The ponderous logic of future space travel tends to get a bit irritating. The “current”, aka, apparently interminable, and hardly new theories are:
Genetic enhancements to overcome risks like radiation, “leaky astronaut” syndrome in zero gravity, robots instead of people, etc. This brilliance is predicated by all too obviously assuming none of these problems will be solved.
They’re not being solved because nobody’s trying to solve them. Artificial gravity has been around as a workable theory for 50 years. If you’re getting a lot of radiation, why not try blocking it with a hull or interior charge? Or a bar magnet hooked up to a piece of Germanium to amp it up a bit?
…Or anything other than nothing at all? Nope. Not happening, at least not being mentioned.
Much like everything on Earth, in space, if it needs doing, it doesn’t get done and you’re lucky if it even gets mentioned. SNAFU.
Bit of a clue here – You don’t solve problems by not solving them.
It’s also ducking that many major serious issues to the point of being quite unbelievable. Meanwhile, the solution is a completely unproven technology.
Ah well.
Now the good news. This slapstick logic has come up with genetic enhancements to solve the problems they’re not trying to solve.
As a Three Stooges script, this wouldn’t be one of the best. In a Three Stooges script, Moe would define what’s supposed to happen, then the goof-ups would commence. The Three Stooges were writers, which explains a lot.
The shyly suggested genetic enhancements are so far more cosmetic than useful, and Curly would have done the Nyuck Nyuck Nyucks a lot better.
This dot-joining exercise is pretty funny in a Gong Show sort of way. Instead of trying to solve the problems, you reinvent the people trying to survive solving them.
The idea is to use tardigrade genes to enhance humans. Tardigrades can handle radiation a lot better than people. They can also dry out completely and survive. At the rate multi-decade-long droughts and water supplies are being ignored on Earth, there might be a market for that, at least.
Whether or not these genetic enhancements would work at all is another issue. There’s only one way to find out; doing it and seeing what happens. You enhance someone and try to figure out whether or not it actually works. That’s a decade or two of trial and error, probably error, at best. No geneticist is going to promise anything based on this manana thinking. Can you undo any damage? Who knows? More to the point, has anyone bothered to think about that?
It’s hardly a simple task. This science has been around and working in a very coy and not overly-publicized way since 2011. We can assume any mistakes haven’t been getting a lot of attention, too.
Note: To be fair, this isn’t all blasé claptrap to get a bit of media space. People have been doing some actual thinking other than “Maybelline in Space”, but this is very tough real science.
What about the “modified” humans? What are the cumulative effects of enhancement? Add enough enhancements, and when do you stop being human? Are any of these changes likely to be fatal? Are there any metabolic or neurological effects?
Meanwhile, back on Earth… (You remember Earth, that totally mismanaged ex-place and rest home for insular irresponsible windbags?) What about everyone else? You instantly divide the human species into enhanced and not-enhanced?
Take this to any significant number of enhancements, what happens? Great bit of sociology, isn’t it? You get free genetic bigotry with every enhancement, presumably.
Looks to me like less thought has gone into this than into buying a lottery ticket. At least you can win a lottery. You have some idea of possible results.
In this case, you have to rewrite your genome to have a chance of (maybe) doing what you’re trying to do.
There’s no real substance in this so far. It’s scientific graffiti with 1970s tags. Let’s get some actual minds working on it and lose the hype.
_________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
