SkepticLance

To mooeypoo I suspect you may have missed the point of my last post. We are talking of an animal specifically genetically engineered to live in space. As you said, radiation is a problem. Thus, some of that genetic modification will be to deal with radiation. Lots of species can do this already. For example : quoting from my last reference : "Deinococcus radiodurans R1 Of the Deinococcus species, only Deinococcus radiodurans strain R1 has been extensively studied. High doses of gamma radiation, as well as prolonged periods of desiccation, generate numerous double-strand breaks in the genome of D. radiodurans. It has been shown that D. radiodurans is able to repair the radiation-induced breaks within a few hours with cells grown and recovered in rich growth medium. The genome of D. radiodurans R1 has been completely sequenced and analyzed (Makarova et al., 2001, Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 65: 44), and the effects of exposure of the cells to gamma radiation on the transcriptome and proteome have been determined, demonstrating modulation of expression of numerous genes. Based on what is known at present, three hypotheses to explain its radiation-tolerance can be proposed: D. radiodurans may use conventionnel repair mechanisms, but much more efficiently than other bacteria; novel repair proteins may be present among the hypothetical proteins of which the function is currently unknown; the DNA is present as a highly condensed structure that limits dispersion of fragments generated by irradiation, which may facilitate repair. Despite these hypotheses, the genome repair mechanisms of D. radiodurans, and thus its extreme radiation-tolerance, are still largely unclear (Cox & Battista, 2005, Nat Rev Microbiol 3: 882)." This bacterium has the genetic make-up to handle many times the radioactivity that space has to throw at you. Genetic insertion of the genes for radio-tolerance that this bacterium has would be more than sufficient to create an animal able to tolerate the radiation of space.

Cameron Re movement in space. I think of two possibilities. One is to use reaction mass. That is, they eject at high speed some material such as liquid water, squid-like, to propel them in the opposite direction. Obviously, to do this they would need to be able to replenish that mass. The other is to use light sails. Perhaps large membranes they could angle for propulsion, by reflecting light off them? Of course, a space dwelling being does not have to be in free space. If it lived on the surface of asteroids, for example, it could crawl about the asteroid. Dispersion could be by something like spraying spores into space. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that such a being would need an ultra-slow metabolism. Space is so big that almost anything involving travel is going to take an awful long time. Perhaps our hypothetical being might be like a tardigrade, and hibernate for centuries. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedTo Mooeypoo I doubt that radiation would be that much of a problem. Remember we are genetically altering this beast for space, and that will include high radiation tolerance. Humans are very vulnerable to radiation. but lots of species have genes giving excellent DNA repair, and high radiation tolerance. Our GM beast could be made to tolerate a million times as much radiation as a human. Genes from radiation tolerant bacteria might well do the trick. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894282,00.html?promoid=googlep Also http://www.genoscope.cns.fr/spip/Deinococcus-deserti-tolerant-to.html

Mokele Please refer to my post #7

Mokele As I pointed out earlier, energy release would have to be anaerobic. If the metabolism was slowed sufficiently, this is quite possible theoretically. Even humans carry out a degree of anaerobic respiration for energy release.

Swansont I have not suggested I know the answer to that question. What I said was that predictions contain a substantial error factor. To answer your question would require a knowledge of how the total tonnage of ice in Antarctica was estimated. Even that would be incomplete knowledge, since isostatic rebound after melting will have an effect also.

Charon You are correct in saying that temperature control would be important. Assuming the animal concerned was living within the zone where water is liquid, it would be possible for it to maintain its internal temperature with heat collecting and heat dissipating surfaces. Solar heating, and black radiating fins perhaps?

Bearing in mind the very serious medical impact on adults working in weightlessness for long periods (both loss of muscle and loss of bone), and the very vulnerable nature of a developing baby, I would say that gestation in weightlessness would be disastrous and I doubt such a baby would be born alive. Even if so, it would probably be deformed. As has already been said, providing artificial gravity is not difficult. Merely tether two space habitats together and rotate them around their centre of mass. If this is done, then gestation and a healthy birth may be possible. That is, if you take care of the radiation problem. That is a real hassle. In theory it could be done by generating the correct and very powerful magnetic fields around the space habitat. However, we cannot do that yet. Otherwise, a physical shield would do it, but it needs to be thick. Getting such mass into space is a logistical and economic nightmare. If the shield was water, about 10 metres thick is required!

There is no theoretical reason why not. Of course, to survive, any animal must have a compatible ecology. This could be supplied artificially by humans who bring food and water. Our hypothetical being would have to obtain energy anaerobically, which is less energy efficient, but living in weightlessness may permit a slowing of metabolism to suit. We already know that certain bacteria of the genus Bacillus can produce spores that can survive in space almost indefinitely. A more interesting question, in my mind, is whether a whole ecology could come into being, and evolve in space. Perhaps in a place where materials are available, such as the rings around a planet? If that planet were in the orbit that permitted water to be liquid?? Most of the water could be ice, as long as there were pockets of liquid water here and there.

I regard Larry Niven's Legacy of Heorot as good science in SF. The protagonists are colonists on a newplanet around another star. They travelled in an ark ship, under induced hibernation, under very low body temperature, at sub light speeds, and arrived. The story begins after their arrival, when they are landed and trying to set up a self sufficient colony. The story line involves conflict with a native semi-intelligent life form, which is designed by the author with innovative metabolism. The point being that you do not need fantasy elements to write SF that sticks to good science. Larry Niven does not always write such straight science. In fact, he wrote a series of short time travel stories called Flight of the Horse, in which he realised that time travel was magic, and so treated the whole series of stories as a fantasy, not SF, series. Fun!

The error factor in sea level predictions can be obtained form looking at the predictions themselves. Current sea level rise is 3 mm per year. If this continued at this rate, the sea level rise by 2100 would be 273 mm - or a little less than one imperial foot. IPCC have varied their predictions from 300 mm to one metre. Dr. James Hansen, an eminent climate scientist, has published an opinion that sea levels will rise by 5 metres by the year 2100. Thus, sea level rise predictions are highly variable, illustrating the error factor in such predictions.

That Hitchhikers Guide business of 'throw yourself at the ground and miss'. Occurred to me that this is what happens whenever anything enters orbit. Prehistoric animals?? Forget Jurassic Park. At least that had a rationale - weak though it may have been. What about 'A Million Years BC' in which cavepeople were running around dodging carnivorous dinosaurs? Mind you, with Raquel Welch in that fetching rawhide bikini, who notices anyway?

I must agree with that last point. I especially disdain those shows that promote bulldust as if it were real. eg. Mediums contacting the dead. I tend to classify fiction into honest fiction and dishonest fiction. Honest fiction is the Lord of the Rings type, where there is no pretence. We all know it is pure fiction for entertainment and escapism. Dishonest fiction is where the author is trying to convince the reader or viewer that what he/she is saying is true, when it is all a lie. Examples would be Eric Van Daniken, Velikovski, mediums, some quack medicine perveyers and so on. Fiction, pretending to be fact.

The pack ice is ice floating on water. The melting and refreezing of this has no effect on sea level. Ice on land is another matter, and if it melts it will raise sea level a lot. Predictions are rife with potential error. You will see an enormous range of sea level rise predictions. Take with a good pinch of salt.

Anyone else cringe at techno-babble, such as we see all the time on Star Trek?

To Lovecroft Your latest post is somewhat better than the earlier one, and clarifies essential points. Let me add a couple of things. First : it is still way too early to make antibiotic claims for garlic or garlic extracts. There is some promising research, but we still have no data showing it can act as an antibiotic in the human body. Second : Herbs. The vast majority of herbal remedies have simply not been studied using good science sufficiently to say whether they are effective or not. The ones that have been so studied mostly turn out to be useless, and a few actually quite toxic. There is a small number that prove to be useful (a tiny percentage of the total being sold), such as willow bark - which led to aspirin; foxglove - which led to digitalis; arteminisin - which led to a new malaria treatment. As a general rule, though, I would urge extreme caution with herbs. Unless there is good scientific data to support their use (rare), they are more likely to harm you than help. Good scientific data does not mean a single study. Good scientific data means at least 20 randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, clinical trials, which give results that are statistically very solid. Third : essential oils. Apart from the placebo effect, there is absolutely no good scientific data to show they are any use at all. However, they can be good placebo's, simply because many smell very nice. If you make the air smell more pleasant, as well as lying to people by saying it is healing, that may make people think it is doing them good, and the mental effect takes over. Warning : placebos do not work on serious illnesses. They do not combat infections, or cancer, or serious other illnesses. They work most effectively on ailments that are not at all serious, and especially psychosomatic ills.

Lovecroft I would prefer you had not made that post. Too much there that can mislead. Good antibiotics are NOT easy to make in pure form. It took many years of research before the first penicillin tablets were available, and they were nowhere near as good as later versions. Herbs are NOT antibiotic. Many are antiseptic, which is entirely a different thing. They work only at the site of a wound, and only on a fresh wound. Once infection is established, they are ineffective. And they are not as good as modern antiseptics. Garlic as antibiotic?????? I know a lot of fad foodists make that claim, but it is a very shakey claim. Garlic is probably a very healthy food, apart from its severely anti-social effects, but as far as I know, it is NOT an antibiotic, and it will not cure illness. When you took it and got better, it was probably time that healed, not garlic! Bacteriophages are NOT easy to cultivate. No virus is. They require living organisms, not culture media to live on. The value of bacteriophages as antibiotic substitutes is still a matter of research. It is likely that they will work only under special limited conditions. And avoid atropine except as used by a fully qualified physician.

Another claimed approach to nuclear fusion, which so far has been fraudulent, is sonoluminescence. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i30/8630notw2.html

I love science fiction and read a lot. I also read a certain amount of fantasy. However, I have this feeling that a fantasy writer can get away with anything - worlds based on magic. However, a science fiction writer should respect good science, and try and get, at least the basics, right. Current book I am reading shows space aeroplanes flying into orbit with electric coils in their wings to ride on the Earth's magnetic field. Of course that is impossible, so I cringe. I suppose that even the idea of faster than light travel is really an impossibility and a cringe factor. However, I tend to accept at least one such piece of non science per book as a plot devise. Occasionally there is a really great book, like Larry Niven's Legacy of Heorot in which good science is kept to throughout. Do other people feel the way I do? If so, what do you find makes you cringe the most?

Sorry Sayonara You have begun this thread as a 'bash SL' approach. I will not be commenting on this thread any further.

Learning morality does not really come from Sunday School anyway. During the major formative years for any human - the early years, primarily before age 5, and then to a lesser extent until about age 10 - we are most influenced by our parents. After that, the major influence moves to our peer group. Such things as Sunday School will always be minor influences for the bulk of the human species. My wife is a school teacher, and I have to remind her often that the way children develop is not due to her influence. Nor is she able to change children except to the most minor degree. By the time a kid reaches his/her teenage years, they are beyond the influence of parents, teachers, priests etc. Basically, morality is taught by parents, and then later modifed by the peer group. This has been the case since our tribal hunter/gatherer ancestors evolved from Mr. Homo erectus.

As Sayonara pointed out, morality is subjective. What is moral in one society is wrong in another. There is no universal 'moral' way of doing things, and morality changes with time. Teach one morality this generation, and the next will have to rewrite the textbooks. In the 1960's human artificial insemination was considered immoral. Today, it is common. Today, human cloning is considered immoral. Tomorrow, it will be commonplace. And so on. The only morality that is close to universal are basics like 'be nice to each other'. That hardly takes a university course to teach!

You would be correct about the scepticism. There are two reasons for the general disbelief. 1. Previously claimed evidence of cold fusion has not been replicated by others repeating the experiments. 2. There is no mechanism known by which this process can occur. In spite of that, a small minority of enthusiasts continues to carry out experiments, hoping to prove cold fusion. In spite of lots of effort in that direction, evidence has remained scanty, to say the least. Still, if it happened, and could be turned into a practical energy device, it would revolutionise civilisation. Probably too much to hope for. Don't hold your breath!

The other possibility is to re-adapt the wings into another function. For example, they have the surface area for gills, or to act as an air trap - holding a bubble of air between wings and body.

An important factor is employee power. If an employee belongs to a powerful union, which can drive a company to the wall by all going out on strike, guess what? Its members get paid more. Sometimes a hell of a lot more. Film stars in the early days of silent movies got paid a pittance. Even the ones that were at the very top in popularity still got paid peanuts. Then they realised their power! They started wielding pressure. The film studios needed their drawing power, and salaries started going up. The end of the process is that, today, top film stars get paid tens of millions per movie. Power permits pay.

DrP It is all those B group vitamins in Guiness. Next time, before the IQ test begins, down half a litre of Jamiesons whiskey, which is still Irish, and see how you do! Did you not know that the true cause of 'the troubles' was Jamiesons?