Sayonara

If the species is endangered due to insufficient adaptation, cloning individuals won't solve anything.

Jaws are getting smaller because of changes in our diet and the way we prepare food. When was the last time you heard a woman say "oh no, his jaw is far too manly. I prefer making babies with ladyboys."? Or did you just forget half the population are males?

That was the best question AI asked, just before it went all "Hollywood irrational". (Except not with a clone, obviously.)

Cloning a personality in the biochemical or neural sense is unlikely to ever be made feasible, if it's even possible. But we should at least consider the possibility that at some point we may learn to duplicate personality and store it elsewhere, perhaps even imprint it later into a "blank" clone. Much as I hate referring to the dumbed-down, often wrong, popular sci of the movies, 6th Day had some interesting ideas.

And the finer the spray is, the worse that problem will get.

True, but natural selection can happen with or without outside influences. And changing the environment simply changes the influences it has on us; so selective pressure is only shifted, not removed.

How does our species alter nature constantly?

Not very. The only thing that has really changed is that the range of factors affecting us has shifted. For instance, on the whole we aren't advantaged by having highly developed predator-evasion adaptations, but on the other hand the less observant among us are more likely to be killed in avoidable "man-made" accidents (traffic accidents etc). There are also far more discrete effects than in other species, such as highly complex, socially-mediated, peer-influenced courtship rituals and mate selection.

...but you'll have to ask Blike if you want that doing.

For what he wants to do, it's going to cost more than that.

So is cloning still worthless? (We can't safely clone humans yet, so if you assume we have acheived one technology for the purposes of this discussion, you may as well assume we have the other.)

Isn't it true that science constantly revises what we know? 100 year ago space travel was impossible. The fact is that we don't have an anywhere near complete understanding of personality yet, so we can't predict accurately whether we will ever be able to store or duplicate it.

Do you know that, or is it an opinion?

^^^ Split off from the "potato crisps" thread

You'll need an awful lot of expensive equipment to turn nitrogen into a liquid form, and keep it that way. It would be dangerous and horribly impractical. Hot jet chewing gum removers work fine. Liquid nitrogen is a bit... well, overkilly.

It's almost as if you looked at what he posted, then posted it again. Spooky.

Stop making pointless posts.

Bumped = sent to the top by a new post.

It's not really an 'inside joke' when it's posted on a public forum in a recently bumped thread

Does zero point energy deal with infinte energetics, or did I just dream that?

I don't remember. I'm pretty sure there's a thread devoted to it somewhere - use the search function.

Don't get excited, it's only "molecule".

Time dude. The window during which you observe the light will have an effect. You don't want to trace its path forever, so where you decide "that's enough of watching it zoom off in that direction" becomes an important consideration. Or something.

I suppose it depends what your t-axis is doing.

It made sense when I started, then gradually... less so