h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have not heard of that one.
I will keep an eye out for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2764039.stm

Thought this was interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2763993.stm

Yes meteorites can hit earth and the likelihood is that they will at some point.
look at the surface of the moon, even with the naked eye you can make out the impact creators and there are creators on the earth too to show previous hits.
We won't need to be told towards impact as we'll see it in the sky IF this was to happen in our life time.
Meanwhile science figures out what to do if one is heading our way.

The follow story to Dolly the clone.
Is this what we can expect from cloning?
Will this happen to babies that are cloned too?

Whoops forgot the link! duh!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2764069.stm

When you copy something, ie a tape containing music, you lose some detail.
You may not be able to hear the losses with the naked ear, but you lose it all the same.
You can see this if you then copy the copy and so on, until you get an inaudable mess.
The same happens with DNA and stuff.
It will lose quality with each generation you create.
So a clone with have inperfections and develop problems.

I think.

aManda

I'm sure that I saw a television program about how cloning is done and that the actual act of inserting something into the egg with an instrument creates minute damage which sperm does not, plus you're right a copy can be faulty and the more times you copy the more faults can be copied. This is why I assume that we also get defects if the genes are not mixed as in non relation procreation has a better chance of not copying any original faults.
did i say that right?

You said it wonderfully.

about that nanotechology link, i love that little mini-sub. so cute!

about dolly, i guess man hasn't quite become proficient at playing God! i personally find the whole genetic manipulation advancement very very unsettling. the ultimate achievement will be to create designer kids, going thru a catalog to pick every single feature and variable. so, we'd have cookie cutter superhumans.
annie? amanda? your thoughts

about that potential catastrophic collision article... there probably IS on point in announcing it on national TV and creating a mass panic... and, annie, you're right, if you looked up into the sky, you would see something very big in the sky. something that kept getting bigger... so, you'd KNOW something was up and something bad!
but, i would imagine that many many people, who pay NO attention to celestial stuff would never look up into the sky and notice it!

peteY out.

well there r more craters on the moon because the moon dosnt have an atmosphere to burn up the smaller peaces like on earth, although i something 1 km+ in size, we wont have much chance of survival but they could tell us the it is going to swing off course or they will destroy it or something to make everyone happy

People would pay thousands to create designer kids I agree.
They could choose looks, intelligence etc. I don't know where I stand ion this one.
I mean, if we could genetically remove 'bad' bits, like deformaties and disabilities, then surely this would be a good thing? You could choose to make sure your child was healthy.
If this was deemed acceptable, then people could argue that giving the kid some intelligence would not be much more unethical.
Then they could make them more handsome and so on and so on.

As for the rock hitting the earth theory, I reckon they should not tell us, if there was nothing we could do in time.
We could not get away, so we might as well be blisfully unaware until as late as possible.

aManda

well i dont know. because if people knew it was there last night on earth they would be out partying and stuff not just sleeping and working

Or panicking and looting places and stuff.

which wouldnt make a difernce because it would all be destroyed in a matter of time anyway

but also if they detected a meteor in advance i think they would alert the public because they could ask them to suggest any ideas they can come up with in the chance of finding one that works

Then ignore us and do what they want anyway. Like usual.

manda
i think the genetically removing disabilities/deformities/defects is fine, but there is a very fine line between that and genetically enhancing kids.
what disturbs me about this is that it is essentially eugenics, and making designer kids would be essentially following the philosophy of Adolf Hitler.

to manda and universe boy
i DO think that we should probably be told because if we all knew we had like 1 week left to live, then we could all go out and smoke crack, have sex, etc... whatever we never did b/c of the long-term consequences...

and, about trying to get good ideas from the public.
i am CERTAIN that if NASA cannot think of anything, no Fing way in HELL the public could...

peteY out!

I know the line is thin, that's what I am saying. I don't actually think we chould design kids.
But helping them out medically would be nice.

where would we draw it?
who would decide?
i think the most logical place to draw the line would be that we can feel free to correct single chromosome or single gene defects.
so, we could correct achondroplasia, down's syndrome, turner's, kleinfelter's, etc...
but, we should NOT mess around with polygene stuff, like whatever gene set is related to intelligence or looks, etc...

thoughts?