Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Harmony-the way to increase effectiveness of ecosystem


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 15 June 2007 - 12:24 PM

If we look at our ecosystem - it's one huge domestic war - organisms uses most of energy on competition, fight...
It's mainly energy from the cleanest, never ending source - the sun.
In the times of threat of energy crisis, overpopulation, one of our hope could be increasing the effectiveness of this changing solar energy into needed sugars, proteins.
The other thing is that we are geting closer to the concept of creating completely new ecosystems, like on Mars, where this effectiveness of development of ecosystem is essential for the whole project.

I would like to initiate a discussion about the possibility of such increase of effectiveness: is it possible and how much we could increase it?

One way I see to do it, is by selection of organisms - to create a very precise ecosystem, in which organisms almost haven't opposite interests.
We could replace some organisms with handicapped ones by eg removing sequences coding some proteins too(evolution couldn't repair it quickly) .
The tool we could use to remove some organisms, could be chiral life, I've presented in different thread.

Let say, we have this Noe's ark to select, modify ...
Let's think if it would be possible to such a stable, more effective ecosystem?
How to make it make it, so the proportion of organisms would be automatically keep on the appropriate levels?
So that evolution, climate differences wouldn't spoil everything...?
  • 0

#2 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 15 June 2007 - 06:48 PM

I have to add that I thought mainly about eliminating (micro mainly) organisms that practically only parasitize, not contributing anything positive into the ecosystem, like eg viruses, locust ...
We couldn't restrict to system plants + us... soil have to be fertilized, fragments has to be decomposed, some reactions has to be made, plants has to be pollinate, etc, etc ...
We need trees too (oxygen), we have different environments, specifications of places...
Whereas most of the higher organisms in this moment, instead of farm animals, are rather keepsake of nature, they rather don't influence on our ecosystem...

The question eg is, if we can manage with that viruses helps control some populations...
  • 0

#3 Paralith

Paralith

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 470 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC

Posted 15 June 2007 - 10:06 PM

If you want to convert solar energy into energy stored in organic molecules more efficiently, then it isn't the whole ecosystem that you need to look at - it's the molecular mechanics that actually partipate in energy conversion, and these have a limited efficiency. Only a certain percentage of the total light energy that plants absorb is actually put into carbohydrates, and only a certain percentage of the energy in plant carbohydrates ingested by herbivores can actually be extracted for their own uses, etc. Much of the energy in these exchanges is lost to heat, etc. Without getting down to these base mechanics, I don't think a significant change can be made in the efficiency of organismic energy conversion.

Besides the fact that creating a perfect ecosystem isn't really the way to achieve your goal, your ideas about creating a "perfect" ecosystem in the first place are kind of flawed, such as creating organisms without "opposite interests." If you have a herbivore that feeds on a plant, there are opposite interests. If you have two species of plant that both want to take root in the same patch of soil, you have opposite interests. If you have two individual neighboring plants that are both trying to suck up the water in the surrounding soil, then you have opposite interests. There is really no way to remove competition 100% from an ecosystem unless you have nothing but a single organism - and that's not really an ecosystem - or unlimited space and resources - which just isn't practical.

You also mention removing organisms that don't contribute anything "positive" to the ecosystem. Ignoring that "positive" is a highly subjective term and maybe not even applicable, even something like a virulent virus or locusts can have positive effects on certain organisms. A virus that effects predators helps take the pressure off of the prey. Locusts that tear down large vegetation clear up space for new smaller plants to take root after the locusts have passed on. Ecosystems are complex, intricate entities, and I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect one.
  • 0
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone ... with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre

#4 foodchain

foodchain

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,504 posts
  • Locationearth

Posted 16 June 2007 - 02:15 AM

If you want to convert solar energy into energy stored in organic molecules more efficiently, then it isn't the whole ecosystem that you need to look at - it's the molecular mechanics that actually partipate in energy conversion, and these have a limited efficiency. Only a certain percentage of the total light energy that plants absorb is actually put into carbohydrates, and only a certain percentage of the energy in plant carbohydrates ingested by herbivores can actually be extracted for their own uses, etc. Much of the energy in these exchanges is lost to heat, etc. Without getting down to these base mechanics, I don't think a significant change can be made in the efficiency of organismic energy conversion.

Besides the fact that creating a perfect ecosystem isn't really the way to achieve your goal, your ideas about creating a "perfect" ecosystem in the first place are kind of flawed, such as creating organisms without "opposite interests." If you have a herbivore that feeds on a plant, there are opposite interests. If you have two species of plant that both want to take root in the same patch of soil, you have opposite interests. If you have two individual neighboring plants that are both trying to suck up the water in the surrounding soil, then you have opposite interests. There is really no way to remove competition 100% from an ecosystem unless you have nothing but a single organism - and that's not really an ecosystem - or unlimited space and resources - which just isn't practical.

You also mention removing organisms that don't contribute anything "positive" to the ecosystem. Ignoring that "positive" is a highly subjective term and maybe not even applicable, even something like a virulent virus or locusts can have positive effects on certain organisms. A virus that effects predators helps take the pressure off of the prey. Locusts that tear down large vegetation clear up space for new smaller plants to take root after the locusts have passed on. Ecosystems are complex, intricate entities, and I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect one.




I think the idea of a perfect ecosystem also kind of violates the "blind watchmaker" metaphor to a certain degree. As a person I know personally that I cannot go out everyday and make life perfect to how I see fit, I mean even if it was possible what I am getting it is I donít even have the slightest clue how to go about it, and I doubt life in general possess such. I mean looking at more "simple" forms of life, such as bacteria, it almost operates as something of a force really, devoid of any decision making process overall. The higher up you go this seems to change in the presence of animals and what not that posses a brain for instance. I think though that not all the variables of an organisms environment are present for manipulation by that organism or for that matter known to them, I think it would be more in favor of the organism attempting to basically survive the environment but that would highlight little more then natural selection overall. I mean humans without opposable thumbs, what would life be like, or fear for that matter.

Locusts for the most part happen to be if memory serves nothing more then a reaction to extinction mechanism really. In that they come about as a result of population exceeding the ability or resources of the environment, a sort of catch up maybe, though I have not put a great deal of thought into locusts overall so I am most likely wrong on that. The point I think again is just that the specie or organism reacted or adapted to survive the best it could, it does not reflect perfection per say, but in order to achieve that I doubt really for something humans collectively at this point to be able to obtain, or even come close to overall.
  • 0

#5 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 16 June 2007 - 12:19 PM

The required tool should be available in a few dozens of years (chiral life)
Let's focus on a possibility of eliminating some parasite...
What would it result in?
Here is the list of general parasites positive effect, I can think of...
Please expand it and discuss...

1. Population control - when the density of some organisms is growing, it's easier for its parasites to expand - this factor influence stability of the ecosystem.
The question is if without it, some specie could dominate its ecological niche?
Maybe it could be set that it would be automatically controlled by concurrency, food access,...?
Maybe such domination wouldn't be so bad?
Maybe without this control factor, ecosystem would achieve different point, which would be stable?

2. Stress increase - the elimination of weak organisms.
It improve selection, required to evolution. But after a few billions of years, a few thousand shouldn't be so important...
If it would be planned well, evolution shouldn't throw it out from the stable point...

Removing of weak organisms, makes place for new too, which probable would have positive influence on the effectiveness of ecosystem, but needs some energy to grow earlier.
So the removing of the parasite should make the population older, but I think that it wouldn't affect the effectiveness much...?

3. Stress increase - elimination of weak cells
Small amount of radiation can have positive results, perhaps because it helps to remove damaged (weaken) cells, thanks of what there should be smaller probability of cancer...
Summarizing - cells are being more frequent replaced - it's energetic cost, but thanks of it, organism should be more healthy and live longer...
So reduction of this stress among animals looks positive from our point of view (it increase selection of organisms too), but about people - energy isn't a priority - we should choose it as optimal as possible...
There should be many ways of replacing stress from infections.
We could eg use radiation - I think we should study this technique precisely.
I was thinking about using our immune system - teach him a very delicate autoimmune reaction, but it could be very dangerous.
Anyway we would have to give immune system something to do - living in the sterile environment can lead to autoimmune diseases (hygiene hypothesis).
  • 0

#6 Paralith

Paralith

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 470 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC

Posted 16 June 2007 - 06:13 PM

First of all, you have to stop thinking in terms of "improving" the ecosystem. I mean, think about it: what exactly makes one ecosystem better than another? What does it mean to have a positive effect on an ecosystem? You need to think about defining these ideas.

For example, it is possible to have one ecosystem that is more stable than another, that isn't rapidly changing into a very different system, such as a changing environment, or one species rapidly taking over where it didn't before, etc. But is a stable ecosystem "better?" For the organisms living in it, maybe. But not for those organisms that would do better in a different type of environment. Some ecosystems are more productive than others; a rainforest generates much more biomass every year than a desert does. But that's mostly because of the physical environment - all the sunlight in the world won't do a plant much good if it has to keep its stomata closed all the time to prevent the loss of precious water - and therefore unable to take in more C02. "Better" is a much too subjective term to apply to something as complex an ecosystem. Find out exactly what it is you're really trying to achieve - more biomass production, more stability, more diversity? But don't say, I want a "better" ecosystem.

1. Population control - when the density of some organisms is growing, it's easier for its parasites to expand - this factor influence stability of the ecosystem.
The question is if without it, some specie could dominate its ecological niche?
Maybe it could be set that it would be automatically controlled by concurrency, food access,...?
Maybe such domination wouldn't be so bad?
Maybe without this control factor, ecosystem would achieve different point, which would be stable?


Some parasitic organisms do keep their target animals in check. In the rainforest, there is a whole slew of species of fungi, each specifically targeting a certain insect. And to reproduce, these fungi inevitably end up killing their host. Some researchers believe that without this pressure from the fungi, insects may very well take over rainforests. But if they did, that wouldn't necessarily make the rainforest less stable - just different (after a period of change, of course) in its species complement than it is today. I'm not sure what you mean by "automatically controlled by concurrency, food access;" there are many other ways different animals effect each others' population size. Lynx popultions and the population of their primary prey, rabbits, will go through opposing osciallations over time. That is, as rabbits increase in number one year, Lynx increase in number the next year as they can feed more. But more lynx eat more rabbit, and the rabbit number goes down the next year. Less rabbit means less lynx food, so the lynx number goes down the year after. Less lynx means less predation on rabbits, so again the rabbit number rises.

2. Stress increase - the elimination of weak organisms.
It improve selection, required to evolution. But after a few billions of years, a few thousand shouldn't be so important...
If it would be planned well, evolution shouldn't throw it out from the stable point...
Removing of weak organisms, makes place for new too, which probable would have positive influence on the effectiveness of ecosystem, but needs some energy to grow earlier.
So the removing of the parasite should make the population older, but I think that it wouldn't affect the effectiveness much...?


Again with the subjective terms - "improve," "weak," "effectiveness." Whether or not an organism is considered strong or weak will depend on its environment. A polar bear may kick all butt in the arctic, but plop it in the middle of an the African savannah and it would probably quickly overheat and die. An animal that lives a lot in burrows and has evolved defense mechanisms against most parasites will not suffer from parasitic infection as much animals that rarely have to deal with parasites - and thus have fewer defenses. And how do you "improve" selection? Even in humans, where many people think natural selection no longer holds much sway over our evolution, perhaps sexual selection is now more prevalent, or even cultural selection. Is one of these types of selection better than another?

Evolution doesn't "throw" out anything; a species will die when it is no longer able to survive in its current environment, and cannot adapt.

And what makes an ecosystem more effective? Do you mean more productive? Do you mean more stable?

3. Stress increase - elimination of weak cells
Small amount of radiation can have positive results, perhaps because it helps to remove damaged (weaken) cells, thanks of what there should be smaller probability of cancer...
Summarizing - cells are being more frequent replaced - it's energetic cost, but thanks of it, organism should be more healthy and live longer...
So reduction of this stress among animals looks positive from our point of view (it increase selection of organisms too), but about people - energy isn't a priority - we should choose it as optimal as possible...
There should be many ways of replacing stress from infections.
We could eg use radiation - I think we should study this technique precisely.


I think you migh misunderstand how radiation effects cells. The most significant effect of radiation is its mutagenic one - its ability to mutate DNA. While some cells will probably die, others will live, some of which are mutated, and several of which will probably become cancerous. Also, a higher frequencey of cell replacement requires a higher level of cell division, as that's how you make new cells. Every time a cell divides, it has to replicate its DNA, and every time DNA replicates, there is a small chance an error will occurr, and a small chance that error will go unnoticed by proofreading mechanisms, and a small chance that the resulting mutation will result in a cancerous cell. So the more cell growth and division there is, the higher the odds are that cancer will develop. Though I suppose if your goal is to stress an animal, giving it cancer will do just that.

All organisms are susceptible to many different kinds of stress, and are usually subjected to at least some of them throughout their lifetime. I don't see a need to go out of our way to find new sources of stress for organisms. If an organism's environment changes in such a way that it is no longer adapted for it, it will experience stress, and the species will either adapt to the new environment in some way, or it will die.

Selection will work within its context. We don't need to "increase" or "improve" it, unless you're trying to select for something specific. And as I've already said several times, this is what you need to do: figure out exactly what your goal is. If it's efficiency of energy conversion, I've already addressed that in my first post. If it's something else, you need to define it.
  • 0
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone ... with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre

#7 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 16 June 2007 - 08:31 PM

ok, short question :)
Assume that we can completely remove all viruses, do You think it would result more crop prodution per hectar?
The same question with crop/food animal parasites?

One another - how You explain positve effects of small amount of radiation?
Cell division can produce errors, but when it had to replace damaged one...
  • 0

#8 Paralith

Paralith

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 470 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC

Posted 16 June 2007 - 09:09 PM

In general I think it's safe to assume that keeping our crops and food animals clean, healthy, and parasite free will result in more production. And doing so is an ongoing challenge in the agricultural industry.

Like I said, I don't know a whole lot about all the possible effects of radiation; I wouldn't be too surprised if small amounts of controlled radiation in certain situations can have unexpected benefits. But if your goal is to consistently replace old cells with new ones, even if it's not necessary, I don't think using radiation is the way to go. Your body does have its own mechanisms to detect and eradicate unhealthy cells, after all - otherwise we'd get cancer a lot easier. And again, increasing the cell turnover rate will not necessarily make you healthier, but it will increase your risks of getting cancer.
  • 0
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone ... with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre

#9 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 17 June 2007 - 05:56 AM

To do it we have to use tons of pesticides, etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide.
They are no neutral for us/them/enviroment, not perfect, expensive, not killing every parasite...
In fact they only reduce number of them, and plants can defence themselves, but this defence costs too.
But they cannot do anything with viruses - I imagine that there should a constant level of them, which influence the effectiveness...

Replacing damaged cells wasn't high priority in evolution - it costs energy and give significal benefits rather for older humans then taken under consideration by evolution - that had prodigy (mainly let say 15-30 years).
Small amounts of stress stimulate organism to spend extra energy - hormosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
We should learn how to use optimally this mechanisms, but I can agree that infections aren't the best way of stress - we can throw out 3 from my list?
  • 0

#10 Paralith

Paralith

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 470 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC

Posted 17 June 2007 - 06:34 AM

From what I understand about the hormesis article you linked to, this phenomenon does not always hold and is still very uncertain. It seems to me that hormesis would better be defined as a characteristic of certain, specific situations, rather than a rule. Certain toxins or stressors have different effects when given in low doses than when given in high doses. That makes sense, especially in terms of the rationale given - that the small dose may prime the body to prepare defenses or other recovery mechanisms ahead of time. This is not unlike how a vaccine works - a small dose of the virus is given so that your body will learn to recognize it, and if encountered again in dangerous amounts, your body will already have mechanisms in place to fight it.

Small amounts of stress stimulate organism to spend extra energy - hormosis.


Let's think about the nature of stress for a minute. If an organism is stressed, that basically means something is wrong. The organism has a parasite that is taking away needed energy; there is less food in the area than the organism needs; there is a predator nearby that could injure or kill the organism. Since something is wrong, then something must be done about it. The immune system will kick in to kill the parasite - the organism will migrate to a new area with more food - the organism will constantly stay alert and on guard, listening for the predator. All of these are energy requiring responses. Stress, no matter what kind or what amount, will elicit a response, and that response will require energy. This is nothing special, and I don't think it has much to do with hormesis. This is why stress is in general so bad - all the organism's energy is being spent on other things, leaving less energy for growth, health, and reproduction.

Elderly people are a special case. Today's humans are living much longer than they ever have in human evolutionary history. Their bodies are naturally declining - they have lived through and past reproductive age, and are entering a time that, metaphorically speaking, evolution is blind to. Our bodies are not adapted to maintainthemselves into such old age. At this point, it's a game of "use it or loose it." Muscles will atrophy, bones will weaken - unless they keep active, sort of fooling their bodies into thinking that maintaining these structures is necessary, because they are being used. Memory and cognitive ability will fade, unless the brain is actively used, unless you keep learning - again, making maintenance necessary because it is being used. Just because this is true does not mean that stress in general is good. Because it isn't.

I think you also need to throw out point 2. Elimination of "weak" animals - ones not suited to surviving in this ideal ecosystem of yours - will happen naturally. Stress will happen naturally. The organisms will adapt, leave, or die. And if they adapt well enough to survive and reproduce, I don't think even you can call them "weak." I think point 1 is the only one that has any merit, though again, population control will also often happen naturally, and there are many other ways to do it than with diseases or parasites. Predator-prey relationships, space and resource limitations, etc.
  • 0
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone ... with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre

#11 foodchain

foodchain

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,504 posts
  • Locationearth

Posted 17 June 2007 - 07:37 AM

Radiation(can,Type? do you know?) breaks the nucleotide polymer, but they rejoin, when this occurs its typically out of sequence, thus a majority of the time its bad, at least thatís the way radiation works in regards to getting hit by such indirectly from say an atomic bomb at any rate. I think what paralith is trying to point out is the complexity of the environment in total in regards to simply saying improving something. Now taking into consideration that nothing in life is truly free to cut things short, what would greatly enhancing energy consumption by our species lead to? Not to say we should not come first, but destruction of the ecology will probably only bury us as a species really.

I think in current terms the best terms of improvements are at the hands of conservation coupled with research and understanding really.
  • 0

#12 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 17 June 2007 - 08:17 AM

About stress...
Living long with good health isn't priority for evolution.
It is a process that favorates organisms which can use availible energy statistically most effective to breed as many as possible.
It's why we are lazy - we need motivation to use energy.
Stress is a kind of such motivation - to spend extra energy for immune system, to repair something... You cannot say that it is generally 'so bad'.
It is damaging, when exceeding some limit, below it is positive - it's kind of motivation, which require extra energy in the given moment, but gives long-term benefits, like sports, learning, etc...
Thinking about us - humans, energy isn't the priority, it's 'good:)' that we allow stress stay on opimal level on many aspects of life.

About points - I agree that only 1 is essential.
Is it possible to create stable, more effective ecosystem, eg crops, while removing some parasites?
And if would remove some more organisms?

How to make it to stable increase effectiveness, using organism we know or artifically weaken?
  • 0

#13 Paralith

Paralith

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 470 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC

Posted 17 June 2007 - 04:12 PM

You have to think about it in the right context. Thanks to our cultural and technological advances, many humans today don't have to put a lot of effort into simply surviving. A person in a modern-day first world country could get by his whole life working in a fast food joint flipping burgers and going home and playing video games. And if he manages to get married and have kids along the way, then he's been reproductively successful. In evolutionary terms, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that.

But you and I look at that and say, what an empty, boring, wasteful life. We say, it's better to challenge yourself, it's better to have some "stress," as you say, to motivate us to do better things with ourselves. But I think this is more of a human-created value, and not one that is necessarily better when it comes to reproductive success.

I think the idea of sort of creating a stable, productive ecosystem for the production of our food is one that the agricultural industry is probably actively studying - they may not be thinking in the same terms as you, but I think the end goal is the same. Though a monoculture of corn isn't really an ecosystem. Yes, if you remove all the corn's parasites, are their diseases, and anything that could possibly compete with them for resources, and only allow organisms to stay that form a beneficial mutualistic symbiosis with corn - then that corn will produce much more.
  • 0
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone ... with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre

#14 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 17 June 2007 - 10:12 PM

In my opinion creative thinking is something that avers us from animials...
But on the other hand, how would world built of individuals look like...
We've lost the point ... :)
Sport is good example of stress that requires extra energy, but improves immune system, gives health ... and can be overdosed.

About energy effectivenes - food generally isn't now required, how it will look like in 50 years? It's very difficult to stop populationg growth, especially in poor country...
The other thing is that natural energy resources, even nuclear power, is predicted (if we replace to closed fuel cycle too late) to run out even in this century...
Maybe this chemical energy, converted form solar, is one of our hope?
We should think about more effective use of it, then just burning...
Eg many mitochondria and large membranes that uses natural pomps to create pH gradient, which can be converted into electicity...

What do You think about chiral life?
Create simple, closed, sterile ecosystems?
  • 0

#15 Paralith

Paralith

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 470 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC

Posted 18 June 2007 - 12:52 AM

I realize now that I should have read your previous thread about chrial life and your blog entry earlier. I didn't know that this thread was an extension of that previous one - I thought you were trying to find ways to control and adjust existing ecosystems. Now I see that you're trying to find a way to design a new ecosystem, just pick and choose which organisms you want, change their chirality, set it up, and let it run.

I think this is a very challenging goal. Ecosystems are very complex and to design one from scratch, and be sure that it can sustain itself autonomously and still have the high rate of food production that you're looking for - that's a tall order. There's still so much we don't know. As already mentioned by someone else in your other thread on chirality, there's all sorts of micororganisms that are beneficial and perhaps even necessary that we may not know much about yet. And in selecting the organisms that we change the chirality of, we could miss vital ones and not know it.

You also seem overly optimisitic in our ability to achieve mirror chirality in the first place. Do you have any outside opinions or research that would support your idea? The minimum unit that would have to be mirrored (for humans and other sexually reproducing animals, at least) would be the very beginnings of an embryo - at the single diploid cell stage. At that stage you have the entire genome, and you have the necessary machinery (proteins) available to express that genome correctly. This is still a lot of stuff to change. The entirety of the genome, enough of the proteins to make it work. That's a LOT, a lot of things to recreate accurately and correctly. And again, we would also need to consider exterior microbes that later become necessary. And make sure we have them all. And as you said, then we need the right form of food. And I have a feeling most people won't be happy eating a boring paste of the correct chirality. To keep human life at the same quality it is now, a LOT of things would have to be changed, accurately, and correctly. How will the templates be read? How will the new molecules be made? How will they be constructed? I'll admit I don't know a lot about nanotechnology, but do you? I haven't see you reference anything to support your idea that this is going to be possible. That would be my first step, if I were you.
  • 0
Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone ... with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
~Jean-Paul Sartre

#16 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 18 June 2007 - 05:52 AM

I really do know that it isn't easy... :)
We are just entering to this scale of control. But in hundreds of years, I think we will try to construct our own 'better' life. What is the whole talking about nanorobots? One of the first steps should be copying of the nature - chiral ecoli. Just to show our power. Will we copy more?

How to make such prokaryote?
Huge problem is to create chiral enzymes. We have to fasten it somehow and add amino acids one by one. Analogically with DNA...
Then we will be able to copy nature's mechanisms...
Now take :) a solution of phospholipids, it will automatically create a bubble, fill the membrane with proteins, pump DNA, ... , ATP ... and voilla :)
Having this small factories, synthesis of elements will be simple.
But the real problem is with eukaryote. But maybe we could use the original membranes and just replace what we need...
Now we can slowly recreate bottom-up customized ecosystem...
Human won't be on the beginning - don't worry, he will have what to eat :)

In this thread I'm asking what to select in this customisation...
  • 0

#17 foodchain

foodchain

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,504 posts
  • Locationearth

Posted 18 June 2007 - 07:03 AM

After reading your the link to your web page or blog, however you title it I am not sure, it does help me actually understand what you are talking about a bit more. A while back I thought of a sci-fi story I wanted to write in which a person creates a virus called genesis that basically attacks the human organism and life besides it to alter the course of evolution into that persons model utopia, I would of course make the story in the end fail on the part of the persons dreams in that ignorance is no utopia nor did the person understand what they were doing. I am an avid fan of genetics, being the human like most anything else in reality is composed of the elements per say, and that such in an engineering sense is beyond anything we can currently create, and the understanding of such is drastically complex in comparison to our current understanding of such. I do fear though what fully understanding such could lead to in what people might want to do with is, I mean if per say people came to a point in which they could program a plant to make tennis racquets as an odd example. TO the human brain, people making information processors out of such, what would be the reality to any incident consciousness along the way, or simply persists in such? TO the concept of slaves even, I mean giving human history when it comes to technology people have created a better life to the ability to end all life, or more to the point its a sort of super state, the future that is and as much as genetics could be the fountain of youth, another take on it is someone using it to produce a severely deadly virus.

I would suppose though that what you are talking about is probably the next generation of medicine, in which you could be healed in a fashion that did not involve a large variety of side effects or even having a person basically cut you open in order to help you.
  • 0

#18 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 18 June 2007 - 07:20 AM

How someone from a few hundrets years ago wolud react to our world...
When the nature gives us the possibility - sooner or later someone will use it...
This is a kind of discussion to see such possibility, dangers and prepare for them - find a good solution.
And don't You think that it's better to realise such possibility now then in 50 years, when required technology should be generally availible...?

Science is unstopable and maybe leads to autodestruction - maybe it's the reason why we don't see other civilisations... or maybe matured civilsations has some other motivations ...
  • 0

#19 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 18 June 2007 - 01:52 PM

I think I have a sketch of production the (chiral) string of protein(/DNA):
Prepare a surface with with oriented lattice of something that can adhere amino acids and that they can be easly released (by light, electric current, pH, temperature...).
Then 'just' print (like ink printer) or litograph (use different solutions of aminoacids and light specyfic pattern to adhere) given patterns of strings of amino acids...
Then use some catalysis to join neighbours.
We would have maaany copies full of errors at one time.
For selection process, we can use something the correct ones would adhere to.

About the other parts of prokaryote...
The cell should 'live' in specyfic, precise conditions, without most of them.
Then it should try to stabilise itself, rebuild what's needed (like the wall).
This would give us time to do something to allow it to reproduce.
  • 0

#20 Duda Jarek

Duda Jarek

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 255 posts

Posted 18 June 2007 - 10:12 PM

We can use normal cell too, especially to transform eukaryote.
Most of the proteins work with symmetric molecues, the other we could block or do nothing with them - if we place the cell in good conditions, feed it (even artifically with eg ATP), it should be stable while 'slowly' adding chiral molecues, replacing DNA ... and after some time/generations it will replace everything itself.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users