Matt

------------------------------------
Each soldier to a different war.

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 18
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 05:22:04 +0100
In article <35999AC2.BF9F3B25@******.rose-hulman.edu>, John E Pederson
<pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU> writes
>Pieces snipped without warning...
>Blaze wrote:

Sections hacked - because I could. :)

>>Oh please John, don't get technical on me and start arguing semantics. :)
>>I meant in the general not molecular sense. :)
>
>Picky, picky, picky.

Guilty. ;-P

>of the nerdiest folks I know IRL to shame:) So it's probably not getting
>better.

Bleuch, hanging with nerdier people than nerds. Scary.

>But I digress (a lot:)

I was accused of doing that a very short time ago - wasn't I /Erik/ <g>

>>>That's hard to say... I mean, Pete *is* pretty old (j/k)
>>LOL. Oh he's going to hate me when he sees that. :)
>
>Which is what makes it fun;)

Yeah. He just threw my Bob at me, hard - the miserable.. )*&%%^$$*&$)

>>way to making human clones a more likely prospect. I don't suppose we
>>can expect to see one anytime soon, but outlawing them in Europe and the
>>US won't prevent the more, erm, aggressive countries from attempting it.
>
>Well certainly. And in U.S. even now it's only illegal for government agencies
>and government-sponsored programs to engage in research into human cloning. So,
>if Disney wants to clone ol' Walt... Well, nothing can stop them provided they
>can do it without government dollars.

Oh, I didn't know that. So as long as it's not government funded it's
OK. Hah, well, well, fancy old Bill leaving an escape clause. :)

>>I would prefer to ignore the crash of '29 for these purposes, simply
>>because there are some anomalies about the crash that don't sit very
>>well with me. The theory is great, and has left the field wide open for
>>a return of the virus and I /want/ to know what that "dark presence on
>>the edge of the matrix" is. :)
>
>I've totally missed a lot of that stuff, myself.

It wasn't in any novel, as far as I recall the comment about the
"presence at the fringes of the matrix" was from the first VR book. The
strongest indication of AI - or worse, that I have seen in FASA
material.

>out of touch with most the world events in SR the couple of years that it
>borders on the absurd. <g> But I have my excuses.

There is no excuse for such heresy and sinful behaviour. Repent oh
sinner, or suffer the penalties reserved especially for those
transgressors that do not feed the great FASA with copious sacrifices of
the dollar.

>>Yes, and I fully expect that certain parts of the world would abhor the
>>process, outlawing it beyond question, and there would be movements
>>against cloning people, but the possibilities that could be applied to
>>clones, especially in the world of SR makes it a tempting way to go.
>
>Hell, there are movements against cloning people *now* :)

We've got one in this country, though they seem to be at a bit of a loss
as to what it is they're opposing. Is it sheep, or playing God, and as
it was born naturally of a mother, does that make it worth objecting
too, and what's happening anyway? Oh sod it, let's go down to the pub
and work on our next poster for the march next week round Safeway to
complain about Organic food that isn't...

>As for the
>possibilities... Most simply don't occur to me, but I'll see what I can do:)


I eagerly await your educated and informed input. :-P

>>the old US. The Nan seems to encompass the majority of the military and
>>research bases in the US by the map, so I suppose that nation would have
>>the largest concentration, and easiest access to materials and research
>>projects.
>
>I dunno... I really don't think that the NAN would be terribly into human
>cloning.

Not cloning in a big way - though maybe Geronimo and Cochise wouldn't be
a bad idea (smile innocently), but they might have access to the
materials and research labs that the US used to (not) have in those
areas that are now occupied by the NAN.

>see very many governments at all actually bothering with that kind of program
>outside of funding research into cloning in general for medical and
>agricultural
>purposes (ag. purposes besides an infinite number of Johnny Farmhands:).

I don't know. Genetic farming, the production of larger, better,
disease resistant foods is something that is speculated upon now (I saw
something on the discovery channel a while back about food - I just
can't remember it.) Cloning animals though, if there is a shortage of
something that is resulting in people starving, or being fed foods that
are nutrionally below standard, then there would be a serious "human
rights" problem for the governments that possessed the technology to end
world hunger.

It's like taking 50% of one years earning from the worlds richest people
and ending global poverty. It could be done, if somebody had the guts
to do it.

>Politics and all that other stuff you didn't want to get into:)

(Answers that it doesn't deserve, and won't get) :@\

>Corporations on the other hand... Not having Corporate Shadowfiles, I can't
>really say which ones would have the best resources for this kind of thing, but
>I'd guess that the Aztlanners would at least attempt it. S-K *maybe*, but I'd
>think Loffy might not be too happy with his underlings growing other people.

But people make (oh what is it...) Oh yes, nice crunchy munchies, and
taste great with ketchup... Free supply of live food for the dragons,
ghouls and shifters of the world. :) Warm blood for the vampires, and
an end to weird creature hunger.

"Never again fear the presence of devil rats, just buy your clones from
us, and keep the neighbourhood livestock well fed and happy. Only 100
bucks a dozen."

=:)

"Problems with ghouls in your neighbourhood? Feed them "Clones", the
best food for your ghoul neighbours.
(This product is guaranteed to contain the daily nutritional supplement
for the average ghoul family.)"

>Renraku... I don't know much about 'raku, but they were my second bet after the
>Azzies (the Azzies were getting clich:)

Yes they are aren't they. Shame, they had such potential really, but it
was never effectively explored. Never mind, when they finally find the
secret of the Aztechs, Inca and Mayans, they'll rule the world. :)

You know, you'd think that they would have learned something from the
Aztechs. A group of people who were defeated by a lunatic who burned
his boats just to make sure his men would follow him. Duh.

>when I started thinking on this line
>about a year or so ago (pre-Dolly, I think).

You play with dolls? How odd.
<grin - Gurth, can I borrow your stairs to hide under - Pete's smell of
carp>

<ker-chomp>
>on the battlefield... Just to finish up the plot I was rambling about, the
>project was being shut down when the runners were sent to extract this guy --
>and he wants to bring along his son, who is actually the one successful 'clone'
>the project generated.

I see, so the one successful experiment gets to escape and return
another day as a vengeful character, and the runners get to babysit a
clone. A magical clone, something the corp wants back /real/ bad.

Ouch.

>>>Check. No philosophical arguments:)
>>
>>:) Please. I would prefer that these didn't crop up.
>
>But they always seem to be so amusing! I mean, why else would the list traffic
>become completely swallowed in a single thread for days on end...:)

LOL. Yes they do don't they. How many times has that happened now?
Five, six?

>>>...and it's still expensive.
>>Expensive now. But in 10 years when the technology has been refined?
>>Beyond that there's what 60 years? A long time in the life of man. How
>>expensive is it to genetically alter a field of wheat? It can't be that
>>high because farmers are doing it.
>
>Altering a field of wheat doesn't carry the same politico-ethical burdens
>cloning does.

Well, no, but that's beside the point. Politico-ethical problems do not
necessarily make more expense, just less press releases. :)

>It will almost certainly not advance at the same rate genetics
>and
>genetic manipulation has/could/will. But, politics aside, raising those animals
>is *still* expensive.

But profitable. If it wasn't, :)

>>trading in meat. I can't see the beef and dairy herds of today suddenly
>>being abandoned and everyone turning to soy products just because...
>>There's money in them thar steers. :) But seriously, it's illogical in
>>some ways, and not at all like human nature.
>
>Depends. The NAN may not be much for the whole back-to-nature, living in
>teepees, etc (well, there *are* the pinkskins. But there are oddballs in any
>group:), but I don't think they'd be real big on roaming cattle.

They used to be. Tribal nature, follow the big herds... :)

>Cattle eat a
>*lot*.

So do people, especially meat, especially Americans.

>Two cows could keep four acres of grass well grazed (in my experience),
>four and it won't need mowing anywhere at all in that area, six and the grass
>will be down to little green nubs in the dark brown earth. And that's above and
>beyond water and feed and hay. Admittedly, we're *not* farmers (thank God above
>we're not farmers), and the ranchers do make quite a bit of money on steers.
>But

There seems to be sufficient profit in it that the small scale farmers
in this country continue with it, even through the BSE scare of the last
few years. It's being exported to Europe again, and people are still
eating the stuff. So, there has to be sufficient profit or nobody would
be stupid enough to do it. I know it's expensive, but so are tractors,
and they can afford those things. Which indicates there must be
sufficient money to be had or they'd still be ploughing with a shear and
oxen. Farming is big business, especially in the US, vast amounts of
money to be had by someone with the savvy to grab it.

>I don't think the NAN would have all that many ranchers or steers, because
>free-ranging cattle do quite a bit of damage to the land,

Yes, they do as far as I know. But the bison herds are being encouraged
back into something resembling sensible, and large herds of cattle
already exist. If the ranchers died of VITAS, those cattle would go
wild, waiting for the next person to come along, sell the meat, realise
there's money and get into the thing. In CP they have huge AgriCorps
farming the land, corps that make profit.

>they're not part of
>the natural eco-system.

Where do cows come from then? I always though they were natural. They
don't seem to leak oil. ;)

<hack>
>class probably eat "real" food all the time. So, it's still around, it's
just a
>lot more expensive (since most would have been brought across borders, and most
>of that likely flown in from another continent).

Oh my comment wasn't aimed that there was /no/ food, but that it was so
expensive that those of less than upper middle class couldn't afford it.
OK, I enjoyed Soylent Green just as much as many other people, and the
excitement when Heston found a jar of real jam was brilliantly done.
But there were very different circumstances to that film. Shadowrun has
these huge areas of the land that are being turned back into "natural"
land (probably to allow for the return of Earth Dawn style wanderer
characters.) But the "land of plenty" were obesity is a serious problem
involving 47% of all adults and 25% of the children suddenly went the
way of the third world where only the rich each meat, and everyone else
gets the crap. There's just something wrong with that somehow.

<snip>
>>and medical training and facility has improved massively, so keeping a
>>newborn alive would not be fraught with the difficulties we have today.
>
>I was thinking only of minor genetic tweaking so that a food animal would be
>ready for the dinner plate a little sooner:) Nothing more than slightly
>increased natural output of certain hormones.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant Doc Wagon Miracle Grow.
:)

>>several fears regarding the genetic fiddling that goes on with wheat,
>>barley and other products today, in 60 years, if food is such a problem,
>>that tinkering would be even more rife because of the need
>
>AFAIK, most of the fears have to do with genetic diversity.

Resistance to disease creating new strains of virus and insect that can
overcome the inbred resistance is also a big issue. The fact that there
is a disease that we now only have one vaccine for, and that's Japanese,
things like that. The inclusion of antibiotics in cattle feed that is
affecting the effectiveness of antibiotics in fighting infection and
disease. As always, things are done to excess in the wonderful world of
profit.

>If everybody is
>growing the same wheat, raising the same cattle, etc, then you run into a
>situation where a single bacterium or viral agent could wipe out the entire
>population of that species.

That could happen in a very few years if one mutates. There's
considerable concern now over certain aspects of this problem.

>With a genetically diverse population, you don't
>have that problem, because at least a few of your population are bound to have
>*some* natural resistance to whatever it is by nature of probability.

Yes, there is that. But when profit is in question, does that matter?
For instance, the strange habit that farmers have of feeding their
cattle on the brains, offal and spinal chords of their own kind. That's
what brought about BSE in UK and European cattle, something that has now
been identified in Pigs, sheep and chicken as well. Now the government
has finally got round to making certain that animal remains are not fed
to their own kind anymore. But for many years, it was profitable to do
so, so they did, without care for the consequences of feeding herbivores
on cannibalised meat and animal waste.

>>The gravitation of people towards the cities is evidenced today, in the
>>future that FASA portray, it would be even more so, with isolated
>>settlements outside, much like the old west used to be.
>
>Depends on where you're talking.

The US and Europe. Have a look at the population migration trends on
the Habitat '97 website - I can't find the URL, but it should be easy to
find on a web search.

>I don't think you'd get many of those in the
>UCAS, because population is pretty dense all over anyway, but NAN would likely
>have quite a few, but also fewer large cities/metroplexes.

The Metroplexes have grown beyond city status, and contain more souls,
as business, and employment, health care etc centres on these places, so
too will the people. That trend has been evident in the last 20 years,
and is escalating.

It's already of proportions that Habitat labelled "epidemic" because of
the chances for unemployed and homeless in the cities, with starvation
of skills and young people destroying the outlying areas.

>>spend so many years threatening war with each other without trying to
>>come to some sort of solution. It makes economic as well as common
>>sense.
>
>Common sense isn't,

Heh, not where Governments are concerned I suppose not. :)

>and economic sense occassionally gets thrown out the window
>as well (Marxism being a case in point). But you're right. The economic
>situation between the UCAS and the NAN is likely similar to that between the US
>and its closest neighbors now. Still, those folks in the UCAS probably
>profitted
>quite a bit from their real-estate. A lot of it is probably metroplex:)

I wonder if they did though. How do you tell a group of people that
just kicked your own country out "You owe me 750 million for Montana."
:)

>Exactly my point. The land is still there, owned by the Native American
>>Nations. 40 million people I think is the total. 40 million people
>>doing /what/ for a living? Getting back to nature and playing in
>>teepee's? I don't think so, not all of them, no way. :)
>
>But enough of them motivated in that direction to keep agricultural development
>to lower point that it is currently... Yes, I do think so.

Maybe but I don't think so. The megacorporations are always portrayed
as suffering avarice first, common sense last. So, there are these
areas that offer pure profit. Why waste the chance to make money, not
just piddling amounts from the upper classes, but vast sums of money
from everybody through supermarket sales. In much the same way that
they do today.

>Right now, the
>American Midwest puts out way more food (grain, anyway) than is necessary. In
>205x, I wouldn't be at all surprised, though if a lot of that agricultural
>burden has been moved somewhere else.

Again, I ask why? If the corporations are so twisted towards profit, it
would make sense for them to make the effort. AgriCorps are not
something I consider unlikely.

>>somebody's experiments to link the thing to the matrix, there are other
>>examples that the corps /are/ doing things without general consent, so
>>it's not implausible.
>
>Missed both of those. I think we were making about the same point though:
>they'll do it, they'll just keep it nice and quiet.

Heh. Yes, in amongst the general chatter we did agree about something.
:)


>Nice looking site, btw. I haven't looked too hard at it, but it looks nice:)

Shucks... :)


--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 19
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 04:35:05 +0100
In article <199807010225.CAA107940@****.ibm.net>, Tim Kerby
<drekhead@***.NET> writes
>On 30 Jun 98, at 21:11, John E Pederson wrote:
>
>> >Blaze
>>
>> Nice looking site, btw. I haven't looked too hard at it, but it looks
>> nice:)
>
>Yes it does. BTW, Blaze, I agree with you about magic. :)

Thanks Tim, and John. It's nice to see people like the place. Though at
least one visitor doesn't understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not
mentioning names though, that wouldn't be fair. :)

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 20
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 01:01:52 EDT
In a message dated 30/06/98 22:43:53 Central Daylight Time, stardust@***.NET
writes:

> The best steers are put
> >out to stud to get better beef. We've just gotten more direct about it
> lately.
>
> I know this is just a typo but... I guarantee you that nobody is going to
> put a STEER out to stud :)

Would be a neat trick, eh?

For those of you with out agricultural backgrounds (both of my grandfathers
farmed, and one of my uncles), a steer is a castrated (or at least
neutered...) bull.... which begs the question: If a certain ork decker (who
I've yet to meet) were to be... ahem... damaged... during a run, would he
change his name to Steer?

Nexx
Message no. 21
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:24:15 -0500
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 04:35:05 +0100 Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
writes:
>In article <199807010225.CAA107940@****.ibm.net>, Tim Kerby
><drekhead@***.NET> writes
>>On 30 Jun 98, at 21:11, John E Pederson wrote:
>>> >Blaze

>>> Nice looking site, btw. I haven't looked too hard at it, but it looks
>>> nice:)

>>Yes it does. BTW, Blaze, I agree with you about magic. :)

>Thanks Tim, and John. It's nice to see people like the place. Though at
>least one visitor doesn't understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not
>mentioning names though, that wouldn't be fair. :)
>
>--
>Blaze
>http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
>Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.

I just checked it out too :) very cool :) btw, I dunno if Erik J. or
Blaze was asking this but, Kudos is a candy bar ... I don't recall the
ingredientsbut I think chocolate was one of the ... mmmmmmm chocolate
:>-- - -|

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 22
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 08:48:05 -0600
Blaze wrote:
/
/ Now, if SR tech can grow body parts for replacement, and a Platinum
/ contract with Doc Wagon certainly seems to hint they store body parts
/ for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people? I don't mean
/ accelerated growth cloning, there is the intelligence factor and brain
/ development to take into consideration there. An accelerated clone
/ would be pretty much a vegetable, but.

Yep, it would be pretty easy to clone someone in SR and let them grow at a
normal pace (or maybe accelerated just a tad).

/ Military. Special services etc.
/
/ What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
/ soldiers, and cloning them. Thousands of super warriors all waiting to
/ be born from tanks/vats/whatever.

Bioweapons.

With a large genetic target (as in today's military) a bioweapon needs
to be fairly sophisticated. And even then it's effectiveness will be
iffy depending on variables (wind, luck, etc).

If you have a small genetic target (clones) you can use a simpler
bioweapon and dispersal method, because your target is basically one
person. If you can infect that person you can infect every single
clone.

/ Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
/ this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
/ luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
/ and....

Again, genetic diversity is needed.

Currenty people are getting a little worried about the US's crops
because after years of successful genetic manipulation just from
breeding most crops have very little genetic diversity. All it would
take is one successful fungis, or whatever, to wipe out 90% of the US's
corn crop.

If you use cloning to clone the perfect cow, and a disease comes along
that that cow is susceptible to, you can kiss your herd of clones
goodbye.

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 23
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:18:18 -0400
At 05:22 AM 7/1/98 +0100, you wrote:

>>But I digress (a lot:)
>
>I was accused of doing that a very short time ago - wasn't I /Erik/ <g>

HEY!! You still digress, you've just got it all organized now.

>>>>That's hard to say... I mean, Pete *is* pretty old (j/k)
>>>LOL. Oh he's going to hate me when he sees that. :)
>>
>>Which is what makes it fun;)
>
>Yeah. He just threw my Bob at me, hard - the miserable.. )*&%%^$$*&$)

Hey, I don't need to know anything about your Bob...

<MAJOR BUTCHERING SNIPPAGE>

>oxen. Farming is big business, especially in the US, vast amounts of
>money to be had by someone with the savvy to grab it.

Old news really. The old style family farm has been on the way out for at
least a decade, probably more like two. That vast majority of food on our
tables comes from massive corporate farms.

>characters.) But the "land of plenty" were obesity is a serious problem
>involving 47% of all adults and 25% of the children suddenly went the
>way of the third world where only the rich each meat, and everyone else
>gets the crap. There's just something wrong with that somehow.

Agreed.

About the only thing I can think of is that soy-products (or similar such
vat-grown things) must be extremely cheap to not only produce, but to
purchase. That alone would relegate it to the millions of undernourished
folks we have right here in the States.

Just because someone is obese doesn't mean they are actually well/properly
fed.

I'm also very suspicious of those statistics. At about 195 and 5'11",
according to government guidelines I am fat. When my site goes up, I'll
have a picture of myself that would show that no, I'm not fat. Most of my
weight is muscle (though not enough) but according to some geek in D.C.,
I'm fat.

Hrmmm...much of the primary grazing and farming lands are actually in the
hands of someone other than the UCAS in Shadowrun. Perhaps those NAN folks
are letting all that land lay fallow and return to nature? Dunno.

>>Exactly my point. The land is still there, owned by the Native American
>>>Nations. 40 million people I think is the total. 40 million people
>>>doing /what/ for a living? Getting back to nature and playing in
>>>teepee's? I don't think so, not all of them, no way. :)

Look at the Pueblo Corporate Council. Some of the best software and
innovations in software comes from them. The NAN folks still farm, still
do industry, just not as intense as we do right now. And they are also hot
on some of the cutting-edge technologies like Matrix software.

Erik J.


"Forgive me FASA for I have sinned. It has been 6 days since I last played
Shadowrun and 15 days since I last bought a SRTCG booster pack."
Message no. 24
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:18:33 -0400
At 12:24 AM 7/1/98 -0500, you wrote:

>I just checked it out too :) very cool :) btw, I dunno if Erik J. or
>Blaze was asking this but, Kudos is a candy bar ... I don't recall the
>ingredientsbut I think chocolate was one of the ... mmmmmmm chocolate
>:>-- - -|

Actually, when I gave Blaze kudos for her site, she asked me what they
were. I know there's a candy bar marketed under that name, but I'm
positive the word "kudos" was in our language well before the candy bar.

I've no clue where it's derived from.

Erik J.


"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>
Message no. 25
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 22:25:56 +0000
and thus did Blaze speak on 30 Jun 98 at 13:07:

> Now, if SR tech can grow body parts for replacement, and a Platinum
> contract with Doc Wagon certainly seems to hint they store body parts
> for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people? I don't mean
> accelerated growth cloning, there is the intelligence factor and brain
> development to take into consideration there. An accelerated clone
> would be pretty much a vegetable, but.

As far as I remember from a comment in ShadowTech they grow a whole
clone and then use the parts they need... so much for ethics, but it
would be very handy.

This cloning business would be ideal for the military and corp people
if there was a way to transfer the information in the brains, either
by transplanting them or by transferring the memories and the rest
into the clone's brain:
each very important Corp person has a series of clones, he updates
their brains every day or so, but they're kept in suspended
animation. The VICP gets offed by a bunch of runners, no problem,
activate clone one, and all you lost is one day of productivity. Same
thing works for your super elite combat squads.
okay this is straight from SF, but it would give a nice twist to the
Arch Enemy Miraculous Escape.

With only cloning, you might be able to create a bunch of combat
drones. Not very smart, but with skill wires and tactics, firearms,
stealth and a few more skill softs, you could create usable mindless
henchmen, expensive but I can think of a few places to use them where
normal guards might see to much, or not want to work.

Still, a important CEO might still have a not to smart clone hanging
around to use as a decoy. Send in the clone with a mike around her
neck and a camera and you can have a kind of remote drone which can
take the flak while you're sitting somewhere save. Perfect for
someone who is suspected of being a target for extraction or
elimination.

Clonal food: I think a lot of the food today is already from cloned
plants. I don't remember exactly the reference, but someone in the
industry once mentioned to me that all the [forgot the plant] are in
fact clones from one source. Plants are continuously being selected
and there is already a considerable amount of genetic engineering
going on there. Extrapolating from there you can expect plants that
yield incredible amounts of food, are resistant to most diseases,
(except that new ones keep popping up), repel the insects that
feed of them, grow in almost any type of soil, and grow much faster.

It could even be possible to create a plant that can live in toxic
soil and remove the poison and store it in it's leaves or fruit
(which wouldn't be very edible, but it might be possible to extract
the chemicals from them and reuse them).

All in all there should be enough food available, but the
distribution pattern won't be much different from nowadays. The rich
have all the goodies, and the poor work with outdated seeds which get
eaten by all the insects chased away from the rich fields :).

And of course the first one to manage to clone a paranimal or a
paraplant is going to become very rich...
And probably has runners queueing outside the research complex :)

Karina & Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 26
From: Randy Nickel <RANNIC@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:49:42 -0700
Martin Steffens wrote:

>snip<

>With only cloning, you might be able to create a bunch of combat
>drones. Not very smart, but with skill wires and tactics, firearms,
>stealth and a few more skill softs, you could create usable mindless
>henchmen, expensive but I can think of a few places to use them where
>normal guards might see to much, or not want to work.

Anyone remember Dream Chipper? Why not clone a body and use that same
style of chip to give the clone a personality? Granted that those chips
were not stable, and they still may not be, but depending on what you
need done you may not need a stable persona.

Or for that matter forget chips. How about Free Spirits? Especially if
it has possession or some other ability that might allow it to body hop.


Otter
Message no. 27
From: Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 17:37:30 -0500
On Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:49:42 -0700 Randy Nickel <RANNIC@****.COM> writes:
>Martin Steffens wrote:
>>snip<
>
>>With only cloning, you might be able to create a bunch of combat
>>drones. Not very smart, but with skill wires and tactics, firearms,
>>stealth and a few more skill softs, you could create usable mindless
>>henchmen, expensive but I can think of a few places to use them where
>>normal guards might see to much, or not want to work.
>
>Anyone remember Dream Chipper? Why not clone a body and use that same
>style of chip to give the clone a personality? Granted that those
>chips
>were not stable, and they still may not be, but depending on what you
>need done you may not need a stable persona.
>
>Or for that matter forget chips. How about Free Spirits? Especially if
>it has possession or some other ability that might allow it to body
>hop.
>
>
>Otter

What about cloning hosts for insect spirits? or for Blood rituals?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 28
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:23:36 +0100
In article <19980701.015520.3718.11.dghost@****.com>, Alfredo B Alves
<dghost@****.COM> writes

>I just checked it out too :) very cool :) btw, I dunno if Erik J. or
>Blaze was asking this but,

It was me. Erik awarded the kudos, and I didn't know what it was. :)

>Kudos is a candy bar ... I don't recall the
>ingredientsbut I think chocolate was one of the ... mmmmmmm chocolate
>:>-- - -

Thanks D.Ghost... Now I know, Erik's trying to make fat. Hmm, he's
gonna pay for that. <eg>

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 29
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 01:59:33 +0100
In article <359A6126.7582@**.netcom.com>, Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
writes
>Blaze wrote:
>
>> >> What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
>> >> soldiers, and cloning them.
>
>> so than somebody from the streets who strolled into a recruitment
>> centre. If you are interested in current military problems regarding
>> recruitment from the public, ask Avenger for the US government paper on
>> "Street Gangs" in the modern military. It's staggering stuff.
>
>Wellll -- at least from this side of the barracks, US military
>recruitment seems to be doing all right.

It might seem to be doing all right, but there is sufficient concern for
congress to set up a committee to address the problem of gang members in
the military. It's not just limited to groups of people wandering
around as if they own the place, but on a more fundamental criminal
level, and the fact that these members owe their loyalty first to the
gang, and second to the military.

>I'm of serious doubts about the ease of programming and the lack of
>side-effects that clone-soldiers would require; that's even coming from
>a strict Catholic upbringing. ;)

If you don't know any other way of life, there is little to compare it
to. There are of course exceptions, but these could be wormed out of
the training schedule and disposed of.

>SR does have a slight advantage, in
>that skillwires and virtual tutors are present, perhaps meaning that
>less time is needed to be trained in 'normal' skills, so more time can
>be spent on the daily brainwashing.

Simsense, when applied correctly would be as effective as early day
psychological programming as used by the CIA and Russia.

>SR doesn't allow for (that I've seen) the main prerequisite for clone
>soldiers, though: accelerated aging.

The speculation was from a current day projection. Where the project
was begun some time in the next 10 years. That would give time. I've
not noticed, except in wartime situations that the military need
anything in a hurry, and they are one of the single largest funders of
research projects. Besides this is a fictional environment. :)

>That means fifteen years of
>diapers and schoolbooks, areas that the military isn't well-equipped to
>deal with;

Isn't it? Are there not families within the military? An education
system? Women and Men? Playgroups and areas where children can be left
for a while under the supervision of a Nurse or teacher? That facility
exists to an extent within the UK forces, I'd be very surprised to hear
that the US military has denied the existence of the family unit.

>it also means having the foresight to begin a plan that has
>absolutely zero strategic value for well over a decade.

It only has zero strategic value at the very beginning. The long term
projections have considerable value. The military in my experience
plans for the long, not short term.

>> >So, why should the military pick up the tab on a handful (I might even
>> >give you thousands)
>> Ok, thousands was a bit of a silly number to use.
>
>Well - it's hard to imagine the military getting involved unless it
>involves a fairly large number.

Yes, but thousands was an overly large number. Initially it would stay
in the low numbers until successes were occurring on a more regular
basis, then increased to larger numbers using the refined process.

>If it's merely in the dozens, I'm sure they can sort through
>off-the-street recruits for people willing to become deniable assets.
>The 2050's would seem to be a potential breeding ground for nationalists
>and patriots of all sorts.

And people who aren't. The main recruitment area for "deniable assets"
would be the barrens and SINless, people who have been shoved aside and
forgotten by the government and their country. They don't owe
allegiance to anyone. True American Patriots come from different
backgrounds, you may be confusing patriotic with fanatic.

>The smaller the number, though, the easier the program is to support,
>meaning the more secretive in can be.

Yes, which brings up another point regarding specialist clones. But
I'll start that argument later. :)

>> >of 'super-soldiers' when they can simply recruit and
>> >augment, same as they've always done?
>> Because people recruited have their own beliefs and the education they
>> went through, including all the socially embedded beliefs that come with
>> that. Clones do not.
>
>Mm, clones don't, until they find out that they're clones.

Yes, but if they don't know a different way, how will they be able to
compare. With sufficient care and application of training and
influencing techniques there is no point except in odd cases where the
clone would question their existence. Consider for example, the cults
that exist around the world, and seem to exist in numbers in the US.
The people that join these cults are indoctrinated into all manner of
different beliefs, following the leader quite blindly. Other examples
are the Nazi movement, the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, and several other areas
where people followed blindly regardless of what they did - they
believed. That was enough. Fundamental Islamic traditions produces
some of the most fiercely loyal followers to be found anywhere. Apply
those techniques and ideologies to clone training and why would they
question it. /You/ might, but I don't see why anyone would if brought
up completely within that environment.

>May sound
>silly, but I'm more trusting of people that have willingly chosen to
>adapt a particular value system. Indoctrinees have a bad habit of
>swinging 180 degrees once they're out of the cage.

Sometimes, yes they do. Sometimes they produce the most loyal and
fanatical followers that it's possible to achieve within human
limitations. There are many people today, who are willing to throw away
their lives for a "belief", I don't see human nature changing that much
in the next 60 years, though in an idealised world things would be
different.

>> >It saves them eighteen years of
>> >diaper-changes and education.
>
>> But creates other problems.
>
>Problems, it seems, that they've been dealing with for quite some time
>already. Why fix what ain't broken?

Well, I'm not speaking for myself. Check out the US Government web
pages, you'll find there that the situation is considered broken and
they're trying to fix it. You may not have personally experienced any
examples that they address, but somebody somewhere has, and in
sufficient quantity to provoke a review.

>> >Quite a bill, that.
>
>> Yes, but cheaper than the problems caused by standard recruitment, also
>> loyalty would almost never be brought into question. The indoctrination
>> program for clones in Space: Above and Beyond is what gave me the idea
>> in the first place.
>
>I don't know about unquestionable loyalty: maybe that's just the
>humanist in me.

I would suggest it was, meaning no offence. Why else would people kill
themselves believing that a UFO awaited them. That's just one example
of blind belief and unquestioning loyalty. There are many, many others.
There are people out there right now, in your own neighbourhood, who do
things without question, believing in the orders they are given. It
happens, I'm sorry, but it's not new.

>Aceclerated aging doesn't help much in this regard:
>'real-time' training has the drawback that you have to maintain
>fifteen-plus years of strict regimen,

Not so hard to achieve

>without publicity,

That becomes problematical. The larger the numbers the more likely the
news is to get out, again a subject that is fraught with all manner of
problems, but in general I think that "tubies" would be treated with
derision and possible mistrust or even fear by many members of the
public, adding rather than detracting from the racist conditions that
exist in our own world. Of course there would be human rights
movements, but there are excellent reasons for creating the clones, and
with the PR machine that the government and military possesses, most
people would agree with the concept.

It saves families - no longer will families be bereaved of a loved one
in battle.

It saves lives - these clones are bred to withstand the unpleasant
conditions of >>insert industry<< and will make life more utopian by
making things cheaper.

blah blah

The introduction of robotics to industry was heavily opposed by the
trade unions, yet, this very innovation has brought down the costs of
production, made life better and brought down the overall costs of a
wide variety of goods. So has cheap labour in the third world, middle
and far east, but... :)

>all carefully
>created; accelerated aging means whatever 'reality' you create has less
>hold, since it has less experience to back it up with.

Why is accelerated ageing such an important factor? It's not necessary.
Corporations might plan for the immediate future regarding profit
sharing, but without long term investment and planning, no company can
exist or succeed. Not everybody lives just for tomorrow.

>> >Especially when it
>> >just cries out for the ACLU to protest to death.
>> If they know about it, sure.
>
>Well - I get the feeling we're going to end up agreeing to disagree on
>this one.

I think you could be right.

>When you get human rights issues like this one, all that's
>needed is the hint that it's happening and - instant expose'.

I seem to recall that Pete went through the political and human rites
issue when he was talking about clones (*last year?*) so I decided,
after the heat of some of the concepts that were voiced, to try to avoid
that issue, and just consider the hypothetical question. :)

>> That would perhaps make more sense than large bodies of similar
>> individuals marching around on a parade ground. But think how unnerving
>> it would be for a PC to walk around the corner of a building to find
>> themselves face to face with the man they just killed. <eg>
>
>Hehehe. "OK - is this the guy we met before that I shot in the chest,
>or the guy we met before that I chopped the arm off of, or the guy that
>we met before that I inscribed all the tattoos on?"

LOL. Yes. It would start to get confusing. And used right, could
cause some interesting problems for the team.

>> >exact DNA* (no one else!). Runner team must deliver germ and escape.
>> >Twist: Runners are clones themselves.)
>> Why would that be a twist, unless they came from the same gene pool?
>
>I'm assuming most runner teams aren't clones.


Well, yes, so was I. :)

>> As clones, assuming they were raised in the corporate environs, they
>> wouldn't question their actions anyway. If the virus affects them, they
>> came from the same pool, and they would die.
>
>..That's the idea. Self-preservation has this habit of overriding years
>of training.

I don't know. There have been many documented cases where that hasn't
occurred. Dedication, fanatacism, loyalty. All have taken people to
their deaths without ever questioning their orders. I know it's nice to
look at things from an idealised point, where people will always
question bad orders, and won't just blindly follow the stupidity or
power mongering of a leader, but unfortunately, history proves that
concept inaccurate. People are stupid, and they will blindly walk "or
run) into the jaws of death on the whim of a leader. Sometimes for the
most ludicrous of reasons.

>> >...and have to feed them. Animals consume more than they're worth,
>> >nutritionally speaking.
>> Yes, but why do we breed stock animals /now/ if they're so uneconomical?
>> Why are there farms across the world, and herds of beef in the US. It's
>> obviously not cost effective is it? That's why people do it, they love
>> losing money rather than making a profit.
>
>No, it's because most people don't like gluten. (Blecch.) Soy --
>yarf. Gimme a barbecue, any day of the week.

Exactly. So, why do the people in Shadowrun put up with Soy product,
when there is an answer, a simple answer, an answer that the
government/corps/whatever are not utilising? The Food Riots of New York
would not be an isolated, nor an uncommon event. There would be a
battle on the streets that the various governments would /have/ to
address sensibly or lose control of their countries/cities.

Empty bellies, malnutrition and poor treatment are the single most
common cause of rebellious behaviour, and have brought more than one
government to it's knees in the past.

>But - why doesn't cloning solve all hunger? Because you still have to
>feed them, you still have to distribute the food;

The infrastructure to do precisely that is already there, it's in place,
and has been for many years, that's why America has the highest
contingent of overweight people in the world, and is known as the Land
of Plenty. There is too much food available in the US. It's cheaper
than many other places in the world, and results in people eating more
of it.

>it has all the
>problems that raising non-clones animals has. Plus the potential to
>breed meatier/milkier/eggier animals. Minus the cost of determining
>genetic dispostion to continue improving the stock.

Genetic disposition doesn't really enter the field of cloning, unless
you are trying to alter the creature being cloned (as in the example of
super soldiers - where some genetic manipulation would be required).
For animals, that manipulation would not be necessary, unless it was
found that the animals were actually degrading. However, once a desired
level of food production had been reached, natural breeding could once
again take place, and variation would re-enter the pool. Nobody in
their right mind takes a cloning sample from one animal and replicates
that single animal over and over again, they would take material from
several existing animals, if not several hundred, bringing variation
immediately into the species through that varied gene pool. It's common
sense that you don't create a whole species from one unit. Except in
the case of the Tasmanian Tiger, where they only have a puppy, and will
probably try to clone from that one animal. We'll see if there are any
associated problems with that. :)

>> >Well .. yeah. Just like people will still have clones in their game, no
>> >matter how unrealistic I say it is. :)
>> OK, I'll bite. Why is it unrealistic? Cloning /is/ possible. It's
>> been done. Some people don't like that it was the UK that made the
>> breakthrough, and I believe the Japanese are already experimenting with
>> tank growth... Why is unrealistic? Not only has it been one of the
>> fundamental building blocks of science fiction, it is now science fact.
>
>It's not cloning that I'm disputing; it's wide-scale cloning (in the
>near future) without accompanying social changes.

Social change, isn't always a pre-cursor to innovation. For example
(though a poor one) the industrial revolution. That altered society,
rather than society altering to allow it. Explain to the starving in
the far east, in the third world and other places why cloning is such a
bad thing (from a social impact POV) when they see that it would solve
the problems of starvation and death in their country, in their lives.
Conversely, explain to a family who has lost loved ones to violence -
either line of duty or war, why having a clone would be a bad thing to
prevent another family suffering that agony.

There are ways to assist things into a hostile social environment.
Admittedly, there will /always/ be opposition to human cloning, and
there are some powerful issues that need to be addressed before it would
become commonplace, though experimentation in the field will doubtless
take place - it'll just be done quietly and secretly. We might find out
in 10 or 20 years, we might never find out, it depends on what the
future holds for us.

From a fictional point, and in Shadowrun. I can see a lot of advantages
for cloning. Not least of which would be deep sea/outer space
exploration and mining. Much safer to send a clone who has no family
ties, than a person who may die, and cause endless suffering for their
family and loved ones. It is in these fields that I think cloning will
be first used, and start to gain credibility as a result.

>Although I don't
>think it's as big a deal as many people are making it out to be, it does
>raise a host of ethical questions. Kidnapping a young (unborn) child
>and indoctrinating them to feel and act a specific way - hello, David
>Koresh - only confirms that the company acted in the wrong, "for the
>good of the nation" or no.

Kidnapping yes. Because that child belonged to someone, it was part of
someone, it was due to be someone's child. A clone isn't. It's a
creature of science, born from a test tube with no parents except it's
creators - the lab technicians. The social stigma of taking away a
child (unborn or not) doesn't really come into the social implications
of cloning. Unless one follows the belief that life begins in the
unfertilised egg.

>Counterpoint: If a lifetime of upbringing by the military breeds pure
>loyalty, why haven't they started an adoption program? No need for
>abortion clinics: the gov pays the bill (and a small bonus), takes care
>of the child and inculcates in them a nice military discipline. Takes
>care of unwanted babies, welfare mothers, and a few other social
>problems in one fell swoop; the one advantage that isn't gained is
>genetic determinancy. But since cloning wasn't thought feasible until
>rather recently, why hadn't the military adopted a similar policy before
>that?

OK, though this is a sour tasting question and will, if continued most
likely result in precisely the arguing and flaming I would prefer to
avoid, because of the content of your question. I will answer it with a
short sentence.

What makes you think they haven't?

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 30
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 23:36:01 EDT
In a message dated 01/07/98 14:34:46 Central Daylight Time, erikj@****.COM
writes:

> Actually, when I gave Blaze kudos for her site, she asked me what they
> were. I know there's a candy bar marketed under that name, but I'm
> positive the word "kudos" was in our language well before the candy bar.

Kudos mean something like congratualations... by the gods, I need to sleep.

Nexx, up for too long
Message no. 31
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 04:47:08 +0100
In article <3.0.3.16.19980701105833.401f08ac@****.fbiz.com>, Erik
Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes
>At 05:22 AM 7/1/98 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>>But I digress (a lot:)
>>I was accused of doing that a very short time ago - wasn't I /Erik/ <g>
>
>HEY!!

Yes, what? You don't have to shout, I'm not deaf.

>You still digress, you've just got it all organized now.

Heh. :)

>>>Which is what makes it fun;)
>>Yeah. He just threw my Bob at me, hard - the miserable.. )*&%%^$$*&$)
>
>Hey, I don't need to know anything about your Bob...

Why not? The whole world will soon be incubated into the Church of Bob,
there is no escape, everyone will own a Bob by the end of the century.
Be nice, be happy, buy Bob. :)

><MAJOR BUTCHERING SNIPPAGE>

Brute.

>>oxen. Farming is big business, especially in the US, vast amounts of
>>money to be had by someone with the savvy to grab it.
>
>Old news really. The old style family farm has been on the way out for at
>least a decade, probably more like two. That vast majority of food on our
>tables comes from massive corporate farms.

It might be old news, and that might be in place today, but no in
flipping Shadowrun it isn't. They all buggered off and did something
better. Sod the farm, sod the food, sod the profit, let's do something
obscure. Yeah, take the pitchforks into the cities and turn them into
cyberware and then we can - erm, we can... Oh heck, let's just fester in
the middle of nothing.

>>characters.) But the "land of plenty" were obesity is a serious problem
>>involving 47% of all adults and 25% of the children suddenly went the
>>way of the third world where only the rich each meat, and everyone else
>>gets the crap. There's just something wrong with that somehow.
>
>Agreed.

Oh? ???

>About the only thing I can think of is that soy-products (or similar such
>vat-grown things) must be extremely cheap to not only produce, but to
>purchase. That alone would relegate it to the millions of undernourished
>folks we have right here in the States.

Well, taking the homeless, and those of subsistence levels yes, it might
do. But, people cannot live on artificial produce alone unless it
contains the daily necessary requirement of vitamins etc that is needed
to sustain life. Yes OK, there's the Demolition Man syndrome where
organised gangs steal food from stores, and eat rat burgers underground,
but really, the "only the rich eat steak" comments when most of America
can eat steak cheaper than anywhere else in the world is ridiculous.

>Just because someone is obese doesn't mean they are actually well/properly
>fed.

Malnutrition does not create obesity, the swollen stomach caused by
malnutrition and starvation is from other causes. If that's what you're
aiming at.

>I'm also very suspicious of those statistics.

The weight allowance for classification of obesity was recently (last
month?) reduced in the US, however, it is a medically known and
statistical fact that a hell of a lot of Americans are fat. Over normal
weight because of muscle mass might lable you as fat but your doctor
will not record you as fat. That's the difference.

>Hrmmm...much of the primary grazing and farming lands are actually in the
>hands of someone other than the UCAS in Shadowrun. Perhaps those NAN folks
>are letting all that land lay fallow and return to nature? Dunno.

Perhaps, but it's just not believable. Not to me, not by any stretch of
the imagination. It's just not logical. If there was a logic to this
"rich=meat" thing then I could accept it, but there isn't. Most of
England is farmland. We produce enough to feed this country, yet we
export our food stock and import from other countries. It helps the
money to flow. But we eat relatively well here, and yes we have a fat
problem in this country as well. We have people suffering from
malnutrition on the streets of London, but not millions of people per
city living on a soy substitute. The inclusion in such a product of the
required amount of "things" to maintain and sustain life would prevent
it from becoming cheap enough to just throw at the unemployed and
homeless or destitute.

Unless, Soy burgers, like Soylent Green /is/ people.

>>>>doing /what/ for a living? Getting back to nature and playing in
>>>>teepee's? I don't think so, not all of them, no way. :)
>
>Look at the Pueblo Corporate Council. Some of the best software and
>innovations in software comes from them.

Some of the best software and innovations comes from Redmond Seattle, if
you believe the Microsoft press releases, doesn't make it true. I can
accept that Pueblo has an excellent, outstanding and cutting edge
technological skill pool. But that does not mean the rest of the
country has turned into a jungle and is being ignored. Not everyone has
the necessary synaptic connections to make "skilled programmer" or
"techie". :)

For example, Give Pete a broken computer, no matter in what fashion it's
broken and he'll fix it, give one to me, and I'll look at it confused
thinking "the plug goes where?" Yet I've gained a diploma in Business
Information Technology, but that does not include diagnosing,
troubleshooting and repairing equipment. Effectively it's a glorified
Project Management course. Another example I think would be in the case
of the Farmer and the Electrician. There is a certain number of people
in society who are simply attracted to different fields of endeavour.
Not everyone has the skills, intelligence or desire to be the head of a
corporation earning billions every minute. Some people simply /want/ to
work with their hands.

I know a carpenter here on the Island, he's a highly skilled man, one of
a very few such individuals left in this country. Everything he does,
everything is with his hands and hand tools. Never once does a power
tool enter his workshop and touch a piece of wood. Not because he
doesn't have the skill, but because he doesn't like power tools.

Another friend, the son of a farmer, is going to get into farming the
same as his father. He's intelligent enough to do well in other fields,
but he /wants/ to work the farm. He enjoys it.

Now, in 2059 all of that has disappeared and the human race has become a
gelatinous blob in areas called metroplexes. That's not even fiction,
that's lunacy.

>The NAN folks still farm, still
>do industry, just not as intense as we do right now.

They have 40 million people to feed as well, or is that another thing
like Seattle were thousands of people will be dying everyday from
malnutrition and starvation until finally they're all gone, and only the
rich are left and we get a new game called Corporate Run, because the
pool that runners come from no longer exists.

>And they are also hot
>on some of the cutting-edge technologies like Matrix software.

Immaterial. Techies and programmers, production line, designers, staff,
gophers, cleaners, slaves and the slugs hanging on the fence surrounding
the company all need to be fed.

If corporate large scale farming works, then it will continue, perhaps
even with the inclusion of robotics for the majority of the work where a
labour pool either doesn't exist or is impractical - however, with
thousands of hungry people who would gladly work for just a meal
available I don't see that. Look at the farms that import cheap labour
from Mexico to pick crops - that would continue wouldn't it. Or did
cheap labour bite the big one along with food for the people.

Sorry to harp on, but it's one of those things about Shadowrun that
while sounding cool, just isn't logical or even moderately sensible.
There are so many lies to the concept, and so many opportunities missed.

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 32
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 04:01:28 +0100
In article <199807011448.IAA04636@******.carl.org>, David Buehrer
<dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG> writes
>Blaze wrote:
>/
>/ for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people? I don't mean
>/ accelerated growth cloning, there is the intelligence factor and brain
>/ development to take into consideration there. An accelerated clone
>/ would be pretty much a vegetable, but.
>
>Yep, it would be pretty easy to clone someone in SR and let them grow at a
>normal pace (or maybe accelerated just a tad).

Well, I think so, but I seem to be in a very small group with this. :)

>/ Military. Special services etc.
>/
>/ What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
>/ soldiers, and cloning them. Thousands of super warriors all waiting to
>/ be born from tanks/vats/whatever.
>
>Bioweapons.

Of course, silly me. Tailored virii designed to hit a specific genetic
sequence or dna code. That would assume that the information would be
accessible, but the larger the number, the simpler the task. Though
with today's technology, it's possible to protect infantry against
chemical and biological weapons, it's not 100% secure. And it would be
an impossible task to inoculate against all and any attack. Though I
suppose genetic manipulation may be able to increase the resistance
potential of the DNA sequence, in much the same way that toxin
extractors and such things work in SR for normal people, it starts to
add considerably to the overall cost.

Perhaps in that case the other gentleman I have been talking to has a
valid point and the military as such wouldn't concentrate on this
aspect, but would look at it from a different point. Perhaps for
hostile environments such as underwater explorations and research.
Corporate funding would be more likely in these areas though, as would
exploration of space and/or mining/terraforming.

>With a large genetic target (as in today's military) a bioweapon needs
>to be fairly sophisticated. And even then it's effectiveness will be
>iffy depending on variables (wind, luck, etc).

But the threat might be sufficiently daunting to prevent a desire to
invest in such a large scale project. Maybe in a smaller scale for
specialist team actions, in replacement or complimentary to units like
the Seals and Rangers.

>/ Take into that the genetic alteration of food crops in the US, could
>/ this be the answer to starvation and world hunger? Why is meat such a
>/ luxury in Shadowrun when we can clone sheep and cows, and chickens
>/ and....
>
>Again, genetic diversity is needed.

Achievable. Take a single herd of say two hundred cattle. Clone each
one five times. Then allow them to breed naturally for two or three
generations with other cattle from a different herd. Or, simply take a
small sample from each animal of every herd. Not an impossible task,
vets regularly take samples from animals so it could be done within a
believable time scale.

>Currenty people are getting a little worried about the US's crops
>because after years of successful genetic manipulation just from
>breeding most crops have very little genetic diversity.

I was under the impression that the worry came from the overall
potential effects of feeding people genetically manipulated food. That
it had been done on such a grand scale without a thought to the long
term effects.

>All it would
>take is one successful fungis, or whatever, to wipe out 90% of the US's
>corn crop.

Ouch. Is that a fact, or speculation, because that gives me an idea. :)

>If you use cloning to clone the perfect cow, and a disease comes along
>that that cow is susceptible to, you can kiss your herd of clones
>goodbye.

Yes, assuming that cloning is the /only/ method used to create new
stock. Once stock levels are sufficient to guarantee plentiful food for
a particular nation then there is little need to continue the practice
beyond the occasional few animals, natural breeding can continue.
Diversity of genetic material is not impossible to gain, and cross
breeding of different stock items is more than feasible. The
infertility fear of cloned animals was proved to be unviable when Dolly
gave birth naturally earlier this year. Whether that same rule can be
applied further down the stock line after multiple instances of cloning
I don't know, but I dare say we will in 60 years. :O

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 33
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:11:15 -0400
Hmmmm...

While full human cloning is an interesting concept, it seems that there are
any number of difficulties with the process that make it problematic at
best (see the current debate for this).

So here's a sidestep along the same path.

What about genetic manipulation, both of embreyoes and adults?

We can genetically alter small critters and plants right now; genetically
altered (and I don't mean through breeding) plants are becoming very
popular here amongst some farmers because while expensive, the yields are
much better.

Let's leap up the evolutionairy chain a bit.

Why can't we (ethical reasons aside) in 205X Shadowrun have babies that
were altered in the womb/test tube to have genetically engineered
immunities to disease and proclivities towards increased muscle mass and such?

While the environment would obviously play a significant role in
determining the final adult product, genetic engineering in Shadowrun
should be up to the task.

Okay, so probably only corporate kids (it's probably a relatively expensive
procedure) being born within say, the last decade, maybe two would be the
results of this.

Let's not forget that even with the loss of knowledge from the Crash,
genetic research should be huge in Shadowrun considering the amount of
research done on UGE, Goblinization and the Magus Factor.

Let's shift gears even further, but still going in the same direction.

I don't know enough about genetics to know if this is even possible...

Could an adult be genetically altered to say, have increased muscle mass,
and have it work and be effective?

There's an RPG called I think Underground that does this sort of thing.
Instead of cyberware, most things are done by genetic manipulation.
Side-affects abound and "muties" are usually obvious. Increased strength
mods generally means an overall and sometimes blatantly obvious changes in
raw physical size (becoming almost troll-like humans).

Thoughts?

Erik J.

URL to go here...
Message no. 34
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:11:23 -0400
At 04:47 AM 7/2/98 +0100, you wrote:

>>HEY!!
>
>Yes, what? You don't have to shout, I'm not deaf.

Yes, well, if Pete talks like he types, deafness could be an advantage... ;-)

>Why not? The whole world will soon be incubated into the Church of Bob,
>there is no escape, everyone will own a Bob by the end of the century.
>Be nice, be happy, buy Bob. :)

I will be incubated by no one and nothing.

>><MAJOR BUTCHERING SNIPPAGE>
>
>Brute.

Yeah, well.

>>Old news really. The old style family farm has been on the way out for at
>>least a decade, probably more like two. That vast majority of food on our
>>tables comes from massive corporate farms.
>
>It might be old news, and that might be in place today, but no in
>flipping Shadowrun it isn't. They all buggered off and did something
>better. Sod the farm, sod the food, sod the profit, let's do something
>obscure. Yeah, take the pitchforks into the cities and turn them into
>cyberware and then we can - erm, we can... Oh heck, let's just fester in
>the middle of nothing.

I think it's simply not mentioned. If you look at Corporate Shadowfiles,
there is an Agriculture rating (or something similar I'm positive) that
would imply that the Mega's do have an interest in corporate farming.

It's one of those real-life type things that isn't sexy enough to warrant
much attention. But that's what web sites like yours and soon to be mine
are all about.

>>Just because someone is obese doesn't mean they are actually well/properly
>>fed.
>
>Malnutrition does not create obesity, the swollen stomach caused by
>malnutrition and starvation is from other causes. If that's what you're
>aiming at.

Actually, many of the obese aren't well nourished. Too much junk food and
not enough healthy stuff. Eating piles of vegetables and other mostly
unprocessed foods won't make you obese. Heavy perhaps, but not obese. To
get to that level you have to eat stuff like Ho-Ho's, Ding-Dong's,
Dorito's, Hershey's and consume large quantities of sodas. All of which
aren't healthy.

>>I'm also very suspicious of those statistics.
>
>The weight allowance for classification of obesity was recently (last
>month?) reduced in the US, however, it is a medically known and
>statistical fact that a hell of a lot of Americans are fat. Over normal
>weight because of muscle mass might lable you as fat but your doctor
>will not record you as fat. That's the difference.

Yes, it was last month and it did narrow down the weight classes. And
based on purely personal observations, there are a lot of people around,
even here in health-fanatic SoCal, that need to lose weight and badly.

A personal doctor might not label someone like myself of Karl Malone
(excellent athlete, plays basketball for the Utah Jazz) as fat, but
according to the government we both are.

Most doctors don't take into account even weekend athletes when looking at
statistics and making health recommendations. Most doctors are highly
suspicious of various supplements and vitamins and the like, saying a
normal healthy person doesn't need any of that. But what about folks that
are extremely active? They DO need those things, but doctors are blind to
that entire segment of the population. Sorry, bit of a sore spot with me.

>>The NAN folks still farm, still
>>do industry, just not as intense as we do right now.

I will agree that this is an annoying oddity and perhaps even error within
the world of Shadowrun as presented so far to us by FASA.

There should be more info on corporate farming or at least an
acknowledgement that is does exist. There should be a better explanation
as to why everything is soy-based (other than the fact that it sounds
futuristic and cyberpunkish, which is probably the real reason).

It's just one of those real life type things that isn't terribly sexy, as I
said before. It isn't until SR Culture Vultures like you and I swoop down
from above that hardly anyone notices or thinks about it, or at least not
for more than a second or too.

Culture Vulture. I like that.

Erik J.

URL to go here...
Message no. 35
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:12:38 -0600
Blaze wrote:
/
/ In article <199807011448.IAA04636@******.carl.org>, David Buehrer
/ <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG> writes
/ >Blaze wrote:
/ >/
/ >/ for their clients. Is it not possible to clone people? I don't mean
/ >/ accelerated growth cloning, there is the intelligence factor and brain
/ >/ development to take into consideration there. An accelerated clone
/ >/ would be pretty much a vegetable, but.
/ >
/ >Yep, it would be pretty easy to clone someone in SR and let them grow at a
/ >normal pace (or maybe accelerated just a tad).
/
/ Well, I think so, but I seem to be in a very small group with this. :)

That makes you extra special ;)

/ >/ What is there to stop the military from using DNA from their best
/ >/ soldiers, and cloning them. Thousands of super warriors all waiting to
/ >/ be born from tanks/vats/whatever.
/ >
/ >Bioweapons.
/
/ Of course, silly me...

/ Perhaps in that case the other gentleman I have been talking to has a
/ valid point and the military as such wouldn't concentrate on this
/ aspect, but would look at it from a different point. Perhaps for
/ hostile environments such as underwater explorations and research.
/ Corporate funding would be more likely in these areas though, as would
/ exploration of space and/or mining/terraforming.

/ But the threat might be sufficiently daunting to prevent a desire to
/ invest in such a large scale project. Maybe in a smaller scale for
/ specialist team actions, in replacement or complimentary to units like
/ the Seals and Rangers.

This, I could see happening.

The one area you get into is ownership/custody.

If you clone someone, who owns the clone, the creator, or the source of
genetic material? And even if the source signs over his rights, he
could come back later and say he changed his mind and he want's custody
of his "son".

I'd go the Blade Runner route.

A corporation decides that it wants to make "people" as a product. It
unravels the human DNA strand and figures out how to manipulate it. So
it creates a person (doesn't clone, doesn't use donor sperm and ova).

Civil Liberties people argue that the person is not a product and that he
has the same rights as everyone else, and that the corporation does not
have the right to play God. The corporation agrees on the rights
issue, but fights the "God" arguement, claiming the need for children
for families that can't have children. As far as the person's rights
are concerned the corporation says it will raise the person untill they
are 18.

The corporation continues it's research and makes another person. But
it keeps this one in a vat and accelerates the growth until it's
reached maturity (physical age of 12). It does this over several
years, not several weeks, so as to have a viable creation.

Civil Liberties screams bloody murder. The corporation claims that since
the body is still in a vat and hasn't been "born" yet, that it's not a
human and it's a product. The court case bogs down.

After the person comes out of the vat it is quickly educated (made possible
by a genetically enhanced brain that can learn faster and better than a
normal person).

The court case heats up now that the person is "alive". The corp
reveals that the "person" has a lifespan of 10 years and therefor will
never become an adult (age 18). It's a pet, and it's name is Nexus 1.
Civil Liberties scream bloody murder, but other corporations and the
government are intrigued and Civil Liberties lose ground.

The final outcome is a corporation that can create replicants for
specific purposes. They can do the job better then a person. They're
cheap. They're self maintaining. They have a life span of 4-6 years,
so you can upgrade to the new model when this one wears out. And they
can be used for tasks that no sane person would do.

Buy one today! <salesman grin>

/ >Currenty people are getting a little worried about the US's crops
/ >because after years of successful genetic manipulation just from
/ >breeding most crops have very little genetic diversity.
/
/ I was under the impression that the worry came from the overall
/ potential effects of feeding people genetically manipulated food. That
/ it had been done on such a grand scale without a thought to the long
/ term effects.
/
/ >All it would
/ >take is one successful fungis, or whatever, to wipe out 90% of the US's
/ >corn crop.
/
/ Ouch. Is that a fact, or speculation, because that gives me an idea. :)

Well, 90% might be a bit high for a casual mutation of a fungus, but
there isn't much genetic diversity in the US's crops. Let's just say
that they're a pretty small genetic target.

I hope some nut terrorist never figures this out.

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 36
From: John E Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:25:48 -0500
Erik Jameson wrote:
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> While full human cloning is an interesting concept, it seems that there are
> any number of difficulties with the process that make it problematic at
> best (see the current debate for this).
>
> So here's a sidestep along the same path.
>
> What about genetic manipulation, both of embreyoes and adults?
<snipped a whole heck of a lot>

The problem you run into with genetically altering an adult is that the adult is
done developing. You can maybe play with hormones a tad, but most of that is
easier to do using surgical or other more normal medical procedures. Unless you
can create a super-splicer.

A lot genetic manipulation is done (AFAIK) by using retrovirii to cut and paste
bits of DNA into cell nuclei. The bad news is that this doesn't change the cell
itself, only it's daughter cells. In a fully-developed adult, the use of this
kind of genetic manipulation doesn't work very well. A super-splicer would
perform the same functions as a standard retrovirus, but would also change the
nature of the cells it alters as it changes their nucleii. IOW, a retrovirus
could change your DNA to remove hemophilia genes, but you'd still be taking
hemophilia medicines, because your body will continue make all the same mistakes
it was making before. Your kids won't get the genes passed to them, though. A
super-splicer would do that, plus it would make the necessary corrections in the
way your body works to remove the hemophilia itself and cure you in the process.

You might guess that discovering or creating a supersplicer would be the find of
the century (and probably the next one, too).

An embryo is a different story, because the cells are (by and large)
undifferentiated, and there's a relatively small number of them. You could make
the changes involved and then let the embryo develop with the cells carrying out
those new genetic instructions, because they haven't become set in their ways
with the old ones yet.

--
John Pederson otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Albert Einstein
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" Number Two -- with a bullet!
Message no. 37
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 15:15:36 -0400
At 01:25 PM 7/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Erik Jameson wrote:
>>
>> Hmmmm...
>>
>> While full human cloning is an interesting concept, it seems that there are
>> any number of difficulties with the process that make it problematic at
>> best (see the current debate for this).
>>
>> So here's a sidestep along the same path.
>>
>> What about genetic manipulation, both of embreyoes and adults?
><snipped a whole heck of a lot>
>
>The problem you run into with genetically altering an adult is that the
adult is
>done developing. You can maybe play with hormones a tad, but most of that is
>easier to do using surgical or other more normal medical procedures.
Unless you
>can create a super-splicer.
>
So you'd have to not only alter the genetic code, but the living cells. Okay.

But it is possible in theory, right?

I imagine it'd take quite a while in a genetic vat/bath and could be quite
painful(?).

I think I'll settle for the super-children right now though; seems easier
and could be just as interesting.

Erik J.

URL to go here...
Message no. 38
From: John E Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:55:39 -0500
> So you'd have to not only alter the genetic code, but the living cells. Okay.

AFAIK, that is correct.

> But it is possible in theory, right?

Assuming you can get your hands on a super-splicer (it just struck me that
nanites might be just the thing for this, though they'd likely be a tad bit
slower than a virus). Problem being that you'd have to make absolutely massive
alterations in an unbearably short time period as well as repair any physical
damage that thos alterations create, as they create it, in a *very* short
timespan to prevent the body from mass-rejecting itself by virtue of the human
immune system.

> I imagine it'd take quite a while in a genetic vat/bath and could be quite
> painful(?).

Yes, and yes -- but only if you happen to be awake during the process:)

> I think I'll settle for the super-children right now though; seems easier
> and could be just as interesting.

Easily. In fact, the kids could be much more dangerous in some respects than an
altered adult would be. The adult would probably be clumsy and ill-adjusted to
the new bod. For the kid, it's the same body they've always had.

> Erik J.
>
> URL to go here...

--
John Pederson otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Albert Einstein
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" Number Two -- with a bullet!
Message no. 39
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 03:39:59 +0100
In article <199807021812.MAA15381@******.carl.org>, David Buehrer
<dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG> writes
>Blaze wrote:
>/ >Yep, it would be pretty easy to clone someone in SR and let them grow at a
>/ >normal pace (or maybe accelerated just a tad).
>/
>/ Well, I think so, but I seem to be in a very small group with this. :)
>
>That makes you extra special ;)

I know that already. I've always been extra special. I know, the
doctor told me once. :)

>/ >Bioweapons.
>/ Of course, silly me...
>
>/ But the threat might be sufficiently daunting to prevent a desire to
>/ invest in such a large scale project. Maybe in a smaller scale for
>/ specialist team actions, in replacement or complimentary to units like
>/ the Seals and Rangers.
>
>This, I could see happening.
>
>The one area you get into is ownership/custody.

Simple. The one with the bigger contingent of riot troops owns the
rights. :)

>If you clone someone, who owns the clone, the creator, or the source of
>genetic material? And even if the source signs over his rights, he
>could come back later and say he changed his mind and he want's custody
>of his "son".

Any donation to this sort of experimentation would not be taken from
knowing or willing participants, that's just an advertisement saying
"Come and hold a riot outside our headquarters."

I think selected samples from sperm banks and other areas, such as a
chain of brothels perhaps - though I'm not convinced that would be a
good idea. <grin> However, they are able to experiment on many
different things now for different reasons, I don't see that changing in
the future.

Walk into a surgery or clinic, "Oh and can you give us a sample please"
Who questions their doctor over everything they ask from you?
Alternatively request from the troops, they would never question such a
thing. As the saying goes, "their's is not to question why, their's is
but to do or die." :)

>I'd go the Blade Runner route.
>
>A corporation decides that it wants to make "people" as a product. It
>unravels the human DNA strand and figures out how to manipulate it. So
>it creates a person (doesn't clone, doesn't use donor sperm and ova).

Creating a person from scratch is a neat idea, and for the purposes of
good science fiction it's great. But I can see that being fraught with
problems trying to get people in Shadowrun to accept the possibility.
At least the evidence of the ability to clone living animals is
something that is proof positive today in the 20th century. But to
create a living being from nothing but genetic information. That's
quite an achievement and /is/ playing God.

>Civil Liberties people argue that the person is not a product and that he
>has the same rights as everyone else, and that the corporation does not
>have the right to play God. The corporation agrees on the rights
>issue, but fights the "God" arguement, claiming the need for children
>for families that can't have children. As far as the person's rights
>are concerned the corporation says it will raise the person untill they
>are 18.

Yes, but clones are a more valid argument to put forward. Creating a
person from nothing, is for the gods, and there are few ways around that
argument. Admittedly there are excellent reasons for it, and there
would be an intensive PR campaign once the news escaped, but there are
more problems associated with this type of research than cloning a new
person from an old one.

Taking ova and sperm, creating a human through a natural process and
growing them in a petri dish until implantation in a womb is very
different to creating them from dna strands growing the cells and
structure and vat basing them.

I'm not sure how the Tanks were formed in S:AAB but I didn't get the
impression they were "replicants". Something that would be pushing the
very edge of Shadowrun tech.

I've met a replicant in the game I play, and it was an unpleasant
experience to say the least, but it really is on the very border of
Shadowrun capability. Cloning wouldn't be.

>Civil Liberties screams bloody murder. The corporation claims that since
>the body is still in a vat and hasn't been "born" yet, that it's not a
>human and it's a product. The court case bogs down.

That's possible. Any court case against either replication or cloning
would get bogged down in technicalities possibly for years.

>The final outcome is a corporation that can create replicants for
>specific purposes. They can do the job better then a person. They're
>cheap. They're self maintaining. They have a life span of 4-6 years,
>so you can upgrade to the new model when this one wears out. And they
>can be used for tasks that no sane person would do.

Androids would be cheaper, and with cybernetics at the level they have
reached would be more likely. Also, with an android, the four laws of
robotics that although defined in science fiction are the ground rules
for robotics today.

>/ >All it would
>/ >take is one successful fungis, or whatever, to wipe out 90% of the US's
>/ >corn crop.
>/
>/ Ouch. Is that a fact, or speculation, because that gives me an idea. :)
>
>Well, 90% might be a bit high for a casual mutation of a fungus, but
>there isn't much genetic diversity in the US's crops. Let's just say
>that they're a pretty small genetic target.

Well, I've heard a similar argument put forward against feeding
antibiotics to cattle and herd animals because it's reducing their
effectiveness against fighting disease, so I guess the results of
genetic manipulation of crops could have an identical result.

>I hope some nut terrorist never figures this out.

I heard that comment somewhere. Now where the heck was it?

Well, if they are a fan of Shadowrun, or think this is some sort of US
based conspiracy list and have signed on, they do now.

Loose lips sinks ships.

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 40
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 02:59:21 +0100
In article <3.0.3.16.19980702094914.09bfbe64@****.fbiz.com>, Erik
Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes
>At 04:47 AM 7/2/98 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>>HEY!!
>>Yes, what? You don't have to shout, I'm not deaf.
>
>Yes, well, if Pete talks like he types, deafness could be an advantage... ;-)

Selective deafness is useful, but I'm not actually deaf.

>>Why not? The whole world will soon be incubated into the Church of Bob,
>>there is no escape, everyone will own a Bob by the end of the century.
>>Be nice, be happy, buy Bob. :)
>
>I will be incubated by no one and nothing.

Really. Heh. Such faith, such a simplistic vision of the power of Bob.

:)

>>><MAJOR BUTCHERING SNIPPAGE>
>>Brute.
>
>Yeah, well.

<plbtplbtplbtplbt>

>>It might be old news, and that might be in place today, but no in
>>flipping Shadowrun it isn't. They all buggered off and did something
>>better. Sod the farm, sod the food, sod the profit, let's do something
>>obscure. Yeah, take the pitchforks into the cities and turn them into
>>cyberware and then we can - erm, we can... Oh heck, let's just fester in
>>the middle of nothing.
>
>I think it's simply not mentioned. If you look at Corporate Shadowfiles,
>there is an Agriculture rating (or something similar I'm positive) that
>would imply that the Mega's do have an interest in corporate farming.

Yes, like Renraku Computer Industries. Agriculture=6. But what does
this mean? They own 6 farms, they own 6 countries with farms? They
have shares in 6 farms? If 6 is a level of rating between 1 and 10,
they're above average, which means the people in the Arcology should be
well fed. All of them.

Shiawase = 6
Mistuhama = 6
Fuchi = 2
Aztechnology = 5
Ares = 2
Saeder Krupp = 7
Yamatetsu = 7

So, they're into agriculture in a big way. Hmmm, funny that so many
people are eating flipping Soy product then.

I've tried Soy based foods, and I hated them. Give me real food, or I'll
start eating people.

>It's one of those real-life type things that isn't sexy enough to warrant
>much attention. But that's what web sites like yours and soon to be mine
>are all about.

Heh. Oh yes, like I'm going to write a whole section on farming...
Hmm, wait a minute that gives me an idea.

>>>Just because someone is obese doesn't mean they are actually well/properly
>>>fed.
>>Malnutrition does not create obesity, the swollen stomach caused by
>>malnutrition and starvation is from other causes. If that's what you're
>>aiming at.
>
>Actually, many of the obese aren't well nourished. Too much junk food and
>not enough healthy stuff.

Yes, but that is the American disease, and they're busy sharing this
problem with the rest of the world.

>Eating piles of vegetables and other mostly
>unprocessed foods won't make you obese.

Who wants to eat raw vegetables, when there's a great big fat juicy
burger with everything on it, just across the road?

Aside from you.

>Heavy perhaps, but not obese. To
>get to that level you have to eat stuff like Ho-Ho's, Ding-Dong's,
>Dorito's, Hershey's and consume large quantities of sodas. All of which
>aren't healthy.

And all of which are the staple diet of Americans. :)

>>statistical fact that a hell of a lot of Americans are fat. Over normal
>>weight because of muscle mass might lable you as fat but your doctor
>>will not record you as fat. That's the difference.
>
>Yes, it was last month and it did narrow down the weight classes. And
>based on purely personal observations, there are a lot of people around,
>even here in health-fanatic SoCal, that need to lose weight and badly.

There you go. Point proved methinks. Now in the time that we were
discussing, only the rich need to lose weight, everybody else is
underfed and malnourished.

>A personal doctor might not label someone like myself of Karl Malone
>(excellent athlete, plays basketball for the Utah Jazz) as fat, but
>according to the government we both are.

You are doing what ever politician does, you are manipulating figures to
suit yourself. If you are healthy, and the weight is from muscle mass,
you won't be labelled by anyone as overweight. Your doctor I should
hope knows the difference between reconstituted doughnuts and muscles

If he doesn't, start worrying.

>Most doctors don't take into account even weekend athletes when looking at
>statistics and making health recommendations.

Most doctors don't write surveys, they contribute towards them from
figures recorded during their surgeries.

>Most doctors are highly
>suspicious of various supplements and vitamins and the like, saying a
>normal healthy person doesn't need any of that.

Of course they are, artificial supplement of vital vitamins is never the
sensible way to do things. Especially when those same substances,
fubres and vitamins can be gained from natural fruit and proper foods.

>But what about folks that
>are extremely active?

Eat more of the "right" stuff.

>They DO need those things,

Rubbish, utter tosh.

>but doctors are blind to
>that entire segment of the population. Sorry, bit of a sore spot with me.

So, let me rub a bit of salt in it. We have had athletes, superb
athletes for centuries. They didn't have the benefits that today's
supposed healthy eating athletes have. They only had what nature
provided for them. No nice pretty coloured little pills for them. No
nasty horrid steroids to give them bulging biceps and protruding pecs.

To sit and liberally state that athletes today /need/ artificial
replacements for their daily requirement is not just ill informed, it's
incredibly arrogant. Not something I would have expected from you. OK,
it's pretty boring making up a soup of fruit and fibre to cover the
needs of the working body, but pills aren't the way to go, that just
puts money into the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies and doesn't
do your body any particular good.

>>>The NAN folks still farm, still
>>>do industry, just not as intense as we do right now.
>
>I will agree that this is an annoying oddity and perhaps even error within
>the world of Shadowrun as presented so far to us by FASA.
>
>There should be more info on corporate farming or at least an
>acknowledgement that is does exist.

The only reason I mentioned it in the first place is because Pete used
an AgriCorp from CP2020 as an opponent for us a while back, and it stuck
in my mind. When I was nosing through one of the books at the weekend,
I found the corp, and they were quite a shock, especially some of the
things they got up to. The description of the robotic harvesters and
crop masters were wonderful, and painted a very interesting picture. I
couldn't find anything that even compared on a minor scale in Shadowrun,
which surprised me a lot, considering the vastness, scale and value of
farming in America today.

>There should be a better explanation
>as to why everything is soy-based (other than the fact that it sounds
>futuristic and cyberpunkish, which is probably the real reason).

It sounds cool. Soylent Green is people sort of thing. It doesn't make
me any happier, and I suppose railing against the stone heart won't help
it bleed, but it helps to make me feel better. :)

>It's just one of those real life type things that isn't terribly sexy, as I
>said before.

Although true, that's beside the point. It has such vast potential for
abuse and twisting. I love AgriCorp in CP2020, they're a bunch of total
psycho's, marvellous chances for adventure and intrigue.

Not to mention the fields of corn in so many films

>It isn't until SR Culture Vultures like you and I swoop down
>from above that hardly anyone notices or thinks about it, or at least not
>for more than a second or too.
>
>Culture Vulture. I like that.

Yes, it has a certain ring to it doesn't it. Heh. Hey Erik, shall we
start a Shadowrun Webring too - the Culture Vulture webring. :)

(just kidding)

>Erik J.
>
>URL to go here...

Real soon now. :)

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 41
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 18:08:09 +0000
and thus did Erik Jameson speak on 2 Jul 98 at 13:11:

> What about genetic manipulation, both of embreyoes and adults?
[snip]
> Why can't we (ethical reasons aside) in 205X Shadowrun have babies that
> were altered in the womb/test tube to have genetically engineered
> immunities to disease and proclivities towards increased muscle mass and such?

Good idea! You could create kids with most of the bio tech mods in
Shadow Tech as a genetic engineered improvement. And it wouldn't cost
them any body, neither would they suffer from system overstress
because it's all a natural part of their bodies.

Eventually you would get two classes of (meta)humans: norms and gens.
My guess is that it would make the gap between rich and poor even
bigger, since no-one is going to hire a norm for a job when there's a
gen. If this goes on long enough you might even get two different
species...
scary thought



Karina & Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 42
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 19:03:41 -0600
Blaze wrote:
/
/ In article <199807021812.MAA15381@******.carl.org>, David Buehrer
/ <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG> writes
/ >Blaze wrote:
/
/ >The one area you get into is ownership/custody.
/
/ Simple. The one with the bigger contingent of riot troops owns the
/ rights. :)

<Bright idea>

Even simpler: organ donor cards. If a person has signed their organ
donor card then their DNA is up for grabs. A good source is the
military (you can acquire the DNA from a body that you know quite a bit
about).

Maybe as a corp is practicing in Desert Storm they arrange for an
accident to acquire the rights to the DNA of selected soldiers for
their cloning program.

They put the selected candidates that have signed away their rights to
their dead bodies in the same unit and send em out into the field and
"accidently" direct another unit to attack that unit with live ammo.

Or, even simpler, they kill them off in a freak accident (the sealed
chamber they're in for chemical warfare training is flooded with carbon
dioxide instead of tear gas, resulting in brain death).

/ >/ >All it would
/ >/ >take is one successful fungis, or whatever, to wipe out 90% of the US's
/ >/ >corn crop.
/ >/
/ >/ Ouch. Is that a fact, or speculation, because that gives me an idea. :)
/ >
/ >Well, 90% might be a bit high for a casual mutation of a fungus, but
/ >there isn't much genetic diversity in the US's crops. Let's just say
/ >that they're a pretty small genetic target.
/
/ Well, I've heard a similar argument put forward against feeding
/ antibiotics to cattle and herd animals because it's reducing their
/ effectiveness against fighting disease, so I guess the results of
/ genetic manipulation of crops could have an identical result.

Yep. And there are claims that we're doing the same thing to the human
race, using antibiotics to fight off viruses is creating stronger
viruses and a weaker human race.

/ >I hope some nut terrorist never figures this out.
/
/ I heard that comment somewhere. Now where the heck was it?

I have no idea. I watch a lot of TV and Movies, so it could be anywhere.

/ Well, if they are a fan of Shadowrun, or think this is some sort of US
/ based conspiracy list and have signed on, they do now.
/
/ Loose lips sinks ships.

Yeah, but the terrorists on this list are ones you can trust... to start
Woodchuck and Tea threads :) They're mostly harmless ;)

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 43
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 09:40:12 +0000
and thus did David Buehrer speak on 3 Jul 98 at 19:03:

> Even simpler: organ donor cards. If a person has signed their organ
> donor card then their DNA is up for grabs. A good source is the
> military (you can acquire the DNA from a body that you know quite a bit
> about).

I do carry a donor card now, but with the stories I've read about
organ legging in T:SH I don't think I would be carrying it any more
in 205X. To much risk of a Pythonesque "Bring out Yer Dead!" rerun in
real :).

I wonder what the general population's attitude is in 205X. It's not
exactly a majority who carries one now, and with cloning so common
most people might think twice before carrying a card around. Although
Corps might have a clause in their contract that requires them to
remain loyal to the company even after dead. Or even earlier if mr.
CEO just got a bullet in his liver and you're the only one around
with a compatible one in your body...

Karina & Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 44
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 15:48:19 EDT
In a message dated 98-07-04 04:40:41 EDT, you write:

> Or even earlier if mr.
> CEO just got a bullet in his liver and you're the only one around
> with a compatible one in your body...

Fortunately, even today, they can do liver transplants without killing the
donor... though they both have to go easy until the liver regenerates. OTOH,
any corporation without the money to keep its CEO on a Platinum DocWagon
(clonal transplants available in 3 months after start of contract), probably
doesn't have enough clout to kidnap its employees and carve them up for
organs.

Nexx
Message no. 45
From: Koenig Boldizsar <kobold@********.INEXT.HU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 16:22:26 +0200
Eric Jameson wrote on Thursday:
> There should be a better explanation
> as to why everything is soy-based (other than the fact that it sounds
> futuristic and cyberpunkish, which is probably the real reason).

IMHO food referred to as "soy" in SR lingo is not necessary made out of
soy. It may be used as a general expression for low grade, sort of
artificial food: mushroom/fungi, soy, corn/grain, natural gas & mineral
oil (yes!) based, preservative laden stuff.
"It tastes like shit but is nutritious". (Crocodile Dundee)

How about this?

KoBold
Message no. 46
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 06:26:08 EDT
In a message dated 05/07/98 04:40:54 Central Daylight Time,
kobold@********.INEXT.HU writes:

> "It tastes like shit but is nutritious". (Crocodile Dundee)

MISQUOTE!!!

"You can live on it... but it tastes like shit."

Nexx, the Quoting Machine
Message no. 47
From: Smilin' Ted <Tuvyah@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 14:23:32 EDT
In a message dated 7/5/98 1:40:55 AM, KoBold wrote:

>IMHO food referred to as "soy" in SR lingo is not necessary made out of
>soy. It may be used as a general expression for low grade, sort of
>artificial food: mushroom/fungi, soy, corn/grain, natural gas & mineral
>oil (yes!) based, preservative laden stuff.
>"It tastes like shit but is nutritious". (Crocodile Dundee)

I agree. If you check out Shadowtech, one of the less "I'm-Gonna-Make-A-Super-
PC" entries is for myco-protein -- food derived from mold, fungi and yeasts.
There is also a mention somewhere of Universal Omnitech pioneering the method
in Puerto Rico, and then getting bought out by a Big 8 company, but I can't
remember where.
Message no. 48
From: Greg Symons <gsymons@******.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 14:51:39 -0400
[snip stuff on bad food]

Ted sed:

>I agree. If you check out Shadowtech, one of the less
"I'm-Gonna-Make-A-Super-
>PC" entries is for myco-protein -- food derived from mold, fungi and
yeasts.
>There is also a mention somewhere of Universal Omnitech pioneering
the method
>in Puerto Rico, and then getting bought out by a Big 8 company, but I
can't
>remember where.

Cyberpirates. Don't ask me the page, 'cause my GM won't let me read
the thing in detail (apparently he's using some events that are
detailed in there, and doesn't trust me to forget. go fig:) But I was
talking to him 'bout the whole food thang, and he mentioned that as a
result of the _really_ nasty weather patterns cooked up by the GGD
there was a _lot_ of mold, mildew and fungus in the Carib from floods.
So, since all the other crops in the Carib were ripped to pieces by
the weather, Universal Omnitech packaged it as food and sent it to
other countries whose crops were fragged by the weather. Later,
Aztechnology thought "Hey, why should we pay for this fungus?" and
bought out Universal Omnitech, securing a food supply for Aztlan and
also gaining a good deal of agricultural profit.

At least that's how I think it went.

Greg


*********************************************************************
* *
* \ (__) Greg Symons <gsymons@******.temple.edu> *
* \\(oo) Seanchai/ and Follower of Bri\de *
* /-----\\\/ *
* / | (##) "Hearken closely and you shall hear the *
* * ||----||" sound of cows and bagpipes upon the heath" *
* ^^ ^^ *
*********************************************************************
Message no. 49
From: John E Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:07:01 -0500
Apologies on taking so long about writing this. Started on the reply when the
original message got sent, got interrupted and forgot about it (doh!)

Blaze wrote:
>
> In article <35999AC2.BF9F3B25@******.rose-hulman.edu>, John E Pederson
> <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU> writes
> >Pieces snipped without warning...
> >Blaze wrote:
>
> Sections hacked - because I could. :)

Ditto (so there:P :)

> >of the nerdiest folks I know IRL to shame:) So it's probably not getting
> >better.
>
> Bleuch, hanging with nerdier people than nerds. Scary.

Yep. Engineers. But I'm messed up anyway. My parents were both engineers:)

> >But I digress (a lot:)
>
> I was accused of doing that a very short time ago - wasn't I /Erik/ <g>

Probably better if I don't touch that one....

> >>>That's hard to say... I mean, Pete *is* pretty old (j/k)
> >>LOL. Oh he's going to hate me when he sees that. :)
> >
> >Which is what makes it fun;)
>
> Yeah. He just threw my Bob at me, hard - the miserable.. )*&%%^$$*&$)

Well, for shame on him:)

> >Well certainly. And in U.S. even now it's only illegal for government agencies
> >and government-sponsored programs to engage in research into human cloning. So,
> >if Disney wants to clone ol' Walt... Well, nothing can stop them provided they
> >can do it without government dollars.
>
> Oh, I didn't know that. So as long as it's not government funded it's
> OK. Hah, well, well, fancy old Bill leaving an escape clause. :)

Not exactly. They've just suspended all government research/testing in the area.
I don't suppose it's actually illegal, but the US government isn't going to
support any efforts towards cloning in the immediate future.

> >I've totally missed a lot of that stuff, myself.
>
> It wasn't in any novel, as far as I recall the comment about the
> "presence at the fringes of the matrix" was from the first VR book. The
> strongest indication of AI - or worse, that I have seen in FASA
> material.

Ah. Haven't got that book. I saw it once. Once. :) I'll admit to not touching
the matrix much -- trying to get through the rules tends to leave me putting the
book down before I fall asleep. :/ I've been having similar problems with Rigger
2, but at least it's better laid out.

> >out of touch with most the world events in SR the couple of years that it
> >borders on the absurd. <g> But I have my excuses.
>
> There is no excuse for such heresy and sinful behaviour. Repent oh
> sinner, or suffer the penalties reserved especially for those
> transgressors that do not feed the great FASA with copious sacrifices of
> the dollar.

Well, now, you see I've got this problem where I've not had the money to make
copious sacrifices to much of anyone... Instead, I'm going to try to make a pest
of myself for a couple days at GenCon:)

> >Hell, there are movements against cloning people *now* :)
>
> We've got one in this country, though they seem to be at a bit of a loss
> as to what it is they're opposing. Is it sheep, or playing God, and as
> it was born naturally of a mother, does that make it worth objecting
> too, and what's happening anyway? Oh sod it, let's go down to the pub
> and work on our next poster for the march next week round Safeway to
> complain about Organic food that isn't...

LOL!

> >As for the
> >possibilities... Most simply don't occur to me, but I'll see what I can do:)
>
> I eagerly await your educated and informed input. :-P

Yeah well, bio-genetics isn't exactly my area of expertise and my experience in
the "Evil GM" department is pretty sparse. And I haven't had any practice in the
past year either :|

> >I dunno... I really don't think that the NAN would be terribly into human
> >cloning.
>
> Not cloning in a big way - though maybe Geronimo and Cochise wouldn't be
> a bad idea (smile innocently), but they might have access to the
> materials and research labs that the US used to (not) have in those
> areas that are now occupied by the NAN.

*shrug* I'll concede the point, having neither the knowledge nor the ambition to
continue on with this one:) Assuming that there are government-run genetics
research labs in that end of the country, then, yes, they would have access to
them if the labs weren't destroyed or otherwise rendered inoperable.

> >see very many governments at all actually bothering with that kind of program
> >outside of funding research into cloning in general for medical and
> >agricultural
> >purposes (ag. purposes besides an infinite number of Johnny Farmhands:).
>
> I don't know. Genetic farming, the production of larger, better,
> disease resistant foods is something that is speculated upon now (I saw
> something on the discovery channel a while back about food - I just
> can't remember it.) Cloning animals though, if there is a shortage of
> something that is resulting in people starving, or being fed foods that
> are nutrionally below standard, then there would be a serious "human
> rights" problem for the governments that possessed the technology to end
> world hunger.

I doubt it. Bio-diversity becomes a problem (though not much of one if you're
talking a purely short-term situation as the likelihood of that onne disease
coming up becomes very slim), but I rather suspect that the human rights
problems you allude to would only be a worry for the government if they felt it
would generate some worthwhile feelings back home. And if the media ignored it
(right), it probably wouldn't be an issue. In theory, we could end world hunger
*now*. But nobody capable of doing it seems to want to bother.

> It's like taking 50% of one years earning from the worlds richest people
> and ending global poverty. It could be done, if somebody had the guts
> to do it.

You know, that touches on a very hairy subject that has absolutely no relation
to the discussion at hand:) So I'm going to leave it at that and keep my
opinions to myself on that one:)

> >Corporations on the other hand... Not having Corporate Shadowfiles, I can't
> >really say which ones would have the best resources for this kind of thing, but
> >I'd guess that the Aztlanners would at least attempt it. S-K *maybe*, but I'd
> >think Loffy might not be too happy with his underlings growing other people.
>
> But people make (oh what is it...) Oh yes, nice crunchy munchies, and
> taste great with ketchup... Free supply of live food for the dragons,
> ghouls and shifters of the world. :) Warm blood for the vampires, and
> an end to weird creature hunger.

<Tasteless jokes snipped>
You know, that is so very tasteless... When I read this, though, I was
snickering loudly enough to cause curiosity...

> >Renraku... I don't know much about 'raku, but they were my second bet after the
> >Azzies (the Azzies were getting clich:)
>
> Yes they are aren't they. Shame, they had such potential really, but it
> was never effectively explored. Never mind, when they finally find the
> secret of the Aztechs, Inca and Mayans, they'll rule the world. :)

I always thought that the problem with the Azzies that they got portrayed as
being... *evil*. While the other corps were just bad. The Azzies seemed to be
the one group that genuinely evil. So, naturally, they become a magnet for doing
evil things, and then it gets predictable...

> You know, you'd think that they would have learned something from the
> Aztechs. A group of people who were defeated by a lunatic who burned
> his boats just to make sure his men would follow him. Duh.

Yep. That just screams "After-School Special" to me <he says, not following
that
bit of logic *at all*>

> >when I started thinking on this line
> >about a year or so ago (pre-Dolly, I think).
>
> You play with dolls? How odd.
> <grin - Gurth, can I borrow your stairs to hide under - Pete's smell of
> carp>

<indignant>
I do not. They are "action figures."
</indignant>
:)
You should relax, I very rarely ever throw carps (or haddocks or herrings or
fish in general)

> <ker-chomp>
> >on the battlefield... Just to finish up the plot I was rambling about, the
> >project was being shut down when the runners were sent to extract this guy --
> >and he wants to bring along his son, who is actually the one successful 'clone'
> >the project generated.
>
> I see, so the one successful experiment gets to escape and return
> another day as a vengeful character, and the runners get to babysit a
> clone. A magical clone, something the corp wants back /real/ bad.

The clone in and of itself wasn't even terribly important, but it was the fact
that if this particular clone *worked*, whoever had it would have a handle on
the Magus Factor - the supposed genetic sequence which differentiated mundanes
from magicians... But, yeah. Pretty much.

> Ouch.

:) Unfortunately, I never managed to do anything with it. Never managed to write
it down to do anything with. But it's one of those odd little things that tends
to bounce around the inside of my skull from time to time.

> >But they always seem to be so amusing! I mean, why else would the list traffic
> >become completely swallowed in a single thread for days on end...:)
>
> LOL. Yes they do don't they. How many times has that happened now?
> Five, six?

Err... can I claim the fifth?

> >Altering a field of wheat doesn't carry the same politico-ethical burdens
> >cloning does.
>
> Well, no, but that's beside the point. Politico-ethical problems do not
> necessarily make more expense, just less press releases. :)

More press-releases, more damage control if something screws up, etc, etc.

> >It will almost certainly not advance at the same rate genetics
> >and
> >genetic manipulation has/could/will. But, politics aside, raising those animals
> >is *still* expensive.
>
> But profitable. If it wasn't, :)

But, if you can make more profit on soybean and fungus on less land, why bother
with the cow?

> >Depends. The NAN may not be much for the whole back-to-nature, living in
> >teepees, etc (well, there *are* the pinkskins. But there are oddballs in any
> >group:), but I don't think they'd be real big on roaming cattle.
>
> They used to be. Tribal nature, follow the big herds... :)

They're not namds anymore (most of them). Haven't been for a long time. The
buffalo are gone, and the cattle tear up the plains.

> >Cattle eat a
> >*lot*.
>
> So do people, especially meat, especially Americans.

Yeah, wanna make something of it? :)

> >Two cows could keep four acres of grass well grazed (in my experience),
> >four and it won't need mowing anywhere at all in that area, six and the grass
> >will be down to little green nubs in the dark brown earth. And that's above and
> >beyond water and feed and hay. Admittedly, we're *not* farmers (thank God above
> >we're not farmers), and the ranchers do make quite a bit of money on steers.
> >But
>
> There seems to be sufficient profit in it that the small scale farmers
> in this country continue with it, even through the BSE scare of the last
> few years. It's being exported to Europe again, and people are still
> eating the stuff. So, there has to be sufficient profit or nobody would
> be stupid enough to do it. I know it's expensive, but so are tractors,
> and they can afford those things. Which indicates there must be
> sufficient money to be had or they'd still be ploughing with a shear and
> oxen. Farming is big business, especially in the US, vast amounts of
> money to be had by someone with the savvy to grab it.

I don't know about that... I'll have to do some talking with some folks back
home. It may be a big business, but I don't know how profitable it is (or isn't)
for the low-level folks. I don't think that it's *that* big a business for most
people, the investment each spring being a large part of the profit in the fall.

> >I don't think the NAN would have all that many ranchers or steers, because
> >free-ranging cattle do quite a bit of damage to the land,
>
> Yes, they do as far as I know. But the bison herds are being encouraged
> back into something resembling sensible, and large herds of cattle
> already exist. If the ranchers died of VITAS, those cattle would go
> wild, waiting for the next person to come along, sell the meat, realise
> there's money and get into the thing. In CP they have huge AgriCorps
> farming the land, corps that make profit.

There are apparently agricorps in SR, too. There's one in Seattle, IIRC. And if
the ranchers died of VITAS, chances are that the cattle would stand a good
chance of dying off.

> >they're not part of
> >the natural eco-system.
>
> Where do cows come from then? I always though they were natural. They
> don't seem to leak oil. ;)

:P

> <hack>
> >class probably eat "real" food all the time. So, it's still around,
it's just a
> >lot more expensive (since most would have been brought across borders, and most
> >of that likely flown in from another continent).
>
> Oh my comment wasn't aimed that there was /no/ food, but that it was so
> expensive that those of less than upper middle class couldn't afford it.
> OK, I enjoyed Soylent Green just as much as many other people, and the
> excitement when Heston found a jar of real jam was brilliantly done.
> But there were very different circumstances to that film. Shadowrun has
> these huge areas of the land that are being turned back into "natural"
> land (probably to allow for the return of Earth Dawn style wanderer
> characters.) But the "land of plenty" were obesity is a serious problem
> involving 47% of all adults and 25% of the children suddenly went the
> way of the third world where only the rich each meat, and everyone else
> gets the crap. There's just something wrong with that somehow.

*shrug* I don't know. It's a game. I try not to worry too much about the
particulars of the game setting's history if I can avoid it :P

> Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant Doc Wagon Miracle Grow.
> :)

You know... that has marketing potential...
"Parents... are you sick of your child being picked on at school? Tired of
giving your kid lunch money only to have it 'borrowed' by 'little' Billy -- the
250-lb. 5th grader? Try Docwagon Super-Grow (TM) and watch little Billy get the
<<expletive deleted>> beat out of him!"

:)

> >>spend so many years threatening war with each other without trying to
> >>come to some sort of solution. It makes economic as well as common
> >>sense.
> >
> >Common sense isn't,
>
> Heh, not where Governments are concerned I suppose not. :)

Of course not. If everyone had a decent amount of common sense, we wouldn't need
governments:)

> >and economic sense occassionally gets thrown out the window
> >as well (Marxism being a case in point). But you're right. The economic
> >situation between the UCAS and the NAN is likely similar to that between the US
> >and its closest neighbors now. Still, those folks in the UCAS probably
> >profitted
> >quite a bit from their real-estate. A lot of it is probably metroplex:)
>
> I wonder if they did though. How do you tell a group of people that
> just kicked your own country out "You owe me 750 million for Montana."
> :)

Actually, I was thinking of people doing things like dairy farms in places like
Indiana, which (IIRC) remained with UCAS. Real-estate would get real expensive
real fast when everyone migrated east, so a lot of little farms probably became
housing within a couple of years.

> >Right now, the
> >American Midwest puts out way more food (grain, anyway) than is necessary. In
> >205x, I wouldn't be at all surprised, though if a lot of that agricultural
> >burden has been moved somewhere else.
>
> Again, I ask why? If the corporations are so twisted towards profit, it
> would make sense for them to make the effort. AgriCorps are not
> something I consider unlikely.

I was just under the impression that the amount of corporate presence in the NAN
was kind of low. This seems (upon further thought) to be a poorly formed
opinion. "You live and learn. At any rate, you live." Oh, well.

> >>somebody's experiments to link the thing to the matrix, there are other
> >>examples that the corps /are/ doing things without general consent, so
> >>it's not implausible.
> >
> >Missed both of those. I think we were making about the same point though:
> >they'll do it, they'll just keep it nice and quiet.
>
> Heh. Yes, in amongst the general chatter we did agree about something.
> :)

Statistics and all that. Had to happen. :)

> >Nice looking site, btw. I haven't looked too hard at it, but it looks nice:)
>
> Shucks... :)

Shucks nothing. It's a visually pleasing website *and* there's content that
doesn't appear on every other SR site on the web. Be proud of it, you deserve
to:)

--
John Pederson otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Albert Einstein
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" Number Two -- with a bullet!
Message no. 50
From: roun <roun@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 21:54:49 PDT
| Eventually you would get two classes of (meta)humans: norms and gens.
| My guess is that it would make the gap between rich and poor even
| bigger, since no-one is going to hire a norm for a job when there's a
| gen. If this goes on long enough you might even get two different
| species...
| scary thought
| Karina & Martin Steffens
| chimerae@***.ie

have you seen the movie gattaca?? with ethan hawke and uma thurman. it is
the very premise above, that people would hire those better able to do the
job and those who were born with genetically manipulated advantages are
stronger, resistant to most hereditary diseases, looks can be somewhat
planned for, etc. what would this do to a shadowrun universe???

hmmmm....

roun aka david
roun@***.net

<<please direct all flames to my email address above, NOT the list>>
Message no. 51
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 23:28:30 EDT
In a message dated 05/07/98 22:22:57 Central Daylight Time, roun@***.NET
writes:

> have you seen the movie gattaca?? with ethan hawke and uma thurman. it is
> the very premise above, that people would hire those better able to do the
> job and those who were born with genetically manipulated advantages are
> stronger, resistant to most hereditary diseases, looks can be somewhat
> planned for, etc. what would this do to a shadowrun universe???

Its a bit beyond the capabilities of UO as of Shadowtech.... though one could
assume that it in the past few years, its advanced to a slightly higher
level... nto so high that you'd be seeing runners with the advantages, but you
might be seeing it in a couple decades.

Nexx
Message no. 52
From: Koenig Boldizsar <kobold@********.INEXT.HU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 18:17:32 +0200
Erik Jameson wrote:
<snips>
> I don't know enough about genetics to know if this is even possible...
> Could an adult be genetically altered to say, have increased muscle > mass, and
have it work and be effective?

Neither do I, but imagine changing *all* the three zillion cells in an
adult body more or less at the same time. I am not saying that it is not
possible, especially in the imaginary SR scenario. I'd say difficult.
Therefore expensive. Way expensive. Plus the risk of side effects, like
cells going malignant due to the above manipulation attempt.
Simpler and cheaper to do with a single cell (fertilised egg). If it
does not work, you can try again with a clone.
It is unethical and cynical, but I assume for corp scientists of the SR
world this is not an obstacle. (:#

KoBold
Message no. 53
From: Koenig Boldizsar <kobold@********.INEXT.HU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 18:26:40 +0200
John E Pederson wrote: (with the occasional snippings)
> The bad news is that this doesn't change the cell
> itself, only it's daughter cells. In a fully-developed adult, the use of this
> kind of genetic manipulation doesn't work very well.

> IOW, a retrovirus
> could change your DNA to remove hemophilia genes, but you'd still be taking
> hemophilia medicines, because your body will continue make all the same mistakes
> it was making before.

Please verify: AFAIK all the cells of the human body (except nerve
cells) are replaced in about 7 years.
If this is so, you could gradually cease taking haeophilia medicines
after such a treatment.

BTW, what is a retrovirus? I know both retro- and virus, but this
compound eludes me.

KoBold
Message no. 54
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 14:02:23 +0100
And verily, did Koenig Boldizsar hastily scribble thusly...
|BTW, what is a retrovirus? I know both retro- and virus, but this
|compound eludes me.

I think a normal virus injects its DNA into your cell, the cell then turns
into a virus factory and eventually explodes.

With a retrovirus, I think it adds something to your DNA that changes it's
characteristics. I'm not sure how it replicates. Maybe some cells become
virus factories and others just... change... Or maybe they only produce
viruses when the cell splits in two.....

I'll leave it to the biologically adept bods out there...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 55
From: John E Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 08:19:48 -0500
Koenig Boldizsar wrote:
>
> John E Pederson wrote: (with the occasional snippings)
> > The bad news is that this doesn't change the cell
> > itself, only it's daughter cells. In a fully-developed adult, the use of this
> > kind of genetic manipulation doesn't work very well.
>
> > IOW, a retrovirus
> > could change your DNA to remove hemophilia genes, but you'd still be taking
> > hemophilia medicines, because your body will continue make all the same mistakes
> > it was making before.
>
> Please verify: AFAIK all the cells of the human body (except nerve
> cells) are replaced in about 7 years.
> If this is so, you could gradually cease taking haeophilia medicines
> after such a treatment.

In this situation, hemophilia may be a bad example, as the problem comes from a
genetic defect to begin with. In more physical situation, it might not work
(say, the modifications involves changes to body and bone structure), because
while the cells are replaced, the structures remain about the same. Be aware
that there are reasons I'm not biologist, btw. I'm not sure how accurate my
information on this is, only that a straight retro-virus won't work (it might
have more to do with the speed of the virus involved; not fast enough to avoid
the body's natural defenses).

> BTW, what is a retrovirus? I know both retro- and virus, but this
> compound eludes me.

The term is generally used in reference to a virus which, when it reproduces,
hitches a rid within a cell and patches a bit its own genetic code into the cell
in the process. They're sometimes called phages, in particular, those which
attack bacteria are called bacteria phages. Exactly what the root retro has to
do with this, I don't know and am not really sure whether it's a technical term.

> KoBold

--
John Pederson otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Albert Einstein
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" Number Two -- with a bullet!
Message no. 56
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 15:16:32 -0400
At 02:59 AM 7/3/98 +0100, you wrote:

>>>Why not? The whole world will soon be incubated into the Church of Bob,
>>>there is no escape, everyone will own a Bob by the end of the century.
>>>Be nice, be happy, buy Bob. :)
>>
>>I will be incubated by no one and nothing.
>
>Really. Heh. Such faith, such a simplistic vision of the power of Bob.

Really now...as an agnostic, I would have to incubate myself. Don't see it
happening. ;-)

>>I think it's simply not mentioned. If you look at Corporate Shadowfiles,
>>there is an Agriculture rating (or something similar I'm positive) that
>>would imply that the Mega's do have an interest in corporate farming.
>
>Yes, like Renraku Computer Industries. Agriculture=6. But what does
>this mean? They own 6 farms, they own 6 countries with farms? They
>have shares in 6 farms? If 6 is a level of rating between 1 and 10,
>they're above average, which means the people in the Arcology should be
>well fed. All of them.

It is a bit vague, isn't it? I really hope this sort of thing will be
clarified in the Corporate Download sourcebook due in six months or so. As
it stands, it really only helps as a measure relative to other corporations.

>I've tried Soy based foods, and I hated them. Give me real food, or I'll
>start eating people.

Agreed.

>>Eating piles of vegetables and other mostly
>>unprocessed foods won't make you obese.
>
>Who wants to eat raw vegetables, when there's a great big fat juicy
>burger with everything on it, just across the road?
>
>Aside from you.

Actually, not even I. I love a good burger. Makes a nice companion to beer.

>You are doing what ever politician does, you are manipulating figures to
>suit yourself.

Heh. Me a politician? I've got everything going perfectly for that sort
of thing then my Welsh genes get in the way and I suddenly turn extremely
stubborn and refuse to compromise. Not the best trait for a successful
politician.

>>Most doctors are highly
>>suspicious of various supplements and vitamins and the like, saying a
>>normal healthy person doesn't need any of that.
>
>Of course they are, artificial supplement of vital vitamins is never the
>sensible way to do things. Especially when those same substances,
>fubres and vitamins can be gained from natural fruit and proper foods.

But it's difficult to consume that large quantities that are needed by the
active individual. The government standards for vitamins and the like are
designed for the average, mostly sedentary person in mind. Utterly
inadequate for anyone with athletic inclinations or aspirations.

Case in point is protein. US government recommends 50grams daily I
believe. Utterly inadequate for someone attempting to put on muscle. Most
bodybuilding/weightlifting gurus recommend 1 to 2 grams per pound of body
mass (many will say per pound of lean body mass). That means anywhere from
150 to almost 400 grams of protein for maximum muscle retention and
building!! YOU try to consume even 150 grams of protein eating normal
foods, day in and day out. But a couple of protein shakes a day easily
boosts protein levels up to that level.

>>They DO need those things,
>
>Rubbish, utter tosh.

Not really. A primary problem for vegetarians is the fact that a diet
utterly lacking in animal products doesn't provide all the necessary
vitamins and other nutrients for healthy living. Most average sedentary
people can get away with it however.

An athlete simply cannot be a)a strict vegetarian or vegan or b)if they
are, they *must* supplement their diet with vitamin pills and the like.
I'll be damned if I can't remember his name right now, but there was a
basketball player for the Celtics (big tall fellow, now commentates on TV)
who was also a vegetarian back in the late eighties. Because his diet was
lacking, he lacked the needed stamina and he was injured more often than
was necessary.

The average citizen can get away with only taking a multivitamin a day just
in case they don't eat properly that day. But anyone that puts undue
stress on their body either through athletics or whatever else, needs to
consume supplements of all stripes to make their body function at maximum
capacity.

>So, let me rub a bit of salt in it. We have had athletes, superb
>athletes for centuries. They didn't have the benefits that today's
>supposed healthy eating athletes have. They only had what nature
>provided for them. No nice pretty coloured little pills for them. No
>nasty horrid steroids to give them bulging biceps and protruding pecs.
>
>To sit and liberally state that athletes today /need/ artificial
>replacements for their daily requirement is not just ill informed, it's
>incredibly arrogant. Not something I would have expected from you. OK,
>it's pretty boring making up a soup of fruit and fibre to cover the
>needs of the working body, but pills aren't the way to go, that just
>puts money into the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies and doesn't
>do your body any particular good.

True and false. Modern athletes are pushing the boundaries of sport,
sometimes so much so that people occasional wonder if the rules need to be
altered. This is because the modern athlete understands the need for a
proper diet, proper supplementation, proper cross-training, proper gym work.

I've done a fair amount of personal research into this and I've come to the
conclusion that their is a lot of hype and crap. But I've also come to the
conclusion that used properly, there are a number of supplements that are
very valuable for building muscle, stamina, burning fat, increasing blood
flow, etc. No wonder drugs, no super pills. But a solid gym ethic and a
solid diet can be helped quite a lot with a solid and intelligent
supplementation regimen.

>>There should be a better explanation
>>as to why everything is soy-based (other than the fact that it sounds
>>futuristic and cyberpunkish, which is probably the real reason).
>
>It sounds cool. Soylent Green is people sort of thing. It doesn't make
>me any happier, and I suppose railing against the stone heart won't help
>it bleed, but it helps to make me feel better. :)

I've a few thoughts on this that I'll post elsewhere, all on it's own.

>>URL to go here...
>
>Real soon now. :)

It's harder than a I thought, especially since I seem to have lost my HTML
For Dummies book and don't currently have a list of tags or how to use them.

Give it another week or two.

Erik J

URL to go here eventually...
Message no. 57
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 08:58:42 -0700
Blaze wrote:

> >Wellll -- at least from this side of the barracks, US military
> >recruitment seems to be doing all right.

> It might seem to be doing all right, but there is sufficient concern for
> congress to set up a committee to address the problem of gang members in
> the military. It's not just limited to groups of people wandering
> around as if they own the place, but on a more fundamental criminal
> level, and the fact that these members owe their loyalty first to the
> gang, and second to the military.

I suspect that's because gangs are targetting the military as a
potential source of weapons and ammunition (as well as being cover for
activities, and providing three squares and free board). That's a
separate problem from cloning altogether.

I'm getting confused: On the one hand, the military can't instill
loyalty; on the other hand, several paragraphs (pages, really) down, you
cite cults and gangs and whatnot.

Rather than spend a considerable sum on clones that may or may not have
an advantage over the typical soldier, it sounds to me like the military
should invest in a few psychologists to discover what the cults are
doing right. Problem solved. Sort of.

> >I'm of serious doubts about the ease of programming and the lack of
> >side-effects that clone-soldiers would require; that's even coming from
> >a strict Catholic upbringing. ;)

> If you don't know any other way of life, there is little to compare it
> to. There are of course exceptions, but these could be wormed out of
> the training schedule and disposed of.

That becomes increasingly hard, especially since you can't just worm out
'intrusions', but get rid fo them in such a fashion as the clones don't
know you're doing so.

This reminds me to go see The Truman Show.

> >SR does have a slight advantage, in
> >that skillwires and virtual tutors are present, perhaps meaning that
> >less time is needed to be trained in 'normal' skills, so more time can
> >be spent on the daily brainwashing.

> Simsense, when applied correctly would be as effective as early day
> psychological programming as used by the CIA and Russia.

Mmm, I see it as standing on a slightly higher ground than that; after
all, Dreamchipper is early 2050 or 2051, and has some pretty straight-on
warez. Give it eight years to develop, the code should be straightened
out. Smart/Sentry systems will also take the load off the
flesh-and-blood soldier, which of course is both a problem and
advantage.

> >SR doesn't allow for (that I've seen) the main prerequisite for clone
> >soldiers, though: accelerated aging.

Actually, I left off another main prereq -- artificial wombs. More on
that later.

> >That means fifteen years of
> >diapers and schoolbooks, areas that the military isn't well-equipped to
> >deal with;

> Isn't it? Are there not families within the military? An education
> system? Women and Men? Playgroups and areas where children can be left
> for a while under the supervision of a Nurse or teacher? That facility
> exists to an extent within the UK forces, I'd be very surprised to hear
> that the US military has denied the existence of the family unit.

You're not looking for families: families have radios and television
sets and have friends crash parties that the clone-soldiers aren't
supposed to know about. Suddenly they mention a mall or swimming hole
off-base and they want to go; worse, one of your clone-soldiers falls in
love (they're going to pass through the hormonal stage, y'know).

At best you end up with a bunch of Army brats -- and the military has
plenty of those already -- rather than diehard, loyal troops.

The idea you initially presented was a number of clones connected with
no family connections: well, here, by your own suggestion, are those
ties. What you need to do is raise the clones in a completely
artificial enviroment, meaning you leave them in the hands of theorists
and researchers. And we all know what trouble that breeds.

> >it also means having the foresight to begin a plan that has
> >absolutely zero strategic value for well over a decade.

> It only has zero strategic value at the very beginning. The long term
> projections have considerable value. The military in my experience
> plans for the long, not short term.

...Considering a clone-soldier won't be physically ready for action for
fifteen or sixteen years, I don't see that you'll have a chance to pay
off the investment for that long. I still don't see the amazing
advantage that your gaining for fifteen years of running in the red;
there isn't a large enough advantage clone soldiers have over
gene-norms.

> >If it's merely in the dozens, I'm sure they can sort through
> >off-the-street recruits for people willing to become deniable assets.
> >The 2050's would seem to be a potential breeding ground for nationalists
> >and patriots of all sorts.

> And people who aren't. The main recruitment area for "deniable assets"
> would be the barrens and SINless, people who have been shoved aside and
> forgotten by the government and their country. They don't owe
> allegiance to anyone. True American Patriots come from different
> backgrounds, you may be confusing patriotic with fanatic.

There, the military can do what it\'s always done: Offer a SIN, college
tuition, and a chance to see the world. Lots of people, not all
politicians, have taken advantage of the GI Bill. Given that this
percentage is also uneducated, they're less likely to resist to
indoctrination efforts that have always been a part of boot camp.

(And I'm deliberately using the word patriotic: there are those, I'm
sure, who've been separated from family by the secession of the CAS and
NAN; the desire for a strong country that can reunite the continent
under one flag should be there. Or, they could all be bled off to
corporate security forces -- who I'd suspect to be the military's
fiercest competitor.)

> >The smaller the number, though, the easier the program is to support,
> >meaning the more secretive in can be.

> Yes, which brings up another point regarding specialist clones. But
> I'll start that argument later. :)

Y'mean there's more? ;)

> >> >of 'super-soldiers' when they can simply recruit and
> >> >augment, same as they've always done?

> >> Because people recruited have their own beliefs and the education they
> >> went through, including all the socially embedded beliefs that come with
> >> that. Clones do not.

> >Mm, clones don't, until they find out that they're clones.

> Yes, but if they don't know a different way, how will they be able to
> compare.

I'll give you fifteen years, from creche to first combat mission: that's
a heck of a lot of time for questions to be raised. The initial being,
of course, 'How come we all look alike, and our caretakers all look
different?'

> With sufficient care and application of training and
> influencing techniques there is no point except in odd cases where the
> clone would question their existence. Consider for example, the cults
> that exist around the world, and seem to exist in numbers in the US.

Not just numbers - flocks. California's one big cult.

> The people that join these cults are indoctrinated into all manner of
> different beliefs, following the leader quite blindly. Other examples
> are the Nazi movement, the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, and several other areas
> where people followed blindly regardless of what they did - they
> believed. That was enough. Fundamental Islamic traditions produces
> some of the most fiercely loyal followers to be found anywhere. Apply
> those techniques and ideologies to clone training and why would they
> question it. /You/ might, but I don't see why anyone would if brought
> up completely within that environment.

So: develop those techniques and apply it to incoming recruits. Create
an environment outside the military where people believe in it (Desert
Wars being a nice start). Then you get not only whatever clones you
might develop (at mega-$$$ cost) but also drape over the walk-in
recruits (who cost you nothing). Very little advantage a clone has in
that situation: you have to nursemaid him sixteen years before he's
profitable, whereas a private citizen will be taken care of until the
desire has moved him to join up. Not only do you pay for the clone, but
you pay for the entire support mechanism needed to breed his loyalty.
Costly.

> >May sound
> >silly, but I'm more trusting of people that have willingly chosen to
> >adapt a particular value system. Indoctrinees have a bad habit of
> >swinging 180 degrees once they're out of the cage.

> Sometimes, yes they do. Sometimes they produce the most loyal and
> fanatical followers that it's possible to achieve within human
> limitations. There are many people today, who are willing to throw away
> their lives for a "belief", I don't see human nature changing that much
> in the next 60 years, though in an idealised world things would be
> different.

I've known plenty Vietnam vets who came in under the draft, and returned
staunch supporters of the military. Probably the effect of being under
fire together. But they're even more disparate that potential
cult-joiners; no common background until they got their ticket. So,
obviously, there are effects the military can use to its advantage.
You're stipulating that cults are succeeding where the military is
failing; I can't see how trying a completely new tool, cloning, will
help considering cults don't currently have that advantage. (There's a
situation for you: A *cult* that clones new members.)

That's ignoring some of the potential benefits of cloning, but I don't
expect the military to be exercising most of those. More a private
sector type of thing.

> >> >It saves them eighteen years of diaper-changes and education.

> >> But creates other problems.

> >Problems, it seems, that they've been dealing with for quite some time
> >already. Why fix what ain't broken?

> Well, I'm not speaking for myself. Check out the US Government web
> pages, you'll find there that the situation is considered broken and
> they're trying to fix it. You may not have personally experienced any
> examples that they address, but somebody somewhere has, and in
> sufficient quantity to provoke a review.

Cloning doesn't strike me as the solution, though.

> >> >Quite a bill, that.

> >> Yes, but cheaper than the problems caused by standard recruitment, also
> >> loyalty would almost never be brought into question. The indoctrination
> >> program for clones in Space: Above and Beyond is what gave me the idea
> >> in the first place.

> >I don't know about unquestionable loyalty: maybe that's just the
> >humanist in me.

> I would suggest it was, meaning no offence. Why else would people kill
> themselves believing that a UFO awaited them. That's just one example
> of blind belief and unquestioning loyalty. There are many, many others.
> There are people out there right now, in your own neighbourhood, who do
> things without question, believing in the orders they are given. It
> happens, I'm sorry, but it's not new.

I refuse to accept that without question. ;)

> >Aceclerated aging doesn't help much in this regard:
> >'real-time' training has the drawback that you have to maintain
> >fifteen-plus years of strict regimen,

> Not so hard to achieve

> >without publicity,

> That becomes problematical. The larger the numbers the more likely the
> news is to get out, again a subject that is fraught with all manner of
> problems, but in general I think that "tubies" would be treated with
> derision and possible mistrust or even fear by many members of the
> public, adding rather than detracting from the racist conditions that
> exist in our own world. Of course there would be human rights
> movements, but there are excellent reasons for creating the clones, and
> with the PR machine that the government and military possesses, most
> people would agree with the concept.

> It saves families - no longer will families be bereaved of a loved one
> in battle.

Except that someone's got to physically carry the tubie to term. Hello,
rent-a-womb: then wait for the Christian Coalition to jump all over that
one.

Consider also that the population in general has to support the cost of
supporting a standing population that exists only to make war: that
sends a lot of shudders down a lot of different spines.

> It saves lives - these clones are bred to withstand the unpleasant
> conditions of >>insert industry<< and will make life more utopian by
> making things cheaper.

That's a wide opening for the ACLU to exploit. Take any so-called
advantage, show how it can be viewed negatively, create public outcry
for the poor molested tubies.

> blah blah

My sentiments exactly.

> The introduction of robotics to industry was heavily opposed by the
> trade unions, yet, this very innovation has brought down the costs of
> production, made life better and brought down the overall costs of a
> wide variety of goods. So has cheap labour in the third world, middle
> and far east, but... :)

> >all carefully
> >created; accelerated aging means whatever 'reality' you create has less
> >hold, since it has less experience to back it up with.

> Why is accelerated ageing such an important factor? It's not necessary.

Why pay for fifteen years education when it can be compressed into
five? It may not be necessary, but it helps immensely.

> Corporations might plan for the immediate future regarding profit
> sharing, but without long term investment and planning, no company can
> exist or succeed. Not everybody lives just for tomorrow.

Then again, if you continue to push your point-of-profit further into
the future, you only ensure your bankruptcy.

So, you decide to create a litter of twelve clones, which requires
twelve mothers, and at least four sitters, not to mention alternates and
directorial staff: without even going up so high to include someone with
brass and medallions, you've tripled your population. Take in the scope
to include people who actual sign stuff, and you've got a lot of people
on the payroll, and not a cent to show for it, nor even the sign that
your pay-off will ever come: *anything* might happen in the next decade
or so (including your 'ideal clones' becoming obsolete.) When a budget
cut hits you, are you going to salvage a non-profitable cloning project,
or something that's producing an immediate product?

> >> >Especially when it just cries out for the ACLU to protest to death.

> >> If they know about it, sure.

> >Well - I get the feeling we're going to end up agreeing to disagree on
> >this one.

> I think you could be right.

> >When you get human rights issues like this one, all that's
> >needed is the hint that it's happening and - instant expose'.

> I seem to recall that Pete went through the political and human rites
> issue when he was talking about clones (*last year?*) so I decided,
> after the heat of some of the concepts that were voiced, to try to avoid
> that issue, and just consider the hypothetical question. :)

Hard (impossible?) to separate the two. Though I've been on the list
since early 97, I don't much recall anything Pete had to say, about
clones or any other subject.

> >..That's the idea. Self-preservation has this habit of overriding years
> >of training.

> I don't know. There have been many documented cases where that hasn't
> occurred.

Keep in mind that these aren't just any theoretical clones: these are
player-character clones.

> Dedication, fanatacism, loyalty. All have taken people to
> their deaths without ever questioning their orders. I know it's nice to
> look at things from an idealised point, where people will always
> question bad orders, and won't just blindly follow the stupidity or
> power mongering of a leader, but unfortunately, history proves that
> concept inaccurate. People are stupid, and they will blindly walk "or
> run) into the jaws of death on the whim of a leader. Sometimes for the
> most ludicrous of reasons.

So I see you're against the fostering of blind loyalty, then.

> >> >...and have to feed them. Animals consume more than they're worth,
> >> >nutritionally speaking.

> >> Yes, but why do we breed stock animals /now/ if they're so uneconomical?
> >> Why are there farms across the world, and herds of beef in the US. It's
> >> obviously not cost effective is it? That's why people do it, they love
> >> losing money rather than making a profit.

> >No, it's because most people don't like gluten. (Blecch.) Soy --
> >yarf. Gimme a barbecue, any day of the week.

> Exactly. So, why do the people in Shadowrun put up with Soy product,
> when there is an answer, a simple answer, an answer that the
> government/corps/whatever are not utilising?

Cloning isn't the answer, though. Cloning assures that you have the
capability to produce a high-quality product; all other measures --
growing, carving, distributing - have to be met.

> The Food Riots of New York
> would not be an isolated, nor an uncommon event. There would be a
> battle on the streets that the various governments would /have/ to
> address sensibly or lose control of their countries/cities.

> Empty bellies, malnutrition and poor treatment are the single most
> common cause of rebellious behaviour, and have brought more than one
> government to it's knees in the past.

> >But - why doesn't cloning solve all hunger? Because you still have to
> >feed them, you still have to distribute the food;

> The infrastructure to do precisely that is already there, it's in place,
> and has been for many years, that's why America has the highest
> contingent of overweight people in the world, and is known as the Land
> of Plenty. There is too much food available in the US. It's cheaper
> than many other places in the world, and results in people eating more
> of it.

In the Shadowrun universe, at least, the ability to produce or
distribute food had been hapered severely. The difference between RL
and in-game stuff. Have to give some allowance for that.

> >it has all the
> >problems that raising non-clones animals has. Plus the potential to
> >breed meatier/milkier/eggier animals. Minus the cost of determining
> >genetic dispostion to continue improving the stock.

> Genetic disposition doesn't really enter the field of cloning,

Of course it does: If you're going to bother spending several (tens of)
millions, you're not going to waste it in producing someoen who's got a
genetic tendency toward obesity, or lymphoma, or picking their nose; you
go the Aryan route, make sure that it's the highest quality DNA known to
man. Well, as high as you're willing to pay for, but I'd be certain
several factors would be excluded from the get-go. You only decrease
alraedy slim chances, otherwise.

> unless
> you are trying to alter the creature being cloned (as in the example of
> super soldiers - where some genetic manipulation would be required).
> For animals, that manipulation would not be necessary, unless it was
> found that the animals were actually degrading. However, once a desired
> level of food production had been reached, natural breeding could once
> again take place, and variation would re-enter the pool. Nobody in
> their right mind takes a cloning sample from one animal and replicates
> that single animal over and over again, they would take material from
> several existing animals, if not several hundred, bringing variation
> immediately into the species through that varied gene pool.

Read whassisface's post about 90% of the American corn crop coming from
the same genetic source.

> It's common
> sense that you don't create a whole species from one unit. Except in
> the case of the Tasmanian Tiger, where they only have a puppy, and will
> probably try to clone from that one animal. We'll see if there are any
> associated problems with that. :)

> >> >Well .. yeah. Just like people will still have clones in their game, no
> >> >matter how unrealistic I say it is. :)

> >> OK, I'll bite. Why is it unrealistic? Cloning /is/ possible. It's
> >> been done. Some people don't like that it was the UK that made the
> >> breakthrough, and I believe the Japanese are already experimenting with
> >> tank growth... Why is unrealistic? Not only has it been one of the
> >> fundamental building blocks of science fiction, it is now science fact.

> >It's not cloning that I'm disputing; it's wide-scale cloning (in the
> >near future) without accompanying social changes.

> Social change, isn't always a pre-cursor to innovation.

Didn't say it had to be: merely that it would have to accompany it.
Long before cloning was even a reality, you had science fiction stories
and articles about it; it takes time for ideas and attitudes to trickle
down to the mainstream. The actuality of cloning will spur that on by a
large amount, which has both a positive and a negative side to it: here
the scientists have once again uncorked the bottle.

> For example
> (though a poor one) the industrial revolution. That altered society,
> rather than society altering to allow it. Explain to the starving in
> the far east, in the third world and other places why cloning is such a
> bad thing (from a social impact POV) when they see that it would solve
> the problems of starvation and death in their country, in their lives.

Cloning, in and of itself, can and will not solve starvation.
Production and distribution of food will; those two instruments could
succeed as well without cloning.

> Conversely, explain to a family who has lost loved ones to violence -
> either line of duty or war, why having a clone would be a bad thing to
> prevent another family suffering that agony.

Explain to someone who had a family member kidnapped and brainwashed by
a cult why they should let their own government perpetrate the same
malfeasance.

> From a fictional point, and in Shadowrun. I can see a lot of advantages
> for cloning. Not least of which would be deep sea/outer space
> exploration and mining. Much safer to send a clone who has no family
> ties, than a person who may die, and cause endless suffering for their
> family and loved ones. It is in these fields that I think cloning will
> be first used, and start to gain credibility as a result.

Sans artificial wombs, a clone will have personal ties. Any clones
without personal ties will have their owners savaged by the ACLU, if not
Amnesty. Be glad you were born you, and not a clone. Seems to me a
good way to cause an uprising, by itself - especially when the clones
are bred to be stronger, faster, smarter.

> >Although I don't
> >think it's as big a deal as many people are making it out to be, it does
> >raise a host of ethical questions. Kidnapping a young (unborn) child
> >and indoctrinating them to feel and act a specific way - hello, David
> >Koresh - only confirms that the company acted in the wrong, "for the
> >good of the nation" or no.

> Kidnapping yes. Because that child belonged to someone, it was part of
> someone, it was due to be someone's child. A clone isn't. It's a
> creature of science, born from a test tube with no parents except it's
> creators - the lab technicians. The social stigma of taking away a
> child (unborn or not) doesn't really come into the social implications
> of cloning. Unless one follows the belief that life begins in the
> unfertilised egg.

Which many people do (if not the egg, the fertilised egg). You end up,
regardless, with a human being - not a clone. Some*one* who can think,
feel, express themselves - someone who can love and be loved. To assert
that a clone is mere property - chattel, really - requires the societal
change I mentioned. Your initial post on this subject did not address
this.

> >Counterpoint: If a lifetime of upbringing by the military breeds pure
> >loyalty, why haven't they started an adoption program? No need for
> >abortion clinics: the gov pays the bill (and a small bonus), takes care
> >of the child and inculcates in them a nice military discipline. Takes
> >care of unwanted babies, welfare mothers, and a few other social
> >problems in one fell swoop; the one advantage that isn't gained is
> >genetic determinancy. But since cloning wasn't thought feasible until
> >rather recently, why hadn't the military adopted a similar policy before
> >that?
>
> OK, though this is a sour tasting question and will, if continued most
> likely result in precisely the arguing and flaming I would prefer to
> avoid, because of the content of your question. I will answer it with a
> short sentence.
>
> What makes you think they haven't?

Ockham's.


- Matt

------------------------------------
Quid gignitur ex hyaena et psittaco?
Animal uiribus ridendi in ioca sua eximum.

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 58
From: Koenig Boldizsar <kobold@********.INEXT.HU>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:38:35 +0200
Nexx Many-Scars wrote:
>
> > "It tastes like shit but is nutritious". (Crocodile Dundee)
>
> MISQUOTE!!!
>
> "You can live on it... but it tastes like shit."
>
> Nexx, the Quoting Machine

C'mon, I had to reconstruct it from the Hungarian dubbed version!
Anyway, I think the message went through.

KoBold
the Lousy Quoter
Message no. 59
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 03:21:47 EDT
In a message dated 07/07/98 02:19:51 Central Daylight Time,
kobold@********.INEXT.HU writes:

> > > "It tastes like shit but is nutritious". (Crocodile Dundee)
> >
> > MISQUOTE!!!
> >
> > "You can live on it... but it tastes like shit."
> >
> > Nexx, the Quoting Machine
>
> C'mon, I had to reconstruct it from the Hungarian dubbed version!
> Anyway, I think the message went through.

Ok, I can accept that...

Nexx, the Forgiver
Message no. 60
From: Blaze <Blaze@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 05:25:50 +0100
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. In general the points for and
against cloning of soldiers or food products are as follows


Against:

High costs
Unsustainable length of program
Logistical support and staff involvement
Individuality of person (ie inquiring minds)
Vulnerability (genetic typing, bioweapons, etc)
Public objection
Long term results without short term benefits
Eventual public outcry and political/religious/moral objection.
Educational restrictions
Impractical
Artificial or Natural womb application problems
Complete responsibility for education etc.


For:

Potential specific engineering for specified tasks
Completely deniable assets
ready supply of cannon fodder
Guaranteed results from scientific experience
Food stuff could be replicated with relative ease
Indoctrinated/programmed conditioning and loyalty.



Have I missed anything?

--
Blaze
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/angband/317/index.htm
Shadowrun: rants and a whole bunch of other stuff.
Message no. 61
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 14:56:16 -0600
Blaze wrote:
/
/ For:
/
/ Potential specific engineering for specified tasks
/ Completely deniable assets
/ ready supply of cannon fodder
/ Guaranteed results from scientific experience
/ Food stuff could be replicated with relative ease
/ Indoctrinated/programmed conditioning and loyalty.
/
/ Have I missed anything?

They look good in Stormtrooper armor :)

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 62
From: Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 22:19:34 EDT
In a message dated 07/07/98 16:03:39 Central Daylight Time,
dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> / For:
> /
> / Potential specific engineering for specified tasks
> / Completely deniable assets
> / ready supply of cannon fodder
> / Guaranteed results from scientific experience
> / Food stuff could be replicated with relative ease
> / Indoctrinated/programmed conditioning and loyalty.
> /
> / Have I missed anything?
>
> They look good in Stormtrooper armor :)

Pus, that you need a very small range of sizes for the uniforms... since
they'd have the same genes and upbringing, they'd all be about the same height
and weight...

Nexx, who is a genetic composite
Message no. 63
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Growing new parts
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 08:26:03 -0600
Nexx Many-Scars wrote:
/
/ In a message dated 07/07/98 16:03:39 Central Daylight Time,
/ dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:
/
/ > / For:
/ > /
/ > / Potential specific engineering for specified tasks
/ > / Completely deniable assets
/ > / ready supply of cannon fodder
/ > / Guaranteed results from scientific experience
/ > / Food stuff could be replicated with relative ease
/ > / Indoctrinated/programmed conditioning and loyalty.
/ > /
/ > / Have I missed anything?
/ >
/ > They look good in Stormtrooper armor :)
/
/ Pus, that you need a very small range of sizes for the uniforms... since
/ they'd have the same genes and upbringing, they'd all be about the same height
/ and weight...

Hee hee. One size really does fit all. LOL

-David
--
"If I told you, then I'd have to pull a Shadowrun against you. Sorry."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Growing new parts, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.