Kylonicus

Oxytocin to my knowledge works on the estrogen levels in brain. If I were to take Depo Provera, a progestin which inhibits the production of testosterone and estrogen, then I might have the capacity to be resistant, if not immune(but probably not) to Oxytocin's effects. Essentially, if I could do that, I could use Oxytocin to get a girl to like me, form a relationship with me, then I could be trusting and it wouldn't matter as much. Since testosterone is converted to estrogen in the brain, an aromatase inhibitor might do the trick, however, those are highly illegal, therefore I can't use them. Then I could let up on the testosterone/estrogen suppression.

Okay, what about this... About the whole gold thing, that Molekele talked about Resonance frequencies don't just exist with gold, they exist with everything, therefore, what if we simply isolated the resonance frequency of gp-120 or any other distinguishing property, and then blasted ER at the person? I just thought of a way to improve that... What if we used the ER to shine inside, to light up the viral proteins, then we used quantum tunneling, to project the ER of the right frequency only at those viral proteins where they are located in the body. BTW, quantum tunneling allows you to teleport energy through barriers, and so, perhaps we could aim it, without destroying much of the tissue of the uninfected material. I believe the effects without quantum tunneling would be similar to radiation therapy for cancer patients. However, with the capacity to target viral proteins directly with quantum tunneling, it shouldn't be that big of a problem I think. That's my opinion.

There are legal ways to get hold of legal, but controlled substances.

Oxytocin is known to be a strong and powerful compound, which is related to positive interpersonal relationships, mating, and child rearing. It is reduced when people have a negative emotional experience, think about someone or something they don't like, and when people are afraid. Essentially, it is the hormone(also coupled with vasopressin) of love and relationships. It also forms very strong positive emotional experiences. There is more to this but that's the jist. Therefore, would it be wrong to spray oneself with a rather large quantity, so that the fumes would disseminate into the air and intoxicate people, making the people like you, a whole lot more. This essentially is, in essence, indirectly drugging people, so that they might have a skewed perception of you in your favor, which would be excellent, for making sales, getting into relationships of anykind, or for the nasty purpose of picking up girls. However, this would be no different, than wearing a whole lot of highly expensive perfume, which through the use of high powered phermones, does the same thing. I believe it is currently legal, and I will probably use it if it is legal, so that my prospects of relationships with women will be greatly enhanced. But... Is it ethical? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

Certain obstacles will make us weak if we don't overcome them. However, presupposing that you don't NEED to overcome certain obstacles, and the things developed in overcoming those obstacles isn't necessary, then there is little loss. Plus for those who can't overcome such obstacles, it gives fair advantages.

Yah, I have heard of Hitler and what not, I think that his methods were wrong(trying to purify the race, which in turned decreased the diversity of the genes) but the general idea of making people faster, stronger, better and what not, is valid. But being willing to do whatever it takes, i.e killing people, is not ethical. However I see no problem with genetic modification.

As long as it created a condition that the HIV couldn't survive within the cells, then it may work.

NOOOO, it will be good. Think, who are the people who tend to procreate the most right now? It tends to be the least educated, the least intelligent, and least economically viable(Keyword is tends). But with this technology, people with characteristics that make them successful, will be able to have as many kids as they want, without the burden, so they won't have to disrupt their busy lives, meanwhile the child can be put in daycare, so all those really smart career women and their genes won't die out of the gene pool. As it is, it's either your career, or have very, very, few kids, if any. Plus for nerds like me, who might not get a chance to procreate(or if we do, it would have to be with some hag), we can have children(I REALLY, REALLY wanna have kids, and a large family) without having women! In reality, the people who are getting screwed here aren't men or women, it's the poor, the technologically badward, and the luddites.

Probably the reason we don't have those amino acids, is because they aren't as essential to life as the ones we have on Earth.

Finally, men will be liberated from women! Combined with erotic sex bots, with the full capacity for love and emotions, men will NEVER EVER need women again! Feminist may hate it, but I would love it. Men that women thought "were pigs", but who were exceptionally intelligent, capable and what not, would be able to reproduce. Men who had the emotional IQ of a chipmunk, but an IQ of 183, could finally reproduce. This would also free me from having to debate with a potential partner about all the prenatal manipulation I want to do to my child! I was just thinking about working on something like this! Hurray, HOORAH! One small step for humans, one giant step for humankind.

Besides the media being a business, the media companies are currently in league with the government, which makes them less likely to criticize them. The Republican party has helped big media companies by eliminating some of the restrictions of anti-trust laws. Therefore, if the media companies report something that hurts the government, when it's something that doesn't cater a whole lot of ratings, then they don't really care. My opinion,

Hopefully.

Quick, patent your genes before someone else does! You could probably sell off the genetic rights to your mutation.

Hmmm, I would need to find a celluar mechanism which regulates temperature.

I was thinking about this, and I was thinking about how LBS neurons have the capacity to be frozen, meanwhile our cells if frozen, will, for the most part, die. I was thinking that perhaps if LBS neurons could survive extreme cold, perhaps they could survive extreme heat. But why can they survive extreme heat/cold? Because the cells have their genes regulated in such a way that tells them not to die, and that survival and proliferation are the highest priorities. Well, many viruses, and many parasites can't withstand extremely high temperatures. That's how the HIV dialysis works, that heat the blood up to the point where it kills the virus but not the human. Therefore, I am thinking that if we upregulated the trophic influence on our cells, and increased their capacity for survival, and then, due to their increased capacity for survival, used a machine to raise our internal temperature to around 120-130, then after the virus is eliminated stop the procedure, then we could effectively eliminate HIV, and the majority of other diseases that people are suffering from. What do yall think?>

I was thinking what if we simply genetically modified immune cells and mass produced them in a lab, then injected them into the human body. A combination of antibody treatment, and white blood cell treatment would make curing many diseases easier. I was thinking of genetically modifying white blood cells, to make there internal temperature very hot, but make them robust enough, and have enough internal trophic factors to make them capable of with standing internal temperatures. This way they can't be infected by viruses, simultaneously, making them stronger, and more reactive, so that they will be better at killing things, and injecting a massive amount of them into someones blood. So long as you didn't inject them with B cells or monocytes, there may be a possiblity of not inducing a immune response. Monocytes consumes tissue and what not, and B cells make antibodies. If you injected them with the foreign and possibly mutated B cells, then it would recognize that your not it's same cell type and develop antibodies to attack your immune system. Monocytes on the other hand, might consume something and give off a chemical message that something is funny, and tell that to one of your B cells. But if you don't grow either monocytes or B cells, then that shouldn't be a problem. However, your body would probably attack the foreign white blood cells, however, if you made such a large number of the foreign white blood cells, that would make you sick, but it would treat the disease. I am mainly thinking of this as a treatment for incurable, or lethal viruses.

Parasites given the right culture aren't hard to grow. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to infect people and survive. They've got alot of selective pressure to keep them fast replicating.

I have a semi-easy idea on how to induce a cure to HIV, Make a parasite, give it the CD4 and the CD5 receptor, through the use of microbiology and microevolutionary manipulation, alter it to have a very high internal cellular temperature. Then when the HIV attaches to it, the HIV will die, due to the internal temperature of the parasite being to high. Or make it where the parasite essentially has some sort of other genetic malady which makes it where the HIV can't effectively penetrate and effect it. The trick is of course, to make sure the parasite has 100 genetic immunity, otherwise, if 1 piece of HIV survives, then it will slowly progressively getting more and more resistant to the parasite. But hopefully, through the use of such a parasite we could develop a stronger, and stronger method of controlling HIV. Just a thought.

This thread is here to vent teacher frustration, to make complaints about teachers, or against school in general. If you think the topic is large enough and has enough appeal, you might make another thread. My Frustration- Being forcefed liberal crap. I am sick and tired of teachers trying to force their values(and political ideologies) on students. I find it disgusting and a gross misuse of public resources. I don't think I should get points deducted because I don't agree with the teacher's philosophy. If teaching people a political ideology and a particular person's values is something supported by the American people, and thus public resources should be allocated towards, why don't we have classes for it, like they do in Holland? The reason: The American people don't want their kids to be forced fed a political ideology just because that's the way the educators believe they should learn. The American people don't want people to be forced to go against their own morals or their forced to get a worse grade. It should be the individuals choice whether or not he/she decides to like a political ideology, and they should make the decision based on whether they agree with the ideology fundamentally, rather than if they get extra points for spewing garbage. In reality, the American people want to be the people to teach their children, their values, not have someone else teach them their values. Each parent wants their child to be taught the values passed down from their forefathers and what discoveries they have made. They also want their children to learn to think for themselves, not have someone else think for them. So the reason we don't have a brainwashing class? Because it's unwanted and it seems unethical. So it's done anyways under the table by educators. However, one good quality you learn from classes like that, is how to decieve teachers. Which is a good quality, for later in life, you will have to learn how to manipulate and decieve your boss(who will be just as tyrannical and evil as the teacher).

I personally don't think that women are always worse at science, I do however believe that they are less obsessive. I have Asperger's Syndrome, which has been typified as extreme maleness in brain characteristics(even with the women), and essentially we are by far, far more obsessive than most people. It's part of our diagnosis. Now being obsessive is a very BAD thing for social situations, however it does give you advantages at business, (i.e the workacholic businessman who eats breathes and sleeps business), at science(the scientist who neglects his social life and everything else so he can focus on his research), and at certain other occupations. This doesn't imply that women can't, it's just they aren't as obsessive as a group. They simply don't have the drive for only one thing or another, because they, unlike the super obsessive scientist or businessman, have lives. They have emotional relationships which mean a great, great deal to them. It's more important to keep and make friends while your here, and make memories with them, than it is to develop some new drug. They care more about raising children(which is a good thing, no children no society) than they do about research. They care more about people, than they do about things. They tend to care more about social issues(i.e women's rights, children's rights, rights of slaves ect...) than scientific ones. It's a matter of values. It's simply a matter of where your heart is. Also, since men tend to be more obsessive(or at least Aspies do), we generally tend to specialize more, which fits perfectly with evolution. Since we specialize more in one thing, by eat, breathing, and sleeping it(the engineers mind who never shuts off), and by our perception of the world, then we tend to be better at that one specialized area. Specialization breeds efficiency and tends to breed wealth. This is just my opinion.

If this is the case, couldn't we just innoculate someone against the CD4 molecule / T4 receptor to cure HIV? I mean, hypothetically, if it didn't induce an autoimmune response, then the it would block the entrance for the HIV, which would in turn make the cells immune to HIV. That's why I wanted to know, thanks guys.

Howdy, this thread is dedicated towards designing your own secret society, as well as collaborating with others in order to form a secret society. Such secret societies are not limited to, but do have certain requirements, certain rituals, certain acts, and group involvement in certain activities in order to be a member. Off topic discussions are allowed, as this thread is not mean to solve a problem, but merely to provide amusement to board members. - Barbarians for Power society The Barbarians for Power are exactly what the name implies, barbarians for power. The goal of this society is pure ambition, as well as to maintain the quality of life for it's members. It is utterly ruthless. The more competent members are guided into high education, corporate mergers and the like, and given great opportunities. The less competent members are guided into high profit illegal operations, such as counterfeiting and illegal drugs. The group would be very big on innovation and technology. Creativity, intelligence, ambition and ruthlessness would be the defining characteristics of the group. The group is semi-socialist. If one of the members needs help, it will provide help. The group takes care of it's own. The group would be aggressive about researching available methods for improving the quality of life(such as using neurosteroids on members offspring to give them an unbelievably high IQ, and growth hormones during adolescence so that the offspring are taller, thus getting advantages over other people), the society would try to encourage as much innovation as possible, and if you are creative, and you can solve problems, and come up with a new product or technology which has market potential, but you lack sufficient backing, they would provide it. Of course they take a huge chunk of the money, but your idea would be used, you'd be made a wealthy man, and everyone goes off into their own merry paths. It would also practice preventative medicine, basically giving people high doses of melatonin at night and high amounts of vitamins in general, thus making people healthier, and more capable. If neural regeneration works(which I am hoping it will, and according to all the research that I have done there is no reason why it shouldn't), it would be heavily exploited to give members IQs of like 230-240, making it's members far more capable to function in this society and make alot more money. The group would focus on acquiring resources at cheaper cost. Whenever land became cheap that the group wanted, it could buy it, due to collective resources. The group would in essence, be opportunistic buggers. The group, due to it's collective strength, would attempt, and would succeed at dominating the illegal drug market, due to the fact that it has access to great minds, which can devise better strategies at taking over such a market. It also focuses on emotional health, as well as aiding in getting a wife. It all common endeavors, the group develops strategies, techniques, and resources, and makes them readily available to members, making the members lives infinitely easier. From reading this post, you can kinda get the picture. The group is ruthless to people outside of itself, but unbelievably benovelent and charitable to members.

I'd say that I would be a fairly good politician, due to the fact that I don't think for myself, and can bend to the will of corporate interest. Another thing about me is that I am extremely malible, I can be molded into whatever individual my group wants me to be. Unlike a chameleon which simply blends in, Malliblity is more of actually changing. Or it could just be I am extremely shallow. I rely on other people to think for me, which makes me easily controlable. I focus my thinking of very specialized topics, this way it produces the highest efficiency of thought. Am I a good public speaker? Not exactly, but I can/am aggressive and dominant when speaking about important matters, can be opinated, and very argumentative, but that didn't stop Bush. I am a white male, who is 6'7 feet tall, and statistically the taller candidate has the advantage. I am also a fundamentalist Christian who was raised by an Episicipal priest. Disadvantage is that I am diagnosed bipolar and with Asperger's syndrome(didn't stop Hitler!). Do I scare children? Children have one of three reactions to me, intense and utter fear(I have a very masculine face, this the first response I get), protectionist adoration, or once I get to know them a strong connection to me(I am just good with kids I guess). My ethics are extremely flexible, due to the medication I am on. I usually have a hyperactive sense of right and wrong, but along with abolishing mood swings, my medication seems to remove that as well. If I need to decrease my ethics more, I can just take more medication and or, use 5-HTP. Could I woo the voters? Yes, I'd tell them what they wanted to hear, and figure out a way to get them what they want. I can be very convincing. Can I cater to partisian interest? If the partisians have money for me to get re-elected then my ears are open, and if they are willing to do what is in the common good's interest. Would you run a smear campaign against your competitor? You betcha! I would dig up every piece of dirt that my competitor My Ideas for Policies- Hypothetically the energy issue shouldn't be an issue if the device that I am interested in building works, and if it works, then we will never have to worry about an energy problem ever again. If I solved that problem that would automatically get me votes. Also, I would have a fantastic amount of wealth that I could draw on to let me when. Neural regeneration- I would try and get it FDA approved, so that everyone could have access to altering their brain for performance enhancement, and to repair people's brains. I couldn't run unless I developed this completely(which I have, I am only lacking reagents now, and in fact, it may be possible to induce complete regeneration without the reagent that I am lacking, but I am still not sure, and I will have to try and get the reagent this summer), if I solved this problem, I would automatically get 75% of the old people's vote. In order to eliminate the drug problem within the United States, I think the U.S should legalize illegal drugs to drug abusers only, this way we could control the damage and make all the money, meanwhile hurting terrorist in the process, and make a mandatory innoculation of everyone against drugs so no one will ever get hooked on drugs again. This may or may not hurt my conservative basis. I would want to do research on the use of prenatal steroids such as progesterone, which in studies, have been shown to drastically improve people's cognitive abilities, their emotional stability, their IQ(by 30 points) and the rate at which they enter universities(7 times). I believe manipulation of progesterone and melatonin could make our offspring have an infinitely high degree of intelligence, which would eliminate most of our educational problems, meanwhile I believe that if we don't do this, it makes it where the people with genetic advantages will dominate and subjugate all of the other members of society. This may or may not hurt my conservative base, I know that it offends liberals. I would also like to do experiments with epigenetics in humans, to make people super intelligent by simply giving out free vitamins and supplements at birth. I would want for education, to use acetylcholine agonist huperzine serrata, which would be given as freely as adderal to kids, in order that their memories would be super great. This would allow our students to learn at rapid rates, and because of their rapid learning, it would make them not need as much class time to learn basic subjects, which would in turn translate to increased educational performance, and decreased educational cost. I would also have all the kids in school take omega 3 fatty acids, which have been proven in a study done in England in twelve schools in Durham county that it drastically improves the performance of most students, and mainly the students with a high neural metabolism. It has been shown to have a neurotrophic influence on the brain, and to assist in brain development. I believe also giving students vitamins would drastically improve their performance. I am sure I could get money from the supplement companies for this. I would have children development/education occur at an earlier age, this would in turn increase their general intelligence. I would want to do this during their critical months of neurological development. I would also have problem solving and logic skills added to the list of academic curriculum. I feel that in this next century, we should have our creative engineering type problem solving heavily developed, for our economy is moving towards being an innovation based economy, as all the meanile task, and many of the left brained task are being sent overseas, or are being automated. Creative innovative engineering type problem solving is something that is not heavily developed in schools. When it comes to university education, something which has been proposed, is setting up skill sets. Essentially, instead of having a degree(which requires a general competence), I would have colleges and universities give out bare minimum degrees, which just include the skills necessary to do something, rather than a bunch of extra skills are aren't necessary(like foreign languages). Alot of times, the universities or colleges essentially want people to have a certain level of general education, but general education isn't always necessary, or even good. If you have an engineer who can speak foreign languages fluently, but is poor at engineering, you've got yourself a real problem. If you have an engineer, who is poor at languages, but does a spectactular job at engineering, then you've got yourself a good situation. In the situations that might require someone to be good at something that does not relate to their specialty, they may or may not be hired by a corporation based on that. Which means the marketplace decides which is the best decision, rather than having some arbitrary standard which has to be met because colleges want to have a good reputation. I would also remove alot of this testing bias crap. I would make it where you can get graded on projects that you develop, rather than on how well you can manipulate words. In my fiscal/monetary policy, I would strongly push for giving income credits to everyone(rich or poor) who has a family, depending on the number of kids, this way I could appeal to both conservatives and to mainly women voters, because this way, even if someone decides to go to work, and they are still on welfare, they can. However, the only way to prevent outright abuse of this system would be to give everyone an equal opportunity to this kind of welfare, which would in turn make the middle class very happy. This would cost alot, and would mean that taxes would have to be raised, but it would get a huge number of women voters to vote for me. I would have decreased government spending in the form of cutting public services(which would piss off the democrats a whole lot, but I am running on a conservative platform). The main influx of cash into the economy would be through the Fed, and essentially the Fed would lower the discount rate drastically, and the reserve rate, which would in turn increase money available for investment, which would in turn greatly improve the aggregate supply, so that there wouldn't be a huge amount of inflation, yet the total amount of money would increase. I would help pay the cost of importing raw materials(this would garner to the large oil companies, and many manufacturing companies) and increase the tarrifs on importing manufactured goods I would also like to loosen up FDA restrictions. This would make a few mega corporations angry(drug companies tend to payout democratic), but it would garner support from smaller, more innovative drug companies, and it would allow if neural regeneration worked, it to be on the market for everyone. Also the use of gene upregulators, and gene downregulators, is far more effective, safe, and just better in the long run than chemo therapy, however we still use chemo. If you don't believe me, look up valproic acid in pubmed, and in many of the articles you'll find out how it kills brain cancer. On the environment, I would generally stay away from the issue of the environment, because I would be unbelievably lax when it comes to regulations(because my backers are lax), but I would want to create the "gene library", a library containing the genetic information of every living species on the planet. I would also have the "planting project", which would be to plant a huge number of fruit producing trees and plants which are favorable to humans on natural lands. This would increase our potential food supply in case of war or invasion. It would also probably attract hobos from the city to want to live on the natural lands, instead of using public resources. Other than that, I would avoid the subject. Foreign policy- I would be pro-military when it served our geopolitical interest, such as taking over foreign oil reserves, or knocking off a dictator we don't like and replacing him with another. The countries which cause us problems(Iran, Syria and what not) I would finance Russian terrorist to literally terrorize them til their countries were so destabilized that we wouldn't have to worry about any form of threat from them. I would also go on a massive counterfeiting spree and counterfiet hundreds of billions of their dollars, til their money was worthless and their people furious. With North Korea I would plant a virus which would kill millions of people. The virus, being lethal, would cause China to close it's borders with North Korea. China is North Korea's main supply line for food, without it, North Korea would probably starve. The only reason they continue to develop nuclear weapons is because China allows them to, and the reason China is helping them is so they can use them as a bargaining chip with the United States for trade policies. China would have to close it's border, lest it become infected with the virus, and possibly cause a widespread epidemic which could and if got loose probably would kill hundreds of millions of Chinese. Then I would blame it on the North Koreans trying to develop biological weapons, and use it as a justification for war. I would be a fabulous politician, so long as 1) I developed neural regeneration, otherwise I wouldn't be competent 2) I eliminated all history of my insanity and my crazy plans 3) I develop the energy technology I was talking about, that would make me both an automatic hero, and unbelievably wealthy. Neural regeneration I am sure about, and that's a matter of time, the energy technology I am 90% sure about, but that I have to see if it would work or not.

In about 22.5 years(supposing the downward limit on computer chips doesn't impede us), we should have computers with enough processing power to equal a human brain(actually more!). With that kind of processing power, it will be concievable to build AI. The software problem? The software problem I think could be taken care of by "guided" neural networks. Basically, neural networks that have their possibilities limited in such a fashion that it increases the likelyhood of them forming the right connections. Also, a "guiding" program that was evolved from a neural network could help form more efficient pathways faster. First we develop the program that allows for rapid self-programming, then we work on the AI program. However, even if we do use neural networks to evolve into a progressively faster, self-programming AI, and even if we "guide" the neural networks, without sufficient processing power, it's pretty much a doomed effort. However, soon we will have sufficient processing power, and I look forward to when they will have artificial wives.

To solve that problem, you make thousands of independent groups(all the leaders have been MCed by you), and you have them start up and mind control in a seemingly indepedent fashion. This leads to the illusion there is no one controlling force. That way you can simply takeover all at once. The problem of being found out and stopped, well, the way you solve that is you make sure your groups don't cause any problems, until you've got 90 percent of the population under your control. If it's secret, and nobody knows whose in one of these groups, and whose not, and the group requirements essentially don't require you to impose on your societal standards, then nobody will bother you, nobody will care. It may take 50 years however, due to the fact that it takes time to takeover a population in this fashion.