| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. .
( Switch to Threaded mode | Reply )
< Down One | This Page's Threshold: 0 | Up One >
(Warning:this stuff might be beta right now)
|
First is overrated... (Score:1)
by jonr on Thursday February 04, @04:20PM
(User Info) http://www.vortex.is/~jonr/
|
Sorry hon, I have a headache, use the rat!....
j.
Snob Be Developer id: E-1027 |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Of mice and men. (Score:2)
by jabber on Thursday February 04, @04:21PM
(User Info) http://
|
I bet Steinbeck is spinning in his grave.
(thumppity, thumppity, thump)
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Of mice and men.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:41PM
|
Actually the great English poet Robert Burns is the one who first coined this phrase. It was in the poem "To a Mouse."
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
THANK GOD! (Score:1)
by dangerboy on Thursday February 04, @04:22PM
(User Info) http://rosspages.ml.org
|
I've been searching for a rat capable of impregnating a human female for YEARS. whew...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
THANK GOD!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:32PM
|
we've had 'em for centuries..
They're called 'Lawyers'...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
heheheh (Score:1)
by dangerboy on Thursday February 04, @04:38PM
(User Info) http://rosspages.ml.org
|
good one.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
lol!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:59PM
|
hehehehe
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I can see it now! (Score:1)
by Ranma (pwhitehead@home.com) on Thursday February 04, @04:23PM
(User Info) |
Think of the truama when your kid finds out his father is a freaking rat.... This is too strange...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
I can see it now! (Score:2)
by Elwood on Thursday February 04, @04:40PM
(User Info) http://www.elwood.net
|
Was your father a rat? Did you just find out? Are you really pissed off about it? If so, come on Jerry Springer. And tell us about it.
Elwood.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Pun intended (Score:2)
by pyrite (gold.dragon@krynn.tsr) on Thursday February 04, @04:23PM
(User Info) http://
|
This gives new meaning to the term "rat bastard"
;+)
...able was I ere I saw elba... |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Pun intended (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:28PM
|
Good thing I was wearing Depends(tm) when I read that.
Damn, that's funny. I bet it'll be used on schoolyards to tease kids in a few years.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Pun intended (Score:1)
by Elwood on Thursday February 04, @04:38PM
(User Info) http://www.elwood.net
|
One of the best jokes I have read all year. Good job.
Elwood.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I has only one ass, it is of no use to me. (Score:1)
by PhilosopherKing on Thursday February 04, @10:16PM
(User Info) |
I will have to destroy it.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
20 years from now:
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:25PM
|
Kid finds out who his father really was, and says:
RATS!!
--- GET ME OFF THIS PLANET NOWWWWWWWW!##@#@!@@!!##!!!!##@@@!!!!!!
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
But can they satisfy a woman like I can?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:27PM
|
I really thought it wasn't nice
When my wife had affairs with mice,
But what finally made me leave was that
I caught her naked with a rat.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
But can they satisfy a woman like I can?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:12PM
|
A woman who could not find a spouse,
But wanted to fill up her house
With the pats of small feet,
Found something quite neat:
She could have her desire from a mouse!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
But can they satisfy a woman like I can?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @10:58PM
|
Could thing size sometimes does matter -- If you
Know what I mean :)
Now if they put human sperm in horses -- then we
can worry :)
Sorry for the sickness of this. But hey, they are
putting human sperm in mice (yum!)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Bad news for Richard Gere (Score:1)
by LOTHAR, of the Hill People on Thursday February 04, @04:30PM
(User Info) http://
|
Could you imagine if they did the same with gerbils???
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Mom? (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:31PM
|
Mommy, why do I always have a craving for Cheese?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
I have already seen this anime... (Score:1)
by Amoeba Protozoa on Thursday February 04, @04:35PM
(User Info) |
Awe come on now, /. is resorting to pulling stories from anime.
AP
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
No! No! It was Parasite Eve!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:57PM
|
Wait... are the rats trying to create an "Ultimate Being"?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Yes, but, did they find the duct tape...?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @06:23PM
|
Hey guys, we all know that scientists are geeks and we all know what geeks are like. The human spooge dripping from the rodent's orifices probably wasn't *transplanted* there but arrived there in a more _believable_ fashion. ;-)
Heh.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Stop this.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:40PM
|
Might there not be a HUGE risk of birth defects? And just how are they going to make the spermatazoa in quantity? Spermatazoa are quite defective; out of thousands, only a dozen or so have any chance of fusing with an ovum to produce a zygote.
Let's just hope Monstanto doesn't get in on this. Can you imagine the results: spermatozoa with the section for, umm, reproduction edited out of the genome. "We don't want people reproducing without paying licensing fees first."
This is bad. Just wait until they take humans and turn them into "reproducing agents" for the sole purpose of cranking out new humans for god knows what purpose.
Does anyone have Orwell's address?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Oh, screw Orwell. Was: Stop this. (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:50PM
|
Orwell wrote some damn good essays. I think everyone should read Homage to Catalonia. But he WASN'T A FUTURIST, people! Big Brother and the Party was a rip-off of Stalinism circa 1948. Orwell would be way over his head with this one. You want to read someones who might have a handle on this-all, check out Brin or Sterling or Gibson or any other writer who knows which end of a computer is up.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Oh, screw Orwell. Was: Stop this. (Score:1)
by orabidoo (see@my.webpage) on Thursday February 04, @08:08PM
(User Info) http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/espel/index.html
|
Gibson??? as in, the kind of wanker who blathers to no end about computer things that make absolutely no sense at all? have you actually tried to read some Gibson? lots of flashy high tech terms and near-pseudo-mystical ideas of entering a "cyberspace" (nothing to do with the internet, which people are stupidly calling by this name), but NOTHING at all that looks like any kind of insightful futurism. hell, even Bradbury's martian cronicles are more realistic than that!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Aldous Huxley
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:56PM
|
Someone have HIS address??????
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Arrrggghl (Score:1)
by SmashPHASE (lik_me_reet@hotmail.com) on Thursday February 04, @04:43PM
(User Info) |
And I thought being a 'Tank' was awfull...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
My dad's a mouse! (Score:1)
by majestic1 on Thursday February 04, @04:45PM
(User Info) |
That would suck.. how many people are actually gonna go for it?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
I smell a sitcom! :)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:52PM
|
...or in the words of Bart Simpson
"god-schmod! I want my monkey-man!"
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
"Honey, where's Jr.?"
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:56PM
|
"He's in the crawlspace again. Looks like we'll have to set the trap out tonight. I just wish he'd quit knawing through the plasterboard."
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Aren't there enough sperm producing humans around?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:56PM
|
I personally produce quite a bit of sperm which I'd gladly donate.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Me Too!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @06:22PM
|
I've got tons of it just laying around
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
They can't reproduce for a reason! (Score:1)
by synaptic (synaptic@section9.org) on Thursday February 04, @04:57PM
(User Info) |
Is it wise for us to continue to let people who nature said shouldn't reproduce do so?
Egg banks, sperm banks, mice producing sperm, it's getting really out of hand. Isn't there some risk of polluting the human gene pool with this mice engineered sperm?
It was a neat trick, now put it back on the shelf!
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
I agree - stop all this reproducing (Score:1)
by mcb on Thursday February 04, @05:21PM
(User Info) http://subculture.org/mcb/
|
If they [the infertile men] have genetic problems, they can't reproduce because nature doesn't want the problems getting into the population.
I'm sorry for the emotional trauma of being infertile, but society has enough problems without worrying about degrading our genetic code.
If you're religious and disagree with biology then look at it that God (or whoever) didn't intend for you to reproduce. Either way infertile humans should remain infertile.
I think genetic engineering is the future of biology, but I strongly disagree with any ways to "fix" our problems. We have problems for a reason: if the world should undergo drastic changes in the environment, some mutations might be useful to survive in the new environment and thus the species will survive. (an example is sickle cell anemia, people who are heterozygous, that is one allele for normal blood cells and one for sickle cells, have a resistance to malaria. If a world flood occurs from the ice caps melting [due to global warming or natural transition, whatever] and we're overrun by mosquitoes [caused by all the still water] , the malaria resistant will have an edge.)
Finally, the world is overpopulated enough as it is. In 20 years we won't be able to feed our people (even now many countries can't). We don't need to speed up overpopulation by cloning and giving fertility steroids/mouse grown sperm to infertile humans. HUMANS WERE NOT MEANT TO HAVE OCTUPTLETS for god's sake.
Sorry for the rant but this kind of stuff bothers me. We live in an age when millions of people are starving and we worry about having more kids instead of growing food. This is more sick than the whole Clinton/cigar thing if ya ask me.
Thanks, i feel better now ;)
mcb
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I agree - stop all this reproducing (Score:1)
by Timothy Chu (tichu@interchange.ubc.csa) on Thursday February 04, @06:50PM
(User Info) www.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca/spider/v8k1
|
From a purely practical pov, I totally agree w/ you. The human population is getting more diverse over the years, with the strong becoming stronger, the fast becoming faster, the weak becoming weaker, and the sick becoming more dependant upon health care. The medical profession will thrive on the new genetic foibles that result from the weak mating with the weak.
From a humanistic point of view, it's pretty selfish to think like that (though some people don't have a problem w/ being selfish). B/c what you're saying is basically let the sick and weak die off (you can tell in most cases at birth whether you've got a healthy baby or not) to save the rest of us the pain and aggravation of caring for them. I personally subscribe to the humanistic pov b/c hey, I must be human since I care to type this message. :)
<tim><
-remove 's' in email to reply- |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I agree - stop all this reproducing (Score:1)
by mcb on Thursday February 04, @08:04PM
(User Info) http://subculture.org/mcb/
|
I understand the humane point of view, and with genetic engineering we can detect and fix genetic disorders before the child is even born. I do think we should do this, I tried to be clear but failed horribly ;(
My point was (though I didn't really state it), we shouldn't try and fix every little genetic problem. Life threatening disorders definately should be fixed (as long as you fix it in their germ cells also so they pass on the fixed genes). Maybe you saw Gattica? Something like this will be a problem...where you choose your child's gender and attributes. Gender is the biggest problem here...nature takes care of keeping a relatively 50/50 male/female ratio, when we start to mess with it really bad things can happen.
I think that genetic perfection in every human would lead to a more efficient, orderly, and enlightened society, but until we do have the ability to choose the best genetic makeup of our children it is dangerous to have unfit people reproducing (unfit = people who aren't meant to reproduce).
I don't think we should let the weak and sick die off either (the sick SHOULD be cared for, and I myself am weak ;), but if people can't reproduce naturally then I really don't think we should supply a means for them to do so. No matter how superior we are to other animals, we are still animals, and we are subject to the laws of nature.
Nature has safeguards against the extinction of organisms. We're breaking them, and who knows what the consequences will be.
I'm not saying we should let only the smart and strong reproduce (after all strength and intelligence are largely, perhaps 70%+, due to environmental factors). My main point, which again I think I failed to state clearly in my previous post, is that infertile humans are infertile for a purpose. Infertility is not life threatening, therefore you should accept what nature/god/etc. has given you. Infertility is just one safeguard against the extinction of an organism; our DNA has been around for a LOOOOOONG time, we need to respect nature/god/etc.'s wisdom.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Infertility an independent variable
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:42PM
|
Who says infertility coorelates with any other negative characteristics? One could be a genius and be infertile. Unless you think there is a God allocating these features according to some kinds of justice, it's just that certain genes screw up. Just cause some fertility genes screw up doesn't mean there's anything in general wrong with the "organism".
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Sorry, more like 70% genetic.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @11:40PM
|
Strength and intelligence are almost completely
determined by genetic factors. You can fuck up
your strength of course and smoke pot, but in
general you will naturally have a specific
strength and intelligence determined by your
genetic makeup.
Even more shocking: a large part of your
psychological makeup is genetic. Optimism,
pessimisim, agressiveness, attention span...
We like to ignore these facts because they are
uncomfortable. They place some limits on what
we are able to achieve and they suggest some
truly horrid things about race. Does that mean
that the world should discard the scientific
evidence in favor of fantasy? I hope not.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I agree - stop all this reproducing
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:30PM
|
Sorry, guy--you and I are on opposite poles on this issue.
I believe whole-heartedly in the potential of genetic engineering. I think science should concentrate on not only eliminating genetic defects like sickle-cell and other such hereditary diseases, but on removing the "aging clock," increasing physical strength and intelligence, and other such things. That's right--eugenics. Wooo, scary! Well, tough--what's wrong with wanting to improve the species?
Now, my only caveat on all this would be if the human race also instituted a world-wide program of birth control to limit the current out-of-control population growth and launch a *real* space program designed to move heavy industry off the surface and into earth orbit--that will be one environmental effort that will have real and lasting positive effects. But as long as we continue to let our policies on genetic engineering and birth-control be ruled by luddites and followers of 2000 year old superstitions, human civilization is doomed to environmental catastrophie by the middle of the next century. If not sooner.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I agree - stop all this reproducing
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:54PM
|
think science should concentrate on not only eliminating genetic defects like sickle-cell and other such hereditary diseases, but on removing the "aging clock," increasing physical strength and intelligence, and other such things. Bigger dicks will be the top-seller. Well, tough--what's wrong with wanting to improve the species? It implies that we know what such improvement should be and how it should be allocated, Neither of these look likely. For improvement, there is a great deal of consensus in the society as to what features are desirable: sexual attractiveness, intelligence, outgoing personalities, and artistic abilities, probably in that order. So everyone will want to make approximately the same changes to their offspring. But then where is the diversity that sex itself was (apparently) created to ensure? A world of Elvises and Marilyns with the odd Einstein thrown in? Even a world of guys who look like Gere, think like Hawking, and are hung like Long John does not sound promising. Then there's allocation. Unless the world system changes radically and soon, this will be set by the sacred "market". Therefore, the rich will be able to afford more than the poor (if the poor get any), and the age-old conceit of the rich, that they are genetically superior, will become true in a generation. At this point, the poor are without both resources and abilities - utterly superflous and probably doomed to gruntwork or extermination (don't kid yourself, historically the poor have been important to the economy as cheap labor. When they become superfluous to the economy, they'd better be armed).
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I agree - stop all this reproducing
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @09:58PM
|
> Bigger dicks will be the top-seller.
And bigger tits on the women. Imagine a world where the ladies all looked like SaRenna Lee clones. *Not* what I had in mind when I mentioned improving the race, but knowing homo sapiens. . .
>(don't kid yourself, historically the poor have been important to the economy as cheap labor. When >they become superfluous to the economy, they'd better be armed)
Now *this* sounds like a hell of a good movie! In fact--it will be! "Metropolis," the remake by Ridley Scott, is currently in the works, I
hear. . .
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I agree - stop all this reproducing
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:37PM
|
While I agree that we shouldn't be pulling all stops on fertility in an over-populated world, it is wholly inconsistent to invoke the will of "nature" and still favor genetic engineering at all. While one could define nature so as to include any human action, this becomes rather like the old idea of God's will - whatever happens is nature, so nothing can be "against" it. OTOH, the more common definition being how things would go without human influence implies that all genetic engineering is a no-no.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Didn't we go through this 55 years ago?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:51PM
|
I thought we lost millions of US soldiers in an effort to stop this b.s.
Now this rat shit is going too far in the opposite direction, but you're playing God no matter which way you go.
Using inferiority arguments and the lifeboat mentality (sorry, too many people on Earth, ya gotta go!) gives your God a familiar name: Hitler.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I agree - stop all this reproducing (Score:1)
by Rational (scorpio@alcaudon.com) on Thursday February 04, @09:11PM
(User Info) http://www.alcaudon.com
|
I don't think the infertile should be stopped from reproducing. I think the STUPID should be stopped from reproducing.
"`Being only human' is the excuse people give when they are about to behave like animals." |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Let's ALL get sterilized! (Score:1)
by El (elhoward@NO.SPAM.hotmail.com) on Thursday February 04, @08:25PM
(User Info) http://home1.gte.net/elhoward
|
You go first!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
because!! (Score:1)
by LOTHAR, of the Hill People on Thursday February 04, @09:20PM
(User Info) http://
|
Is it wise for us to continue to let people who nature said shouldn't reproduce do so???
Have you seen the people nature does let reproduce???
Those are the people who worry me. Most of the posts on this site should convince you of that. (including this one? LOL)
I don't think nature has our best interest at heart.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think you CS types missed the point (Score:1)
by Bob Colayco on Thursday February 04, @04:58PM
(User Info) |
They're using HUMAN sperm producing cells. The rats are merely being used to help the defective sperm producing cells make sperm. Bacteria have been used for YEARS to make Human Insulin. Thanks to that genetic engineering feat, diabetics can have HUMAN (not cow) insulin for much cheaper than the old days where they ground up cow pancreas.
This is a potential breakthrough for infertile men. The guy who made references to Orwell needs to check his head and stop worshipping Jeremy Rifkin and other anti biotech nazis. Certainly this is a very preliminary stage and much testing will be done before this goes to clinical trials.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
I think you CS types missed the point
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:16PM
|
You missed the point. They are defective. Genetic defects are passed on to the offspring. How far are you willing to go to let them procreate? The next generation may need even more.
Remember this: We will pay for this eventually.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Not all infertility is hereditary (nt) (Score:1)
by Bob Colayco on Thursday February 04, @05:41PM
(User Info) |
nt
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think you're thinking too simply. (Score:1)
by deusx on Thursday February 04, @05:35PM
(User Info) http://www.ninjacode.com.com/deus_x/
|
They're using HUMAN sperm producing cells.
Yes, Initially. But do they stay human in that host? What do we really know about mutation and disease vectors? More than a caveman, but certainly less than Mother Nature.
The rats are merely being used to help the defective sperm producing cells make sperm.
Sure, but how much are they helping? And what happens to our cells inside an animal not us. (i.e. What happens when cells containing two kinds of DNA come into contact? I've heard of mutations caused by two strands of DNA coming into contact)
Bacteria have been used for YEARS to make Human Insulin. Thanks to that genetic engineering feat, diabetics can have HUMAN (not cow) insulin for much cheaper than the old days where they ground up cow pancreas.
I'm sorry, but human gametes are quite a bit more complex, and their future implications much more powerful than a comparably simple chemical compound which has a fairly short life span in a human body.
This is a potential breakthrough for infertile men.
Possibly. Or it may be a new vector for birth defects (previously stopped with infertility), cross-species disease, and irrevocable mutation to the human species.
Why do you think we're not implanting pig livers in humans as a standard practice? Somehow, I think using non-human biology in our own process of reproduction is a bit more grave.
The guy who made references to Orwell needs to check his head and stop worshipping Jeremy Rifkin and other anti biotech nazis.
Perhaps a reference to Orwell is inappropriate, but I really don't think we should take screwing with our genetics lightly by any means. Frankly, I don't think we're conscious enough of all the intricate things involved in biotech (which have taken evolution billions of years to make work as imperfectly well as it does now). And I think any mistakes we make with reproduction of our species could be extinction.
Certainly this is a very preliminary stage and much testing will be done before this goes to clinical trials.
You'd better hope so.
-- I'd have a really cool .sig, but right now I can't even remember my own damn name. ICQ: 11082089 (work) 492905 (play) |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I think you're thinking too simply. (Score:1)
by Bob Colayco on Thursday February 04, @05:48PM
(User Info) |
Biological research is very tightly regulated as it is, and certainly anything that pertains to reproduction is done with the utmost care. Research has to pass peer review and be duplicated in many other laboratories before it gets accepted and certainly before anything gets to consumer use.
There's going to be YEARS worth of testing before any of this is used to try and make a baby. My problem is when the mainstream press gets wind of this kind of research, and all the Chicken Littles come out of the woodwork to proclaim the end of humanity because of a little gene splicing.
History shows that the Luddites and their predecessors were failures. You cannot stop technological progress, and it's futile to try. You can only do the best you can to understand the wave of change that sweeps mankind and study it as best you can to make sure there are as few repercussions as possible. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think you CS types missed the point
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:50PM
|
So it doesn't strike you as earie that people can create offspring without their consent?
OTOH, I can't wait for the genetically altered pig that can bring forth human babies.
At least it would be fair that women can have babies without men, and men babies without women.
Until someone starts crossing rats with pigs, of course...
- E.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Human offspiring from magic pigs
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:18PM
|
Yes, what the world needs now is more single parents. I'll have fifteen pig-babies, please.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Oh well. I give up.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:02PM
|
I thought it would be fun to try writing science fiction. But this is the straw that broke the camel's back. The real world is MUCH fucking wierder than anything I could come up with, and I suspect it will get wierder still. Hmmm. Fantasy. Maybe that's the way to go. Recycle the same old crap, use comfortable stereotype characters that appeal to obsessive geeks, throw in some funny anachronistic stuff. Yeah, that's the ticket. Me
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
"I gotta rat!" "What's yer rat got to me?" (Score:1)
by deusx on Thursday February 04, @05:05PM
(User Info) http://www.ninjacode.com.com/deus_x/
|
M: "Hey baby..."
F: "I gotta rat!"
R: (squeak)
M: "What's yer rat got to me?"
-- I'd have a really cool .sig, but right now I can't even remember my own damn name. ICQ: 11082089 (work) 492905 (play) |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
MAKE.MONEY.FAST (Score:1)
by Faizout on Thursday February 04, @05:11PM
(User Info) |
Buy stock in Duct Tape.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
OK, WTF!! This is wrong for more than one reason! (Score:1)
by Johnny Wad Holmes on Thursday February 04, @05:12PM
(User Info) |
First, I have no problems with Japanese. I lived in Japan, they make great electronics and many inovations in science. However, some programs over there seriously need to be put in check! A few years ago I read in popular science about Japanese scientists taking fecal matter and processing it into "edible, healthy, BACON!" POOP BACON!! HOW MUCH CRACK WOULD YOU HAVE TO SMOKE?!?! Now mice that produce human sperm!?! It's developments like this that scare me.. My Paranoid, Dark Future sci/fi loving ass get's the impression that the super powers of the world know something that we don't. And not your usual conspiracy shit. More like an energy/human/natural resource crisis that no one is prepared to acknoweledge.. Why are we spending time ensuring that if needed, a mouse could help carry on the human species? Why would we ever need to eat POOP!? Fact: Testosterone and sperm count in today's human male have diminished considerably since the early 1900's. I don't want everyone to think that I subscribe to the end is near bs. I don't believe in a Dark Future outcome. I just think there are some strange possibilities that should be considered. If anyone else knows of strange "contingencey" like science programs, continue the thread.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
OK, WTF!! This is wrong for more than one reason!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:47PM
|
I think the big motivation for recycling fecal matter is mostly being done for things like long distance space exploration.
Not to save yourself the trouble of running to the store sunday morning.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
OK, WTF!! This is wrong for more than one reason! (Score:1)
by Caelum (rkitover@io.com) on Thursday February 04, @06:46PM
(User Info) |
I think the big motivation for recycling fecal matter is mostly being done for things like long distance space exploration.
Not to save yourself the trouble of running to the store sunday morning.
Mommy, I don't wanna be an astronaut.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Yeah, Space Exploration... (Score:1)
by torpor (jay2teklab.com ) on Thursday February 04, @07:53PM
(User Info) |
So, we just ship a few hundred mice into space with man sperm in 'em, and about 30 years away from the target we have those mice fertilize the fake wombs, and then we have the onboard computers train and educate the new humans that our spacecraft just created into their task, which is to colonize the living crap out of Mars or whatever.
Hmmm... That could work.
Jay Vaughan, SlashDot-Addicted Developer (SAD) |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Yeah, Space Exploration...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:25PM
|
You'd still have to sustain life for those mice for that 30 years.
Actually, you don't need the rats. Just freeze the sperm and set a timer to release it after x years.
Frankly, I'd rather eat ShitBacon (BaconShit?) and have pig babies.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Lawyers? (Score:1)
by Fringe (fringe.at.fringeweb.dot.com) on Thursday February 04, @05:16PM
(User Info) |
Isn't this how lawyers are produced already?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Male humans now obsolete (Score:1)
by MAXOMENOS on Thursday February 04, @05:25PM
(User Info) http://
|
You read it here first folx.
Who will babysit the babysitters? -- J. Biafra |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Yes! (Score:1)
by Peter La Casse on Thursday February 04, @07:19PM
(User Info) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~lacasse/
|
Get rid of all those lazy men! They're no good for anything, anyway!
Er, wait. Never mind.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Male humans now obsolete
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:14PM
|
umm.. and just WHERE do you propose to get the spermatazoa (or whatever) to put into the rat in the first place? a human has to be involved at some point.
and c'mon.. would you REALLY put up with having sex with a rat just to avoid putting up with us men..? don't answer that.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Scum Manifesto
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @09:28PM
|
Sure, but once you have a good supply of spermies, you just keep growing more in the rats and seed new rats as the need arises. This is just what rad fem Valerie Solanas of I Shot Andy Warhol fame, called for - sperm farms to make males superfluous.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Do Us a Favor...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:45PM
|
It would have been much more benefical to the human race if they had designed a human that produced mouse sperm.
As far as engineering goes, the human race is a little behind the technological time line for some expermentation and, uh, improvement. Example :
Wright brothers (~1920?) --30 years--> chuck yeager breaks the sound barrier
Watson and Crik (~1950s?) --50 years--> mice that produce human sperm???
That's a little out of whack if you think about it. The resulting and eventual adjustment will be sudden and probably result in a major paradigm shift for the human race as we know it. I guess it all depends on how portable and accessable the, uh, solution is.
And the in the land of the robot, where people can rise above silly 2000 year old beliefs, you're going to see the first seeds of change germinate.
Still, my personal favorite to day was the guy in Florida who re-engineered orange trees to produce HTC bearing fruit. THAT was a nice hack; and he had the proper motivation and ethic behind his work (to fuck the morally corrupt police and stupid laws). The other nice thing about it was that it was a low budget, single person effort that had a high impact factor (power to the (intelligent) masses). It won't be long until the capability to do similar things will be available to your (above) average citizen. Once that happens, there's no turning back, baby...
...and nobody is prepared for this... nor can they ever be... mad scientists are rarely angry, just different...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Do Us a Favor...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @06:23PM
|
Not quite...
Wright brothers (1902) --50 years--> sound barrier
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
You dirty rat!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:51PM
|
That's the last time I sleep with you!
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
useless (Score:1)
by morbid (morbid@delphinus.demon.co.uk) on Thursday February 04, @05:56PM
(User Info) http://www.delphinus.demon.co.uk
|
So, us blokes are at last obsolete.
So, should I kill myself now, or live and hope that I do somethig useful? After all, "all men are bastards."
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
useless (Score:1)
by MaxZ (#tsvetova@cs.umn.edu#) on Thursday February 04, @06:30PM
(User Info) http://www.cs.umn.edu/~tsvetova
|
Not yet obsolete...
Remember, most 'rabid feminists' have cats!
(Fluffy, c'mere! You dirty rotten cat thing!
Why did you eat my husband??!?!?!?)
Now... if cats were genetically engineered for
the same feat... There would be a sharp increase
in lesbian marriages :-)
(oh please don't flame me, my feminist friends.
I just can't walk by and not make a joke about
this)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
You should watch "Armitage III"
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @06:43PM
|
It'll make you feel better. You get to see how technology can be used to make women obsolete.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
no subject (Score:1)
by MaxZ (#tsvetova@cs.umn.edu#) on Thursday February 04, @06:34PM
(User Info) http://www.cs.umn.edu/~tsvetova
|
"You men are really pathetic"
She said, expelling me from bed
"You move as if you're a prosthetic -
my mouse can be better than that"
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
No Subject Given (Score:1)
by drwiii (douglas@min.net) on Thursday February 04, @06:41PM
(User Info) http://www.min.net/~douglas/
|
In the tradition of dehydrated water, and that flame-throwing car alarm, Microsoft Labs strikes again!
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Genetic Engineering...Japanese Schnapanese... (Score:1)
by buzz lightyear on Thursday February 04, @06:45PM
(User Info) http://
|
But had you not heard that American scientists had crossed Lassie with a cantaloupe...making a melancholy baby?
Buzz Lightyear |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Dickheads
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @07:05PM
|
In a related story, US scientists are using cells from the testicles transplanted into the brain to combat Alzheimers and Parkinsons and other degenerative brain diseases.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/specials/anaheim%5F99/newsid%5F262000/262938.stm
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
What do you want to do tonight Brain? (Score:1)
by jafac on Thursday February 04, @07:11PM
(User Info) |
Same thing we do every night Pinky,
try to knock-up the World.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Evolutionarily unsafe. (Score:1)
by Brett Viren (bviren@superk.physics.sunysb.edu) on Thursday February 04, @07:25PM
(User Info) http://superk.physics.sunysb.edu/~bviren/
|
I think we as a race of humans should consider what the long term effects to our race is if we continue to turn to artificial means to reproduce. In this particular case, if we tie the existance of the human race to that of mice.
Yes, everyone feels sorry for the cute couple who can not have a baby that they really want, but the hard fact is that there is a physical genetic reason for their infertility. If we come up with complicated and possibly unsustainable methods to reproduce, we perpetuate the genes which require these methods in the first place. If these genes become widespread and then the fertility methods disapear (fall of society/technology) then the human race could disapear real fast with out the prospect of making a come back.
Similar worries exist in finding cures for genetic diseases which ``cure'' the individual and thus allow the faulty genes to continue to propogate.
Of course, the ramifications of this weakening of the gene poll may not become apparent for a very long time (evolutionary scale), so it is somewhat hard to say if this is anything to even consider especially when we have notions that Y2K is still a long way in the future.
Just some stuff to think about.
-Brett.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Exactly. (Score:1)
by mcb on Thursday February 04, @08:18PM
(User Info) http://subculture.org/mcb/
|
I'm glad some people care more about biology and the consequences of our "morality" than lessening the pain of the infertile.
You can't reproduce for one of two reasons: pollution (so join some environmental club) or you have a genetic problem that nature/God/whoever you believe in doesn't want getting into the population. Do us all a favor and don't have children.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Infertility (Score:1)
by El (elhoward@NO.SPAM.hotmail.com) on Thursday February 04, @08:21PM
(User Info) http://home1.gte.net/elhoward
|
So you're saying that infertility is hereditary; that if you can't have children, chances are your children won't be able to have children, nor will their children, etc...
Er, this USED to be a joke!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Accelerating our demise (Score:1)
by FreeUser on Thursday February 04, @08:45PM
(User Info) http://jean.nu/
|
Your points are absolutely dead on.
A point I'd like to add is the following: in a time when explosive human population growth is threatening the very foundation of the ecosphere which sustains us, what the hell are we doing looking for any way to increase human firtility, much less the firtility of people which nature has, for whatever reason, removed from the evolutionary process? Not only a qualitative kick in the direction of extinction, as you so correctly point out, but a quantitative one as well.
As an aside, I suspect the quantitative impact will probably do us in well before the qualitative, but the sad part is, in the unlikely event we do manage to rise from the ashes of the first disaster, the second will be there, waiting, built into an ever growing percentage of the population's genetic material.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I don't think so (Score:1)
by choo (sc110@cornell.edu) on Thursday February 04, @09:15PM
(User Info) http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/sc110
|
The same argument can be made about almost any form of medical help. So by your reasoning, it's better that we don't treat people who get sick (a child who has ashtma for example) and let them die, so that they don't pass their weak genes on to their children. Or maybe our ancestors should never have learnt to build houses to protect themselves -- stay in the jungle and let the strongest survive. etc. etc.
We're humans, our strength lies with what we can overcome with our minds, not with our physical bodies.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
The difference... (Score:1)
by synaptic (synaptic@section9.org) on Thursday February 04, @10:42PM
(User Info) |
The difference is that this mice/rat thing is directly related to reproduction. A child having asthma is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about people who cannot reproduce.
It's fine to treat people who get sick. But when we start cloning people or making mice or rats synthesize their sperm, we need to think long and hard about the implications. Reproductive failure is the most extreme defect an organism can have.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I don't think so
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @11:50PM
|
The kid with ashtma should not reproduce,
but he ought to be able to get some help.
Mix anti-reproduction drugs into the ashtma
medication.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Maybe, but also maybe not. (Score:1)
by aok on Friday February 05, @12:33AM
(User Info) http://www.trigger.net/~aok/
|
There might be faulty genes that prevent reproduction, but there might be many more "beneficial" genes too.
This may not harm evolution at all. Random mutations in the human germline cells, whether from radiation or natural that were not repaired by the automatic cellular repair mechanisms, could also cause genes to turn "faulty" in perfectly "normal" people, and then possibly passed on to the next generation.
Sometimes, apparently faulty genetic code turns out to be beneficial in some cases. Such as the gene for sickle-cell anemia. It turns out that this genetic "defect" actually increases protection from malaria and that is why there is a high population of people in a certain part of Africa with this gene expressed.
I don't know for sure, but if infertility can be inherited, it is probably the result of many factors. Infertility might also be the result of damage to the organs that house the gametes. The perfectly fine chromosomes are there, but they are not being properly stored due to localized damage to the area. Maybe from a car accident, excessive heat, or something else.
Limiting procreation is evolutionarily unsafe in the real long-run in my opinion. But this also does not address matters that others have already pointed out such as overpopulation (and nature's natural means of controlling it), adoption of orphans instead, etc.
Just some added thought to this discussion.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
?? (Score:1)
by Garion911 on Thursday February 04, @07:59PM
(User Info) http://garion.tzo.com
|
Are you a man or a mouse? Guess it doesn't matter much anymore...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Mice aint so bad
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:30PM
|
You think mice could be bad?
what if they tried it with ferrets? ....
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Cool!!!!!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @09:20PM
|
How long before I can order my rat-boy through the mail?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
WTF (Score:1)
by `PEZ (pezlists@mosquitonet.com) on Thursday February 04, @09:26PM
(User Info) http://slashdot.org
|
WHAT KIND OF FUCT UP SHIT IS THIS, ok so you can make sperm, go out and get some homeless kid and raise them, do the kids who are orphans a really good and decent thing and become there parent stop trying to over popolate the planet where allready past the point of saturation shit man science is going nutz
the one the only office whiping boy |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
WTF
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @11:45PM
|
I totally agree. In fact, might as well do that even if you're fertile. After all a lot of the "you" that's in your kids is what you instill in their minds through experience.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Go away or I shall taunt you a second time! (Score:1)
by DunbarTheInept (madings@execpc.com) on Thursday February 04, @09:40PM
(User Info) http://www.execpc.com/~madings/
|
Your father was a hamster and your mother smelt of eldeberries.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
ADOPT!!!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @09:49PM
|
This is ridiculous. This procedure could not possibly become feasible for poorer infertile couples. This is simply a way for the rich to procreate. This is so that Buffy can send his BIOLOGICAL son to Harvard. Get a grip! Rich people are not inherently genetically superior! They might be surprised if they instead adopted a baby (lots out there to adopt) and see how rewarding it can be to raise a child, even if the child is not "your own."
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
ADOPT!!!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @11:46PM
|
Yeah, a lot of rich people are probably genetically inferior. If they were poor, the weaker ones would probably have died sooner.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
The rich are genetically superior.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @11:54PM
|
The rich tend to have genes for: - intelligence
- good human relations
- desire to work hard
The average rich person is not a stupid lottery player that got lucky. Most rich people own a business and work very hard to make it successful.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Milking a Mouse (Score:1)
by Peter Koren (pkoren@hex.elide-this.net) on Thursday February 04, @10:12PM
(User Info) |
I used to think I knew the meaning of the title line, but now I have the real meaning.
How would they do it?
rm -rf microsoft* |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
New millenium, New tradition (Score:1)
by Master Switch on Thursday February 04, @11:50PM
(User Info) http://
|
First there was choking the chicken, then there was spanking the monkey. Now there is drowning the rat. I can barely keep up with the pace of innovation!
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. .
( Switch to Threaded mode | Reply )
< Down One | This Page's Threshold: 0 | Up One >
(Warning:this stuff might be beta right now)
|
Posted by Hemos on Thursday February 04, @04:13PM
Mice, Rats engineered to produce human sperm
All trademarks and copyrights on this
page are owned by their respective owners. Comments
are owned by the Poster.
The Rest © 1997-2004 OSDN.