Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Bryce Kaspar <Bryce.Kaspar@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:30:46 -0700 (MST)
On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, Robert Watkins wrote:

> > Life by definition needs an
> >exterior source for energy, which in turn is needed to reproduce. If
> >you can name one organism that requires no exterior form of energy to
> >survive please do so. Your response is typical of the modern
> >homo(sampien)-centric attitude.
>
> As a point, there's no need for this energy to come from living things...
> with modern technology, we _could_ subsist on synthesied food.
What exactly do you plan to synthesize the food from? It is not exactly
easy to synthesize say carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. All of those have a
nasty habit of coming from living things.
. .
// Bryce Kaspar \\
// CU Boulder Aerospace \\
// kaspar@***.colorado.edu \\
// _._ \\
.---. .//|\\. .---.
________ / .-. \_________..-~ _.-._ ~-..________ / .-. \_________
\ ~-~ / `-=.___.=-' \ ~-~ /
~~~ ~~~

______________________________________________________________________________

The sun was shining on the sea,Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make the billows smooth and bright --
And this was very odd, because it was the middle of the night.
-- Lewis Carroll
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 20:05:41 +1030
>What exactly do you plan to synthesize the food from? It is not exactly
>easy to synthesize say carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. All of those have a
>nasty habit of coming from living things.

Umm... hydrogen and oxygen you can get by running a current through
water... :) Lots of carbon around that's not living, and it's a closed
system anyway, so you can recycle.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 3
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:10:39 +0000 (GMT)
|
|>What exactly do you plan to synthesize the food from? It is not exactly
|>easy to synthesize say carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. All of those have a
|>nasty habit of coming from living things.
|
|Umm... hydrogen and oxygen you can get by running a current through
|water... :) Lots of carbon around that's not living, and it's a closed
|system anyway, so you can recycle.
|

Yes, but using the basic elements you CAN'T synthesise food without using
LIFE!!!

Try drinking a charcoal slushy. It contains all you're carbon, hydrogen and
oxygen. You would get anything from it though.
The body can't synthesise it's own carbo-hydrates. That's what plants are
for.

And what about protien? Where are you going to get that from?

--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 23:30:40 +1030
>Try drinking a charcoal slushy. It contains all you're carbon, hydrogen and
>oxygen. You would get anything from it though.
>The body can't synthesise it's own carbo-hydrates. That's what plants are
>for.
>
>And what about protien? Where are you going to get that from?

There is no fundamental reason why we could not reproduce the chemical
processes... That's the whole point. Using technology, we could feasibly
create food without needing to kill other living creatures.

Now leave me alone, my steak's getting cold. ;)


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realizedthat a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent infinding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 5
From: Rob Kean <rkean@****.net>
Subject: RE: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:43:42 -0500
------ =_NextPart_000_01BB1591.BC8821E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

They recycle "food stuff" in Star Trek...
For info on how this is done read about the replicators in
ST:TNG Technical manual....

rob

----------
From: Robert Watkins[SMTP:robertdw@*******.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 1996 5:05 AM
To: shadowrn@********.itribe.net
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)

>What exactly do you plan to synthesize the food from? It is not exactly
>easy to synthesize say carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. All of those have a
>nasty habit of coming from living things.

Umm... hydrogen and oxygen you can get by running a current through
water... :) Lots of carbon around that's not living, and it's a closed
system anyway, so you can recycle.




------ =_NextPart_000_01BB1591.BC8821E0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BB1591.BC8821E0--
Message no. 6
From: Kenneth Horner <kwhorner@*******.edu>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:40:00 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Robert Watkins wrote:

> >What exactly do you plan to synthesize the food from? It is not exactly
> >easy to synthesize say carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. All of those have a
> >nasty habit of coming from living things.
>
> Umm... hydrogen and oxygen you can get by running a current through
> water... :) Lots of carbon around that's not living, and it's a closed
> system anyway, so you can recycle.
>
>
Trying to assembl it all would be a bit tough though....

Nutcracker
Message no. 7
From: Kenneth Horner <kwhorner@*******.edu>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:33:24 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Robert Watkins wrote:

> >Try drinking a charcoal slushy. It contains all you're carbon, hydrogen and
> >oxygen. You would get anything from it though.
> >The body can't synthesise it's own carbo-hydrates. That's what plants are
> >for.
> >
> >And what about protien? Where are you going to get that from?
>
> There is no fundamental reason why we could not reproduce the chemical
> processes... That's the whole point. Using technology, we could feasibly
> create food without needing to kill other living creatures.

Feasable?!? what is your definition of feasable? You steak would run in
the millions if we had to build it from its components. Chemistry ani't that
advance yet.

Nutcracker
>
> Now leave me alone, my steak's getting cold. ;)
>
>
Message no. 8
From: Super Grover <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:14:45 -0700 (MST)
On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Kenneth Horner wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> > >Try drinking a charcoal slushy. It contains all you're carbon, hydrogen and
> > >oxygen. You would get anything from it though.
> > >The body can't synthesise it's own carbo-hydrates. That's what plants are
> > >for.
> > >
> > >And what about protien? Where are you going to get that from?
> >
> > There is no fundamental reason why we could not reproduce the chemical
> > processes... That's the whole point. Using technology, we could feasibly
> > create food without needing to kill other living creatures.
>
> Feasable?!? what is your definition of feasable? You steak would run in
> the millions if we had to build it from its components. Chemistry ani't that
> advance yet.
Well, to replicate the cellular structure of the steak, yeah, I agree,
it couldn't be done, but to replicate, at least the components which are
taken up, it's possible, however, not feasable to do _chemically_. I mean
to synthesize amino acids, costs a bunch, and to buy enough , produced as
such, would be unfesable. The normal method of food in SR, as I
understand it is through soy (vegetable) and mycoprotein (fungus), so we
would still have to kill living organisms (remember, that even bacteria
and fungus are living organisms).

Super Grover
Message no. 9
From: Kenneth Horner <kwhorner@*******.edu>
Subject: RE: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 14:50:33 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Rob Kean wrote:

> They recycle "food stuff" in Star Trek...
> For info on how this is done read about the replicators in
> ST:TNG Technical manual....
>
Unfortunately, anti-matter technology is a good 40-50 years off, and as
for replicator technology....

Nutcracker
Message no. 10
From: Kenneth Horner <kwhorner@*******.edu>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 15:13:01 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Super Grover wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Kenneth Horner wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Robert Watkins wrote:
> >
> > > >Try drinking a charcoal slushy. It contains all you're carbon, hydrogen
and
> > > >oxygen. You would get anything from it though.
> > > >The body can't synthesise it's own carbo-hydrates. That's what plants
are
> > > >for.
> > > >
> > > >And what about protien? Where are you going to get that from?
> > >
> > > There is no fundamental reason why we could not reproduce the chemical
> > > processes... That's the whole point. Using technology, we could feasibly
> > > create food without needing to kill other living creatures.
> >
> > Feasable?!? what is your definition of feasable? You steak would run in
>> the millions if we had to build it from its components. Chemistry ani't that
> > advance yet.
> Well, to replicate the cellular structure of the steak, yeah, I agree,
> it couldn't be done, but to replicate, at least the components which are
> taken up, it's possible, however, not feasable to do _chemically_. I mean
> to synthesize amino acids, costs a bunch, and to buy enough , produced as
> such, would be unfesable. The normal method of food in SR, as I
> understand it is through soy (vegetable) and mycoprotein (fungus), so we
> would still have to kill living organisms (remember, that even bacteria
> and fungus are living organisms).
>
> Super Grover
>
>
Percisely. Plants are designed to convert energy into a storable form.
We can use that form to provide ourselves with energy. Why not use
them? Their more economical, produce less waste and are easy to maintain.

Nutcracker
Message no. 11
From: Super Grover <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 18:28:10 -0700 (MST)
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Kenneth Horner wrote:

>
> > Well, to replicate the cellular structure of the steak, yeah, I agree,
> > it couldn't be done, but to replicate, at least the components which are
> > taken up, it's possible, however, not feasable to do _chemically_. I mean
> > to synthesize amino acids, costs a bunch, and to buy enough , produced as
> > such, would be unfesable. The normal method of food in SR, as I
> > understand it is through soy (vegetable) and mycoprotein (fungus), so we
> > would still have to kill living organisms (remember, that even bacteria
> > and fungus are living organisms).
> >
> > Super Grover
> >
> >
> Percisely. Plants are designed to convert energy into a storable form.
> We can use that form to provide ourselves with energy. Why not use
> them? Their more economical, produce less waste and are easy to maintain.
>
> Nutcracker

But, we don't really convert plant material all that efficiently.
Cellulose is a componant in cell walls, which we do not break down, and
there is a lot of it in the cell wall. I've seen bioware on the net that
allows for the breakdown of plant material, such as cellulose, and i
implement them in my game.

As to produce less waste, the farm industry has destroyed more
land than animal farming. crops have to be grown on a rotation so that
they
do not totaly deplete the nutrients and minerals in the soil. This is also
why the farmers have to spray their fields with nitrification agents, and
other chemicals just to replace the components taken up by the plants.

However, if we were to eat a _naturally abundant_ plant, such that
the soil does not get depleted by its growth, then we could get a lot of
nutrition from it.


Super Grover
Message no. 12
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:43:14 +0000 (GMT)
|
|On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Rob Kean wrote:
|
|> They recycle "food stuff" in Star Trek...
|> For info on how this is done read about the replicators in
|> ST:TNG Technical manual....
|>
|Unfortunately, anti-matter technology is a good 40-50 years off, and as
|for replicator technology....

Although I did have a corp experimenting with Transporter Technology in my
game.
(A couple of players got zapped into the middle of the Northern Toxic
Zone for a few minutes. It didn't half frag over their Cyberware......)
The idea was to destroy it, which they did....
(They later destroyed the UFO the Corp had stolen the tech from....)
|
|Nutcracker
|


--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 13
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:56:35 +0000 (GMT)
|But, we don't really convert plant material all that efficiently.
|Cellulose is a componant in cell walls, which we do not break down, and
|there is a lot of it in the cell wall. I've seen bioware on the net that
|allows for the breakdown of plant material, such as cellulose, and i
|implement them in my game.

Celulose *does* have it's uses in the body.
It's also called fibre or roughage.
If you implement such bioware, well, look at cow pats and I think you'll get
the idea.

--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 14
From: "Sedah Drol" <CCRODRIG@****.indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 13:41:01 EST
> > Well, to replicate the cellular structure of the steak, yeah, I agree,
> > it couldn't be done, but to replicate, at least the components which are
> > taken up, it's possible, however, not feasable to do _chemically_. I mean
> > to synthesize amino acids, costs a bunch, and to buy enough , produced as
> > such, would be unfesable. The normal method of food in SR, as I
> > understand it is through soy (vegetable) and mycoprotein (fungus), so we
> > would still have to kill living organisms (remember, that even bacteria
> > and fungus are living organisms).
> Percisely. Plants are designed to convert energy into a storable form.
> We can use that form to provide ourselves with energy. Why not use
> them? Their more economical, produce less waste and are easy to maintain.
I think you missed the point of this discussion, we were discussing
of ways to find the necessary amount of energy and nutriants to
sustain human life without using anything from a living or recently
living organism and how feasible it would be.
---Sedah Drol
.
Message no. 15
From: Super Grover <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:01:37 -0700 (MST)
On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, A Halliwell wrote:

>
> |But, we don't really convert plant material all that efficiently.
> |Cellulose is a componant in cell walls, which we do not break down, and
> |there is a lot of it in the cell wall. I've seen bioware on the net that
> |allows for the breakdown of plant material, such as cellulose, and i
> |implement them in my game.
>
> Celulose *does* have it's uses in the body.
> It's also called fibre or roughage.
> If you implement such bioware, well, look at cow pats and I think you'll get
> the idea.


The whole idea of my post was that you could implement bioware, hell,
even genetech to incorporate a cellulase to breakdown the cellulose to
its glucose monomers and use the cellulose for _energy_. Cattle do not
directly digest cellulose, it is bacteria in their rumen that do, and
produce a whole lot o' other stuff in the process. I figure by 2055,
introducing another bacteria into the human stomach would be ludicrous
when you could, alot easier, introduce the gene into the genome and
produce the enzyme responsible for the breakdown. Theoretically you could
do this now, present day, so in 2055 it should be no problem.

Super Grover

FAR!
patter,patter,patter,patter
NEAR!
Message no. 16
From: "A Halliwell" <u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 20:01:11 +0000 (GMT)
|
|On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, A Halliwell wrote:
|> Celulose *does* have it's uses in the body.
|> It's also called fibre or roughage.
|> If you implement such bioware, well, look at cow pats and I think you'll get
|> the idea.
|
|The whole idea of my post was that you could implement bioware, hell,
|even genetech to incorporate a cellulase to breakdown the cellulose to
|its glucose monomers and use the cellulose for _energy_. Cattle do not
|directly digest cellulose, it is bacteria in their rumen that do, and
|produce a whole lot o' other stuff in the process. I figure by 2055,
|introducing another bacteria into the human stomach would be ludicrous
|when you could, alot easier, introduce the gene into the genome and
|produce the enzyme responsible for the breakdown. Theoretically you could
|do this now, present day, so in 2055 it should be no problem.

The point *is* that we evolved out our appendix (which was originally there
to break down cellulose, and now our intestines *use* the cellulose to keep
the stool together. If you alter the genome, people will find themselves
spending a lot more time cleaning up after themselves and running to the
toilet.....

|Super Grover
|
|FAR!
|patter,patter,patter,patter
|NEAR!

I think you forgot the *pant* *pant* **GASP** *faint* >*CRASH*<
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in |
|u5a77@**.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal subjects in:-|to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/FA>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ 5++ |
|X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can still say FUCK! Americans can't|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 17
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 07:25:22 +1030
>|The whole idea of my post was that you could implement bioware, hell,
>|even genetech to incorporate a cellulase to breakdown the cellulose to
>|its glucose monomers and use the cellulose for _energy_. Cattle do not
>|directly digest cellulose, it is bacteria in their rumen that do, and
>|produce a whole lot o' other stuff in the process. I figure by 2055,
>|introducing another bacteria into the human stomach would be ludicrous
>|when you could, alot easier, introduce the gene into the genome and
>|produce the enzyme responsible for the breakdown. Theoretically you could
>|do this now, present day, so in 2055 it should be no problem.

It's a lot easire, and a lot more reliable, to give someone a pill and
say "Take two of these, and eat a handful of grass in the morning", then
to try to change their genetic structure... sure, you could do it, but it
would NOT be easier. Actually incorporating the change into the
reproductive DNA would be harder still.


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realizedthat a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent infinding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 18
From: Super Grover <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 17:20:41 -0700 (MST)
On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> It's a lot easire, and a lot more reliable, to give someone a pill and
> say "Take two of these, and eat a handful of grass in the morning", then
> to try to change their genetic structure... sure, you could do it, but it
> would NOT be easier. Actually incorporating the change into the
> reproductive DNA would be harder still.

I wouldn't say that a pill is more reliable, It's a hell of a lot harder
to target the proper area or tissue in the body with a pill . Also I
wasn't trying to infer that you could create a race of people that could
digest (incorporate it into the germ line), but just into the somatic
cells. And really, it is possible now, (gene therapy already exists,
tissue specific) so going by the biotechnological level infered by the
FASA rulebooks, gene therapy on this scale should be relatively easy
(alot easier than bioware, which can _heal_ itself, suggesting that it is
recognized by the body as self, not foreign material.) After all, bioware
is grown in hosts (read: cloned bodies) infering that the bioware is
genetically blueprinted in, so one measly gene incoproated into the
person's genome is much easier than the genetic manipulation that would
be required for even s0mething such as the adrenal pump.

Super Grover

FAR!
patter,patter,patter,patter
NEAR!
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 18:50:54 +1030
>I wouldn't say that a pill is more reliable, It's a hell of a lot harder
>to target the proper area or tissue in the body with a pill . Also I

I was thinking of a pill that would cause a bacterial infection... the
bacteria would gravitate to the area where they are most comfortable (and
designed to go), and do their jobs... A heck of a lot simpler than
redesiging an organ.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 20
From: Super Grover <taleask@****.ACS.UCALGARY.CA>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 09:38:34 -0800
On Sat, 23 Mar 96 18:50:54 +1030 robertdw@*******.com.au (Robert Watkins) wrote:

>
>>I wouldn't say that a pill is more reliable, It's a hell of a lot harder
>>to target the proper area or tissue in the body with a pill . Also I
>
>I was thinking of a pill that would cause a bacterial infection... the
>bacteria would gravitate to the area where they are most comfortable (and
>designed to go), and do their jobs... A heck of a lot simpler than
>redesiging an organ.

Ok, that would be easier, but I don't think too many people would thrill at the
prospect of someone injecting foreign bacteria into them opposed to having their
own DNA matched organinserted (I play a pretty paranoid game, so my players
definitely don't get anything which isn't cultured bioware and involves foreign
organisms)
Message no. 21
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 96 10:31:09 +1030
>Ok, that would be easier, but I don't think too many people would thrill
>at the
>prospect of someone injecting foreign bacteria into them opposed to having
>their
>own DNA matched organinserted (I play a pretty paranoid game, so my players
>definitely don't get anything which isn't cultured bioware and involves
>foreign
>organisms)

There are literally dozens of bacterial cultures within you already. And
I'm personally more worried about someone screwing me over with a
slightly defective new organ than a bacterial culture a strong dose of
antibiotics could wipe out.


--
*************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robertdw@*******.com.au *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
*************************************************************************
Message no. 22
From: Super Grover <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 15:44:49 -0700 (MST)
On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, Robert Watkins wrote:

> There are literally dozens of bacterial cultures within you already. And
> I'm personally more worried about someone screwing me over with a
> slightly defective new organ than a bacterial culture a strong dose of
> antibiotics could wipe out.

But ( yes it's _that_ word), those bacteria aren't really susceptible to
antibiotics, (otherwise, everytime you had erythromycin your
gastrointestinal tract would be screwed for weeks). This leads to the
fact that today, most antibiotics don't work, the bateria have become
resistant to them (antibiotic firms haven't done research to find new
ones, and today are scrambling to try to find them). Also you would have
to tailor these bacteria so that they would find the host acceptable, and
vice versa, the entire metabolic pathway and pathological information
would have to be known for the bacteria, so that unforseen difficulties
don't arise (people in the US today love to sue, so I figure this trend
would continue in 2055).

But really, both of these methods would be suitable (I still perfer the
organ method though. I live in Calgary (Alberta, Canada) and between here
and another city (Edmonton) lies the worlds largest stock of Anthraxus
bacili (stored by the military, of course). I do not _trust_ bacteria
enough ,as do my players, so we really avoid those options in our game).

Super Grover

FAR!
patter,patter,patter,patter
NEAR!
Message no. 23
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 18:56:23 +1030
> Also you would have
>to tailor these bacteria so that they would find the host acceptable, and
>vice versa, the entire metabolic pathway and pathological information
>would have to be known for the bacteria, so that unforseen difficulties
>don't arise (people in the US today love to sue, so I figure this trend
>would continue in 2055).

You'd modify bacteria already in the body... you wouldn't create new ones
from scratch.


--
* *
/_\ "A friend is someone who likes the same TV programs you do" /_\
{~._.~} "Eternal nothingness is fine if you happen {~._.~}
( Y ) to be dressed for it." -- Woody Allen ( Y )
()~*~() Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au ()~*~()
(_)-(_) (_)-(_)
Message no. 24
From: Super Grover <taleask@***.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: New Totem (sort of)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:10:15 -0700 (MST)
On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, Robert Watkins wrote:

>
> You'd modify bacteria already in the body... you wouldn't create new ones
> from scratch.

Oops!, Wasn't thinking quite like that. (I'm a developmental, eukaryotic,
(mostly vertegrate) scientists, don't like much bacteriology.. :)

Super Grover

FAR!
patter,patter,patter,patter
NEAR!

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about New Totem (sort of), 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.

Thwap!