How far is someone willing to go because they aren't atisfied with their bodies? Why can't people just like themselves for who they are?

It's interesting that usually, when this question comes up, nearly everyone assumes we're referring to making new living beings, but you assume we mean changing a person's existing body. Really two issues that need discussed separately.

It's not a bad idea to encourage people to accept who and what they are, but that's a sticky situation: would you, for instance, tell a transexual to just accept the gender they were born into and get over it?

On the other hand, would we encourage someone who wants to change their racial appearance to do so if we could change, say, a white person into a black person?

The common argument is that your body is your property and you should be allowed to do with it what you want, which is an appealing argument, but besides the social issues I brought up, you bring up an interesting point in what the desire to change might mean psychologically: ie, that it's a barrier that should be overcome instead of pandered to.

I figured the discussion was cosmetics. Does this mean I'm thinking outside the box? :3

I wouldn't ever tell someone who wanted to be a different gender to "get over it", but I would discourage them from getting surgery. Gender isn't defined by sex organs alone, and I don't want somebody to pursue what they feel a solution is through something as external as a sex change. I'm not a transgendered individual, nor did I ever strongly desire to be a woman, but I don't see how the healthiest road to respite could be changing your physical appearance. It's like curing world hunger by bringing the world food—not that easy.

And why would we encourage someone to change their race? I don't know if you're insinuating it may be more acceptable than the transgender situation, but I don't view it as such. If you're born african, causcasian, or whatever, it's not even defining who you are. I also don't think your sexual orientation should define who you are, if that helps you understand my views on the transgender thing a little bit better.

I presented race, actually, to be something much less acceptable than changing ones physical sex. I'm confused, though, on how physical sex is like world hunger, or why aligning the body to match the internal feelings would be seen as a bad thing, if you've already accepted the idea of gender differing from physical sex....

My world hunger example: You can't drop food in a starving country to fix a problem. To truly eradicate hunger you need to build a foundation of sufficiency (i.e: cultivating crops, or at least establishing a stable market/trade). I'm trying to draw this parallel: feeling like you're the wrong gender should not get solved by changing gender (or trying) just like giving a starving child food isn't going to make him hungry. It's taking a void in your life and filling it with something temporary. If you find a way to change the condition of your heart, to love yourself for who you are, without changing your body, awesome! But what is it saying if you need a surgery to feel okay about what you have downstairs?

Back to the furries thing, in the cosmetic context, I think changing yourself (outside of some sort of reconstructive surgery, or other details) is probably just putting a band-aid on a bullet hole.

Just to clear one thing up-- gender is not a euphemism for sex. Sex is the physical component, gender is the identity component. However, very few people will respect a person's gender if it does not match their apparent sex-- even though we do not regularly see what one has "downstairs" there are secondary characteristics that give it away. While it is possible for a person to appear androgynous, most male sexed individuals "look" male and most female sexed individuals "look" female.
Sex and Gender also make up a gigantic portion of all social interactions and expectations. In some societies these rules can be fuzzy or bent to certain degrees for certain groups, but in most western societies, if you are of whatever sex, you are expected to behave, dress, think, everything, like the appropriated gender with very little allowance for deviation. It's very difficult, for example, for a man to show any "feminine" behaviors with out being severely ridiculed, unless he is acting within certain subcultures. Certain other subcultures, therefore, are also more severe in their retaliation towards any one who does not fit the prescribed roles. Also, it is generally considered quite insulting to be referred to as the opposite gender.

Further, one's body and appearance is important to one's identity and even sense of self worth. It's not just whether one is beautiful or thin or muscular or what have you-- people also put a lot of effort into displaying their secondary sexual characteristics. To put it bluntly, most women are extremely self conscious about their breasts and most men are extremely self conscious about their penis.

What this gets into, then, is trying to fit into a society when your gender does not match your sex. In our society, it's extremely important for an individual to be recognized by their gender. Like I already mentioned, it dictates pretty much our entire lives as seen by others. The problem then, for a transsexual/transgendered individual, is being recognized as the proper gender, also, to feel comfortable within their own bodies. Seeing ones self as being mis-matched is extraordinarily distressing, but an extremely alien concept for other people to grasp, as it obviously is for you. You can feel you're a woman so strongly that you almost will your body to change on its own, but lacking tell-tale breasts and possessing a penis make the situation very difficult. Similarly, it is very difficult for a man to feel confident in his masculinity if he lacks a penis and has breasts. Society is very clear about what your body has to look like for you to be accepted as one or the other.
It also means that sexual relations are very, very difficult to construct, because people are generally physically attracted to a sex-- not a gender. A transsexual/transgendered individual has a sex drive just like any one else, but very little outlet for it. Even the act of masturbation can be a no-go because it involves using and acknowledging parts you really don't want attached to your self and combat your identity. And, of course, a lack of sexual satisfaction can cause a lot of needless stress.

Also, gender is not something you can change, that you just decide on, or can "come to terms with". It's not just a fancy, it's not even best described as a feeling because it goes quite beyond that. There is no "just loving your self for who you are". THAT is a temporary fix that will only last until the realization sinks in that they still aren't going to be treated properly. Just like some Christians can try to turn homosexuals straight, and think they've succeeded, that person is still a homosexual and will eventually realize that no amount of god in their life is going to make them straight.

:<

Thanks for your response!

I think your last paragraph has me more confused than the rest of it. I guess I need your definition of homosexuality.

What they're saying, and there's mounds and mounds of research to show this, is that Christian faith therapy to turn homosexuals straight works... for about 2-3 months. Once there's no constant reinforcement, patients usually go right back to putting things in their butts. Hell, even going to Christian forums and reading from the "cured homosexuals", they don't even try arguing they aren't gay anymore, and stress they are still gay, but believe it to be a trial God puts them through to test their faith, and the important thing is that they don't put things in their butts. Which most of them are going to do again, anyway.

So, how are you defining homosexuality?

The persistent desire to perform homosexual acts to the notable or near exclusion of heterosexual acts. To not act, or to not be currently acting on these desires does not change the orientation. Otherwise, every moment anyone isn't having sex, their orientation would be in question, and that's just silly. Hence why 'cured' homosexuals, even after they get married to women (it happens sometimes) still say they're homosexual (commonly).

Do you have some other definition?

As devil's advocate, I'd be interested in seeing how many of the "cured" gay men still looked at porn, masturbated, or engrossed themselves in any sexual contexts or cultures. According to Christians, the opposite of "gay" is not "straight", but "holiness". I won't even waste my time with the whole "cured' problem. I don't think same sex attraction is something that Christians need to worry about removing. Removing it entirely has nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus, God, Holy Spirit, etc…. Let's move on.

I define homosexuality as the pursuing happiness in a homosexual encounter or relationship, to any extent.

I know some straight guys that buttsecks their friends. It's not because they're gay—it's because they're with their bros, and if all of them want sex they can get a lot of it that way. They aren't in it for happiness, meaning, completion, or closure. They want an orgasm that isn't at their own right hands.

I also have a friend that looks at gay porn almost exclusively, but he can't bring himself to continue having sex with another man, as the idea of having that in real life repulsed him. He is also a Christian, which is a factor I'll continue on very soon.

Personally, when I decided to look at porn I picked gay porn. Would I ever want gay sex in real life? Sometimes, yes. But I also know I'm not designed to do something like that, and not looking at porn or masturbating changes the way I feel about it entirely. That also involves the Holy Spirit, which I'm not even going to bother covering. I thought I'd save wasting your time to a private message, if that's what anyone reading this really wants. (I promise I don't bite.)

I know this isn't the best site to say this, but I view homosexual relationships as a natural inclination that happens to be wrong. This isn't a matter of religious brainwashing but a matter of looking into things for myself and seeing that there's something better out there. I don't think same sex attraction is something that Christians need to worry about removing. [Insert epistemological disclaimer here] For me, acting on these tendencies is not about "Am I going to heaven or hell?" so much as "How shitty can I feel before I stop ignoring this conviction to stop?"

Please don't waste your time throwing research at me. I've read up on the subject before and I know how subjective figures can be if you don't look at them in context. I know from personal experience I didn't ask to have some guy crushes. I know those feelings are real, but I know they're just feelings, and I don't give two shits about what secrets the amygdalae have whispered about it being genetic. Is liking cock genetic? Why should I care? Same-sex attraction isn't exactly oxygen to my faith.

With my opinion comes the understanding that I've been on both sides of the fence. The other side I disagree with isn't really challenging my beliefs with anything critical.

I apologize for being so aggressive in my defense, but can we stop? I feel like we're getting off topic from furries, so I'd like to bow out now that I've shared my opinion, if that's okay.

Or you can just ignore society and not accept their ideas that there even has to be gender, rather than trying to conform to an idea that is not a real thing. Gender is an idea of society meant to shove people into a niche, instead, I think it is vastly more important to simply be who you are, and not conform to Society's notion that you have to match or conform to any perceived idea.

I've dated a trans, and my biggest problem was her strict adherence to behaving in the manner that society says girls are supposed to be. Or rather I think she was trying SO HARD to be a "Girl" as defined by society that she was neglecting to be her own person.

Here here. I agree with that.

Shit, every time I see this topic come up it get real nasty real fast.... I'm afraid to even say anything.

It usually comes down to group one, oddly the minority, whose stance is that they want to put their penises in them, so we should make furries.

Group two, who are convinced 100% of Hyoomans are unlearning bigots that will either turn them into slaves or lynching them. Oddly enough, this usually seems to be the majority.

And group three, who are sort of in the middle and just want to see neat science shit happen, and see ethical issues as something you deal with later, not reasons to do nothing at all.

*blinks* Man I wish I read your post first =3

I fall in group two now don't I? XD

People who option for the first prove the second! :P

In ideology, yeah. We might not be planning to make them into sex slaves if we fall into category 1, but it's still the idea of creating a life to serve your desires. The existence of category 1 is the only cogent reason against creating furries that actually gives me pause (as I'm firmly in category 3).

Ah, but there is a fourth group--those who try to weigh both sides and find a path that isn't going to throw everything out of balance, and still be able to benefit people. Like nuclear technology, genetics has great potential for good and harm.

~GR

I think group three is exactly that group, actually, though we see their/our goals in a somewhat different light. I was being somewhat facetious when I said that we just want to see science do everything it can: using the results to accomplish something is a goal as well, though I think the desire to make new things real is a big, driving goal, and to think that we don't consider ethical issues would be a mistake: we just don't see them as a reason to not move forward, just something we'll have to watch out for as we do.

For example, a lot of people are afraid of artificial intelligence, too. Group one thinks it'd be cool, group two thinks it'll be just like terminator, and group three thinks "I saw terminator, so let's not give AI computers access to all our nuclear weapons. It's too useful AND awesome to pass up, but we don't want it going and destroying all life just because we ignored people's fears, now do we?"

I know group two tends to see group three as "mad scientists", but really, can we name a single real mad scientist? Tesla maybe, but all he did was build shit like death rays. He never attached it to a giant robot and sent to terrorize the villagers.

Considering that humans have basically -ceased- our evolution since homo sapiens' appearance, the existence of furries won't happen.

If they haven't come about on their own (and just the opposite -- they've been phased out when and if the particular mutations occurred) they certainly won't survive or prosper when/if they're created artificially or come about from another random genetic fluke.

I believe we're talking about genetic engineering here, not natural mutation....

And evolution can't be ceased. As long as reproduction occurs there will be a change in gene frequency between generations. Random mutation is only one of several known engines for this change in gene frequency.

Correct, but it can be influenced if one knows what one is doing, of course.
After all, why do so many obese people continue to reproduce? They'd be eaten if the world were still wild and untamed, hence my point. We've affected natural selection to such a degree that at least the -exit- portion of it is mostly defeated. There are more than enough data to support this.

We are discussing genetic engineering -- the backend of which will also be affected by the Darwin effect should they indeed be created artificially.

I... need to question how much of an expert on evolution you are, I'm afraid. To begin with, Natural Selection is only one of five different engines of evolution that we know of. Secondly, Natural Selection has nothing to do with "better" or "improving"; that's a misconception proliferated by Social Darwinism, of which Darwin was not even an adherent. Natural Selection means "Different species survive differently", plain and simple. A trait beneficial in ones environment can help, but a volcanic eruption can still wipe out a whole divergent species regardless of its traits.

Also, as those "fat people" are surviving just fine, evolution clearly isn't naturally selecting them out. Why? Because, obviously, being fat isn't making their survival into reproductive age harder. In fact, if they breed more than skinny people, it would only prove that being fat is beneficial. I'm aware of no numbers on the birth rates among fat people and skinny people, though.

Evolution also doesn't signify improvement, only change. It's because of this that Darwin, until his very last book, refused to use the term evolution: he didn't want people to think it was about improvement, or had some direction it was traveling in. Life is change. Period.

Fat women have more pregnancy problems and fat men have a lower seed production and are likelier to get impotent. And many general and specific health problems more. The only advantage fat people have is that they are better protected againstv cold climate and are living proof they have enough wealth to feed people properly. This makes them attactive and is the reason they got layed enough that we still have people who get fat easily because of their genes.

In America, the poorest parts of the population are both the most over weight and reproduce the most, regardless of problems getting pregnant. Ergo, however they're doing it, moot point in our current evolution.

No, I'm certainly not an expert. I never claim to be. Please don't belittle me.

Of course, evolution is both improvement and change -- change is not necessarily improvement, but improvement certainly is change. Out of curiosity, when did Darwin specify that evolution wasn't about improving? To my senses, improving relative to one's environment so one's species can survive is absolutely vital.

I have never heard the argument "Different species survive differently." Where is this written?

It's written in "Origin of Species". I know you're not an expert, so please don't get cocky about what you think evolution is. Both the description of what Natural Selection means and the specification that it is not improvement/directional are in there, too. Since he didn't invent the idea of evolution anyway, though, he was already fighting against a preconceived notion: one that was believed to involve improvement because it was assumed God was guiding it.

A species does not improve relative to its environment; it adapts. There's a huge difference, there. For one thing, adaptation can take things away. Sea mammals lost their legs, so if the pH levels of the ocean changes much, they'll die before they can re-adapt to land. More direct, huge numbers of Africans have sickle-cell anemia, which shortens their life spans, but also protects them from hepatitis. It's a better adaptation for their environment, but at a great cost. Similarly, those whales are not "improved" by loosing their legs, but as the legs were no longer needed they were baggage easily shed.

Secondly, science doesn't make judgment calls, and determining what adaptations are better than others is a huge judgment call. Not to mention, its a tautological idea: the idea is summed up as "survival of the fittest", but the only logical way to judge fitness is to see what survives. Circular reasoning. We can say we're the most "improved", but it's not hard to imagine something happening that leaves humans very vulnerable due to our lack of physical prowess. Suddenly, being the biggest animal, or the fastest, or the hardiest would be a lot more impressive than being smart. Adaptations can bite you in the ass. Improvements don't.

I learned this initially from Dr. Paul Moore, but it's also stressed by top, modern biologists like Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins.

Considering to "create" a living furry...

Lesse... ethical? I would say.. no.
Why?

Lets see, for starters, if a real living furry was to be created.. the effects would be
1) Devastating to the public view
2) Devastating to the "individual" (furry)
3) The scientists won't stop at one.

Out of these three, I'd pick up number 3 as the most interesting so Ill explain further.

Say Mad Scientist #1 creates one type of furry. He won't stop there since he would want to KNOW what other species he'd be able to create. And the process goes on and on and on.

Pretty soon, the whole place will be full of these "beings".

Also, lets assume these beings have feelings.

I doubt any of us (or even them) would like to be trapped in a specimen container their whole lives..

Even if they DID get a chance to intermingle with society. Just look at the state of society at the moment.
Top that off with real, living, breathing furries. I'd say the death toll will rise to a all time high.

P.S. All the above is IMO only!

Wait, why would you question if a genetically engineered, sentient life form would have feelings?

Well actually to tell the truth.. I dont question it XD

Im leaning to the "If someone asks" answer, no?

I wouldn't go as far as calling any of it "devastating." It implies that there will be mass hysteria. I agree, if the new creations were self-aware, they would probably resent being brought into a world that considers their continued existence an abomination. I also agree that the general population will probably have a great deal to say about such an act of creation. But to call such a thing "devastating" to human civilization?

Nah, only a global oil shortage can do that. ;) People are willing to let anything slide, provided it doesn't stop traffic. (Total tongue-in-cheek humor here, people.)

And yet...there's a demand for genetically engineered pets like the Glowfish. People *want* this sort of thing, provided it's on their terms.

~GR

Please consider the creation of furrys from the bottom up, because this will certainly happen.

About 60% of the intelligence difference between humans and apes appears to be controlled by a single gene which increases the amount and depth of the convolutions in the brain. That gene will inevitably be put into other animals, the first commercial ones probably being service dogs who help the handicapped and infirm. Is there anything wrong about a dog being closer to humans in intelligence? I don't think so, but it does raise ethical questions of the dog's self ownership and autonomy. Is the SmartDog a slave? O-o. Is he a loving and loved member of the family who choses to stay with those whom he loves? OK. Is he an independent contractor who runs a pack of Jack Russels and who will rid your business of rats and mice for a fee? We aren't there yet, but it isn't out of the question in the long run.

Here is a little story that I wrote in hopes of promoting this ethical discussion:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/495408/ G rated
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/495166/ M rated

Although the above story is fiction, the links at the end are scientific fact. Most FA members will be amazed at how far things have gone already in creating human/animal chimeras for spare body parts.

There are other interesting genes for creating furrys from the ground up.

In canids, a single gene controls whether the animal frequently looks at the face and eyes of of his human or canid alpha companions. Only about 1% of wolves have this gene, but essentially all domestic dogs do. A fox with this gene would be much more interested in and able to communicate with a companion human than a feral fox.

In cattle, there is the Ferdinand the Bull gene. The few bulls that have this gene are gentle and actually enjoy associating with humans. One of my rancher friends has one. This is a 2,000 pound range bull - but he will walk up to anyone who he has met a few times and rub the side of his face on you, asking for a scratch behind his ears or down his spine. He will lean up against you in friendship - just be careful not to get squashed against a fence! He doesn't realize how much stronger and heavier he is.

These genes wil be put into other animals, and the results have a lot of promise for humans gaining new companions and friends.

The first genetically engineered pet is at the pet shop waiting for you now - the GlowFish. It is simply a Zebra fish with the gene for fluorescent green jellyfish proitein installed so that they glow rave green under black light.

I am a biologist and a biotechnologist. I have a heard of over one hundred cattle that look very ordinary - but they are not. They all have a special and commercially valuable genome...

Wow... I'm really, really impressed.

Thanks! I'm relieved that there is some interest in the ethical dimensions, because it is sure to happen. There are going to be scores of millions of elderly baby boomers soon who will need help - and they will have billions to buy it.

Yeah, but it saddens me when people treat ethical issues as reasons to not do something, rather than issues we need to deal with. I also find it interesting that roughly everyone will say it'd be wrong to, say, engineer a slave race, yet so many people are still sure it's what we'd do. The very fact we're worrying about it before hand shows that we won't let it happen.

*applauds*

Man, you rock, both for posting a long thing like that and the facts =3

Thank you very much!

Alteration of the speech organs is in no way necessary if the SmartDog is intelligent enough to read, and even apes can be taught to communicate over abstract symbols so it will be no problem. Simply impant sensors in his tongue and teach him how to use them for the morse alphabet, add a computer collar that is linked to some speakers. Doggie can switch it on and off and everything is fine. A good provisorium like that lasts longest, altering their mouths and vocal cords in a way they can switch between human sounds and dog sounds would require so much expensive prosthetics and training that the provisorium above will appear more often even with both ways available.

If you do it to a bird who can already mimic human speech in his current form everything is even finer.

Human brain and brain in general is able to adapt, and some neurologists say human brain would be able to operate up to twelve limbs instead of four. Sometimes people dream they have additional fully functioning limbs, and with enough hypnosis will also develop permanent brain areas to control them, other beings, especially sentient and therefore hypnosable ones, would be able to do that as well, now link that areas to mechanical additional limbs our prothese technology can already build, and combine it with what our technology of cultivating body tissue is already capable of: Fully functional skin even with nerves. Why researching an artificial sense of touch when you can already solve it that way? Doing fuctioal long nerves and veins that way is somethinf they already research at.

They would not look like anthros, but would have already the basic traits of a humanoid being - a high intelligence level and thumbs (that they are on bionic extra arms does not matter for the fact).

Hmm... There isn't much I can say that hasn't been said already, really.
I agree with  lafitte that there tend to be three ways of looking at it-- I also agree with  foxystallion that it is an inevitability.
Humans are generally fascinated by other animals. We will often give them human traits and expect them to conform to human societal expectations. We expect dogs not to bite for any reason whatsoever. We expect cats to never mark their territory (and in the cats' case we tend to mutilate them by removing their front claws, since our furniture is just oh-so-precious. :/ ).

It isn't too much to realize that people would take the chance to create creatures that are essentially humans with the characteristics of other animals. Of course, there are a lot of steps before that. And each one carries its own burden of ethical questions. The first being, of course, as already mentioned, whether it is right to keep an animal close to our own intelligence as a pet. They can be considered members of the family, this is true, but they should also be allowed the freedom to live on their own or find a different family. Or would one be able to adopt this sort of puppy or kitten or so on as a child? Would they be considered a legal adult at a certain age? Would they be allowed to seek sexual relations with only their own species, or any species they choose? Would they be allowed to marry? Have land ownership? A profession? To what extent would their rights to work be protected if they are still quadrupeds? Would their mouths and vocal cords be altered as well so that they can communicate through speech? Would it be right to not alter their ability to speak so that they cannot speak a human language?

:<

Mostly I'm tired and rambling, but. I do find this discussion very interesting.
I would assume that after the first set of intelligent animals, there would be advancements to integrate them even more into society.

Annnnd I can't think of anything else to say on the subject. D:

Well, we do seem to generally assume we're jumping straight to the out and out furries in this discussion, and Foxystallion is right that there'll be steps in between. Ironically, we also tend to think in yes/no terms. Like, either they'll have to be animals or be people. It's like the recent movie to have Apes considered 'people' and be given rights as such.

I don't know why it's such an alien idea that if something is close to human intelligence but not human, that we'd make a classification in between. Kind of like how we treat children. Protections would be needed, of course, and they'd have to be given some level of legal autonomy, but we can't let them just run off and do what they want: just like kids, they'd just go out and die way too often.

I feel that there will be none, unless we can help it.

Honestly, I would be interested in a discussion of the logistics of actually creating and anthropomorphic animal. THAT would be the center of the ethical dilemma, in my opinion. Because without a human to begin with, the human frame could never be fully reproduced. So in that regard I guess that I agree with stigmata in that it is a discussion about cosmetic surgery.

What if you aren't using a human for the base creature? What if you are trying to make a dragon, for example? There isn't a single vertebrate in existence with more than four limbs, and it's virtually impossible to create extra limbs after birth. It has to be done in the womb, if it is to be done at all.

Truthfully, there are so many other animals out there, why limit oneself to a human frame? Is it different, from an ethical standpoint, to use, say, a dolphin? What about a spider?

~GR

I'd suspect that what this discussion lacks is a proper definition of "furry." Which is another argument altogether... and one I haven't got the energy to entertain.

but if its made by those who wish to persue a sexual relationship with it, if its not human based such people will get in trouble because it cannot concent.
for example, a anthro/dog, it would be beastiality. if it were human but looked like a dog, it would not be; it'd just be against alot of peoples beliefs but technically not wrong.

this is me just thorwing a weird "what if" out there

I can't speak for alterations on a cosmetic level. Truthfully, it can and has been done with moderate success already. That isn't what concerns or interests me so much. In the end, people will do what they want to do with their bodies no matter what any ruling government has to say about it. (On that note, with the number of failed cosmetic surgeries performed every year, what is a single human being willing to sacrifice to look like an idealized furry?)

Honestly, as much as I'd love to see this become a reality, I fear it almost as much. Human society isn't exactly a safe haven for change of any kind. We have a hard time treating someone with a different skin color as an equal, even when all else is the same. Someone born with long pointy ears and a tail will probably have it ten times as rough. Hell, furries right now don't even have real tails and ears, and mainstream society isn't always kind to us.

That being said, should we even attempt it? Cloning and genetic engineering is notorious for being a trial-and-error affair. It's gotten better since Dolly, but it still takes a larger-than-comfortable number of attempts before a success. What do you do with the rejects? With the failures that didn't die? What if the failed attempts are self aware? And if this sort of thing was attempted on an already living being, would we then have a real Island of Dr. Moreau?

But in the same breath, I can't deny the benefits that this sort of process would have. Who wouldn't want the hearing of a wolf, the capacity to use echolocation like a bat, the sense of smell like a bloodhound, and the night vision of a cat? There are dogs that can sniff out cancer before most other medical tests can detect it. What if a human doctor could do that?

But then there are creatures like ants who, if they had nuclear technology, would likely destroy the planet. What happens when you give a predator like a tiger the intelligence of a human? People like to think that animals are just people with fur. They aren't. They have a totally alien way of viewing the world. Civilization has softened most people. We forget that there are things out there that our ancestors feared. But back then, these things were only stronger, faster, and more powerful than we were, and we had big brains and opposable thumbs to help us survive. What if they were suddenly smart and dexterous as well?

There are so many benefits, and so many pitfalls. More than nuclear technology, genetic manipulation worries me. Living systems have a way of wresting control from those who would control them, and humanity has a long history of desiring exactly that control.

~GR

I am having some serious trouble thinking about the possible genetic alteration of humans to create "furries" and not thinking of the film "Gattaca." Is anyone with me on this?

If it were just some kind of cosmetic surgery, then I expect that the world to react similarly as we already have to the "cat man" or the "lizard man" (names? don't know them) that I've oft seen featured on programs like "Weird, True and Freaky." "Furries" created through cosmetic surgery will more than likely be regarded as sideshow fodder.

People in general are gradually (emphasis on gradually) starting to accept people who get surgeries to become another sex. After all, we've been seeing programs on Discovery Health about folks getting sex changes for years. More and more they're starting to be portrayed in a more human light (though still more like sad people who should be pitied). I think it would be a lot more difficult for people to accept that someone might think that they were born the wrong species. I've not heard of a chemical or hormonal imbalance to explain why a person might think they are a tiger (I wonder if psychologists even have a name for people who believe they are an animal in a human's body).

I will probably have more thoughts on this later, haha. TO BE CONTINUED.

I realise this is an old topic, but just for the sake of completeness:

Tom Leppard

Stalking Cat

The Lizardman

Clinical Lycanthropy

O: KNOWLEDGE BANK thank you much C:

No worries!

(Anyway erm um... in case yr interested..: i found this discussion via a thread at the SciFi Fur forums)

The ethic question is not if you create them, but how they get thread by thier creators.

There are three kinds of people who would have a motivation to create mentally or also physically anthropomorphic animals: Us, researchers who do it for the fame, and companies who do it for the money.

Caution, the line between realism and pessimism could be blurred in the following passages:

Looking at our society, the worst or the groups, the companies, would be most likely to built them first and get no problem with the state, simply because they have the money. Now what is so sellable on a real furry?
1. A literal dog of war, able to shoot and more loyal and more agressive than humans and no widows and orphans complaining when he dies, also him having no human rights at the beginning because politicians get paid makes it easy to brainwash and dope him, turn the femalse into breeding machines and you always have more of them when they die. Human intelligence only develops when given occasion to learn, with that occasion denied in kid's age a human gets as stupid as an animal, there are enough cases in history, and also empathy can be learned or killed.
2. A slave, sexpet and walking plushie, same methods like above with different lessons to teach them. Many animals humanity gets their hand on end up this way, ever did.
3. As lab rat for psychologic experiments and psychopharmaka, when you need a sentient being but know that it most likely gets crazy in the process.
Look at what humans have done and do to humans, and what to animals.

The furries of that first generations would also be sprayed and neutered to make sure the only way to get a new one is buying it from the company, and to keep them from surviving if they manage to escape. Maybe they also have an inbuilt genetical defect and regularly need expensive medicine the company sells, of course the company holds the patent on the meds and if possibile all involved genes.

Then the usual organisations kick in, some wanting to end the "blasphemy" and the "threat" and get the furries killed, some wanting to help the furries, to give them equal rights, the companys have no use for either of the sides and try to solve the problem with money, hiring hitmen included. On the other hand rivaling companies could secretly support these groups to sabotage each other.

It will end sooner or later in a civil rights movent (that can include terrorism and other illegan and violent ways on both sides) or in a revolution, the latter would most likely end with all furries killed and all research in that direction strictly prohibited, which on the other hand would not stop them longer than a few hundred years, except we get a cataclysm for whatever reason, then it can be thousands of years.

If the furries get their rights (legally or by heavyly hacking the companies and getting themselves fixed), means they and their genes belong to themselves, their ideologic enemies, including their fromer slave owners, will be the first to display them as a threat, and in fact from this point on they can actually become one. Even animals that are not consider capable of love and hate are capable of anger and fear, because everything that takes the decision Fight or Flight too slowly dies out, except it has a place nobody else can hold or is on top of the local food chain. And looking at thier past to that point there is much reason for fear and anger.



If the scientists are faster, there is likely an instrumentalisation by the state, though it would not be as bad as the companies, because politics are basically focused on fame, money is only a way to get fame. Fame by voters means a throne for your ass, fame by foregin countries means peace, each promised contract, no matter if it is even hold, only serves that purpose in the end.

So it would be less sell-out and more public display, which would also serve the acceptance of the furries. The civil rights movement would be more likely be peaceful and succesful, because the responsibles want the fame. If you give a group the right to vote they are likely to reward you by voting for you. When two factions of any kind are not leading a war based on feelings of injustice, especially revenge, against each other, they are likely to get used to each other to the point of tolerance or at least coexistence with a wall between them that gets actually respected by both factions.


When some of the scientists are in the furry fandom, there will be more people who actually really care about and care for the actual sake of the furries in the early years and decades,

making the whole process of reaching a satisfying coexistence of all sentient species, smoother and maybe going quicker than it would otherwise likely to be.


Resulting from the fact that people want no power struggle, no threat for their children and to keep the fine foods for themselves, herd-organized herbivores are more likely to survive as an anthropomorphic species than hierarchy-organized carnivores would be. Though predators could still make a good place as dogs of war, at least as long as there is enough war and someone pays them. Or they get genetically engineered into omnivores, a well-fed creature who feels not threatened in his life or his position does not want more. At least when it is the average person of limited ambitions. In descriptions of the paradise there are predators, but they eat no meat.

What are your concrete ideas how we can manage that, aside from the logistics of their creation?
How do we protect them from instrumentalisation and keep them enough under control that we get no war of the species?
In one word, how do we ensure a good coexistence with each other?

Thank you for your very interesting thoughts.

"1. A literal dog of war, ..." Scary but true. Boston Dynamics has a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency R&D contract for a silicon brain based carbon fiber and steel dog of war - see my comment below. Your idea would make one hell of a horror movie about what happens when some of the bio dogs of war escape and start breeding. O-o... Unfortunately, I don't think that your fears are unrealistic.

"2. A slave, sexpet and walking plushie..." These are already commercially available in Japan (in humanoid form), though with their current very low level of silicon based intelligence they are still unequivocally property - but the intelligence required for self-ownership will inevitably be developed.

"3. As lab rat for psychologic experiments and psychopharmaka, when you need a sentient being..." Human/mouse chimeric brains already exist and are currently being studied, just as you anticipated: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6534243/
as are sheep/human chimeras for organ transplantation.

I do disagree with you in two respects, however.

First, governments are inherently more dangerous than corporations; Sony/Honda must persuade you to purchase their Asimo, whereas a government can and will use force - even lethal force - if necessary to coerce you into paying for BigDogs of war.

Second, politics is primarily about power, not fame. Fame is a tool for seizing power, but if power is not the primary goal, the politician will be nothing more than an empty suit famous puppet. For example, Dick Cheney would have preferred that his name had never appeared on TV or in the newspapers.

Of course, these two differences between our understandings of how the world works don't change what we both see as a forseeable future major ethical challenge with the potential for some horrific outcomes if it is handled poorly.

It is easier to keep a living being from breeding than a highly developed robot, simply because they can built and programn all they need or reproduction if at least a single one makes it's way out with intact brains. Add possibile reverse engineering or computer virus attacks by a third party, and there is a chance for crazy robots only wanting to reproduce and kill. Rather movie stuff, but I could also imagine it as an actual inbuilt backup function if the person who uses the robots is a really bad loser.You can tame animals or scare them away get along by keeping distance, but you have none of these chances with killer robots.

On second thought I agree with your understanding of state and politicians, there are too many Dicks around, especially the Cheney type.

As for chimeras, as soon as they find a way to adequately bypass cut nerves (which is in fact only a question of time, just miniaturize the nerve signal sensor and the electric signal giver to the size of a piece of nerve) and to deal with the immune system eating the added parts (asides the usual surpressing medicaments for people with transplants and algae barriers that worked at least for implanted insuline producing cells for a guy who had diabetes, the first too unhealthy and the second a ton of efford to clothe each vein and capilar with, there may be a chance to reprogram the immune system, maybe even already by hypnosis) sewing two animals into one would work, one of them be a human or a SmartDog and you habe a furry. It would not even necessarily require killing the original animal, if you cultivate the cells in the laboratory, hypnosis preparing the brain areas to deal with the new parts. Want to be strong like a tiger? - Get your muscles replaced by tiger muscles. Want fur on it, you get it.

Then there are some animals, one is the axylotl, who grow fully functional new limbs when they lose some and repair damaged organs. Imagine the responsible genes implanted into other species. A good share of humans would loudly and proudly volunteer for getting that implanted. The worst opponent of that movement would be the pharma lobbies, the project would need a good backup plan, as them hiring hitmen would be likely, possibly also wars like that for oil.
Though, with our information society, it would be possibile to spread the knowledge faster and wider than they can stop it, and nobody starts a war to get what everybody already got their hands on.

And, as brutal it sounds, but true it is looking at some people's cruelity and greed, it would actually benefit the endangered species when a single caught exemplar can be skinned more than one time, because it survives and grows new skin because it has extra axylotl genes. Let's hope they use anesthesia. I can already imagine the tag on the fur coats "You support no murder, this coat is 100% from regenerating animals"

As for computers, they already experiment with real biological brain cells built in computers, and calculator implants combined with intelligence genes could lead to cyborgfurries, being chimera, biofur and robofur all in one.
CyFurs are not as SciFi as they sound.

CyFurs! And all the rest!! You have a great imagination!!! I'd love to see you writing movies. Not only would that be an escape from Zombie Braineaters XII, but it would also help to head off some of the worst consequences by provking people to think about them in advance before "emergency measures" are invoked. Orwell's 1984 was a great warning and immunization.

Thank you so much! I am glad about your appreciation!

I tried writing novels some years ago, maybe I could write screenplays.
Games are also a good way to show people perspectives and futures and make them think how they would act.
I study game design, and some of my ideas include 1984-ish scenarious and humans & furries settings.

 karno has also written about it http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1856226/

Thanks!

There is another route to furrys: artificial intelligence.

Currently, the average home computer has about 1/10,000 the data processing power of an average human brain.

Moore's Law was originally postulated as a historical observation about silicon integrated circuits, and stated that the processing power per dollar doubled every two years. Further historical research has shown that this doubling trend has existed at least since the electromechanical Hollerith punched card "tabulating machines" that were used in the 1890 US Census.

As Ray Kurtzweil has pointed out, if this trend continues, the typical home computer will have the data processing power of an average human brain by about 2045 - and possibly much sooner if new technologies such as spintronics or quantum computation become economically feasible. (Both have been technically demonstrated.)

Of course, a computer with that processing power will not resemble an animal or human brain unless it is programmed to do so. For example, neural network simulations can currently simulate in-silico half of a mouse brain.

The ethical considerations that are applicable to humans and biological based furrys should also be applied to silicon based ones. Sony's Aibo robodog and the Sony/Honda Asimo android are a very crude start, but silicon brained furrys will be available to most of us during our lives.

As  rakaziel points out above, the military is a funding source for such research. Take a look at Boston Dynamics military Big Dog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVgfRlqUxls
(There are many videos of BigDog on Youtube.)

I've often thought how wonderful it would be to have 'enhanced' ani8mal companions.
I've often wondered what goes on in my husky's head and often wished we could
communicate better than we do. I know when he's hungry or wants to play. He lets me
know when he'd like to go out, but there's so much else I'd love to be able to talk
to him about. I'd love to know more about the language of scent that he obviously
learns a great deal about the world from. When we're out walking in the early morning
when I can barely see because of the darkness, it would be nice if he could say "Pat,
watch out for that hole.."

Enhanced rescue dogs or Police dogs could do their jobs far better and be even more
useful on the force than they are now and for some things, they already are well
nigh indispensable. Imagine an enhanced dog who worked for the DEA, walking by
a parked car with his human partner. "There's cocaine in the trunk and I think I smell
a gun in the pocket of that man over there."

A dog who could not only guide a blind person, but also do things like make sure he's not
being cheated when he pays for an item and gets his change, would be a godsend.
True, there also is a darker side, enhanced animals could be put to terrible uses until
the law caught up with the science and there was a general species emancipation act,
but think of the wonders. Could you imagine the sheer beauty and grace of a cervine
ballet dancer or eerie sadness of a lupine singer's voice, wailing a blues riff.

Such wonders are almost inevitable as we delve further into the science of genitic
modification. It makes me wish I'd be around another sixty odd years to see where
it goes.

"Could you imagine the sheer beauty and grace of a cervine
ballet dancer or eerie sadness of a lupine singer's voice, wailing a blues riff." Holy moley! What a wonderful thought... I don't think that you will have to survive as long as 60 years to see it, though.

You can find out something about what goes on inside your husky's head from award winning animal psychologist Dr. Temple Grandin:
http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Trans.....dp/0156031442/
http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Pict.....dp/0307275655/

I think that you may find these books to be quite an eyeopener. As someone born with Asperger's syndrome (part of the autistic spectrum), I was born furry. I have noticed an amazingly high prevalence of high performing Aspers on FA.

the way i see it is this. Unless you take creating a an avatar character totally based on emotions and not nessisarily your gender, body type and so on. Then there is nothing to be really taken serious since its really fictional. versus creating a avatar that totally encompasses your attributes and and like mindedness. Which even tho it too is fictional and also symbolic of who you are.

But if in some one the 2nd choice someone has more desire to become the realistic vision of their desired creation because they feel that is the way they shud be. The id say go for it, as long as you are harming no other being. And it is something that you want.

But like a true furry wud be totally awesome and amazing!! hell i have no doubt that maybe there are some like that right now in government top secret laps somewhere. But then again thats probably another discussion for another time :)

I believe it hard to consider that the world as a whole would be ready for such.
We even as humans looking so similiar to each other marred by a few slight differences have still not been able to put aside our differences and settle our problems without violence and/or ethical intolerance.
We have made many strides.
However, as a viewpoint, I will use the civil rights movements of the african american culture, and that of the more recent gay rights movements that have been taking place.
African americans were intolerated and treated as lousy as animals at times back in the days of slavery. It took far too long in my view to even set the motions of supposed "radical" thinking to uphold that perhaps they deserve the rights of other communities. I know written in paper, it says "all men are created equal"(or at least a standard form of such in many civilized countries, third world tyrannies excluded), yet the practice is still to fresh I think to being implemented. I heard of hate crimes and racism even fifty so years or close to it from when the times of major change started to come about.
As for the gay rights movement, it is still a battle being held. Once again, the paper says it to be so that everyone has their right to be(same principles as above, civilized countries, etc). However, due to intolerance and the word of much religious doctrine and pure hateful mindsets, many of us are denied as what is said to be our "basic human rights".
Now, if you look from the most conservative, irrational, and unmoving person's point of view, what would a biological furry appear to this person? Obviously, monstrosity, devil(or the equivalent if religious terms come into play), crime against nature would be the first to roll off the tongue.
My point? We have enough trouble even as humans. Add fur/scales/other furry inspired feature to the picture, and I fear we are looking at the same intolerance we are now, only with a level of violence the likes of us have never seen...
The opposition to something is always a danger to our thoughts on a subject. It is just how far we are willing to brave that danger that may or may not see it through.

I heard somewheres something about some conservative politician (maybe bush himself, I don't know, but someone from the Bush administration) saying they found depictions of half-animal beings satanic and offensive. So, yeah. they'd have a lot of shit to face if they were created. Iiiif people could get over themselves and accept new beings into society, I say it would be really neat.

wow, how many photoshop layers is that picture?

The process of creating life is honestly neither ethical or unethical, besides humans create life all the time. Designating who will be born and when, controlling where crops are planted, etc. Humans already use their hands at designating life. I know some out there consider the creation of new life unethical, but there is no biases for this argument aside from the fact that the idea makes them uncomfortable because the concept is alien to them. That is not the biases for an argument in ethics. People also say it's playing god, but I ask what part of our lives isn't? We have created chemicals and materials not normally found in nature, built our houses, cities, clothing, food, electronics out of these things. Our very existance as it is, is playing god and an affront too nature if you really want to play by that logic.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with creating life just for the sheer wonderment and awe in what it represents.

The humanized mice?
They would have to explain themselves.

rasputina aside, lol, I think it would certainly be interesting, but no one would leave you alone if you TRULY had a working tail sticking out of your butt. I've always thought it would be fascinating to see if a cosmetic surgery for such a thing became available, would people accept it or not?

As far as actually making furries in a lab, I'd have problems with ANY life capable of independant thought being made in a lab unless it was just going to be allowed to live its own life.
I agree with Chimerasynx too though--we're not far off from this becoming some strange kind of artform and if people accepted it, and let such beings live out their lives, I wouldn't have a problem. If scientists DID make furries though, the first few...like anything new, would be forced to go through much scrutiny and mass hysteria would be made over them.

when you say furries, do you mean cartoon characters, of people who are furries?

because if there was a way that a real Norbert Beaver could be produced in a lab and grown, i would have an epileptic fit! i yearn for the day something like this is possible.

Two things this is missing: One is the word "Nano..." and I'll let you work that out, but it's no more far fetched than some of the genetic techniques being discussed.

Two is the realization that if we start with (willing) humans as the feedstock and work with surgical techniques, transplanting engineered lab-grown tissues, nobody credible will argue that they stopped being people. The use of thymic biopsies to desensitize the immune system to transplants was seriously being kicked around a year ago; I haven't kept up on it since then. Also, the tissue grafts will heal like whatever tissue they're made of. If, hypothetically, I had my skin replaced with an engineered fox hide, and i cut myself, it would grow back as a hypothetical fox-scar. Only gross anatomical changes need be made surgically; once they're there, they're permanent - most of this would be laid down in the womb, and never messed with once growth plates calcify and growth stops - even before that, most of it's not changing.

Artificial engineered skin is probably going to come out of work on burn patients in the next decade. Soft-tissue sculpting around the genitals and face is being developed for cosmetic medicine, and should involve repurposing old tools using the new materials.

Nail beds for claws, that'll require some custom work, as will constructing a functional tail and rejiggering the skull into the semblance of a snout. Large, mobile ears, too. The only real issues left will be that the resulting hybrid will breed human, and will still have very human looking eyes (contacts?). Not bad for a first generation which could realistically be done in 20 years with proper investment, 10 with a major crash-project (that probably won't ever happen).

Just to add another thought - I saw a paper presented on using nanotube-bearing bone cement as a prosthetic bone for transplants and surgical reconstruction. At initial implantation, it's only about 50% as strong as real bone, but older cements were in the 5% region. That said, the cement is designed to be eaten by bone cells, osteoblasts, providing the minerals needed for real bone to quickly grow into and replace the cement with real bone. There's no results on whether the buckytube will be retained in the bone, but no reason to expect otherwise, and no reports on the effect of the 4% buckytube suspension in the bone on the strength of the new bone. I suggest that they have invented the prototype for muscle and bone lace as presented in Cyberpunk 2020.

Very interesting thoughts!
Tissue engineering would be a good occasion to build in cyberware too.

And nano could do genetic engineering too, a sufficiently great number of nanomachines could go a full genetic alteration on a grown human by rebuilding the genetic molecules in each and every cell.

If the machines stay in, they could also constantly repair genetic damage. Some scientists say man could get a thousand years old with constant repairs.

Though, to transport it to the next generation would only require a genetic makeover of the gonades.
If they would be so happy with their looks would be another question, but...

"Praise nanotechenology, the cause and the solution of all problems!"

Reminds me, there is a good story about it http://www.chakatsden.com/chakat/St.....HumanBeing.htm

Doing the next generation through germline engineering is harder than the surgical techniques, and probably represents a fundamental transition to a second generation technology.

I mean, we know where the body plan is in the genome, it's in the hox genes (shorthand for homeobox genes; homeo = same, box = region - this is highly conserved among all animals, making it easy to look at, if not fuck with). The problem is with making changes without resorting to trial and error, which would inevitably kill and/or maim, and inevitably (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!1one) lead to banning the technology.

On the other hand, if you could just manage a convincing tail, or ... convincing furry-themed junk, you've got a market for it that'll pay for - if you'll please pardon the pun - fleshing out your offerings and completing a 1.0 transition package.

True.

Starting with the original animal shape and modify that till you have a working anthro shape could go smoother than working with apes till they resemble something with digitgrade legs and a long muzzle. Then adding more human genes till the compability issues are covered and copying the whole portion of the hox genes.

When humanity expands to other planets we will need to adapt anyway, and modifyed genes are more useful there because they survive a breakdown of civilisation, while things like cybernetics would be lost.

As for convincing furry-themed junks, they actually managed to build a fully functional rabbit junk with tissue engineering. They tested it by transplanting it to a rabbit and worked well enough for reproduction.

I think I want you to clarify your ultimate goal. See furry or be furry? Starting off with a technology that's fundamentally about making people, not one about making people different, will introduce unfortunate ethical problems ( Transhumanism's " Frankenstein criticism", I believe). Also, I think it'd take much longer to develop technology to go from making hybrids to making humans into hybrids - just like it did in that story you lined (Epic link, by the way - I wish more sci-fi could provoke that reaction!)

Also, is that a serious call for a pantropy program? I won't disagree with that, it would be quite awesome, but I do think you sell cybernetic enhancement short. There are just some things silicon is better at right now. That said, bio enhancement scales well, (read as: cheap) since if you're doing the germline, you only pay for it once.

And yeah, I read - it was, in fact, "fully functional". (Now imagine Brent Spiner saying that! ;) ) Now they need to find a way to do that while making it immunologically compliant with a human host - and broaden their offerings a bit. There's your revenue stream, especially if you can do ears and tails too... problem is, while that could finance a real rollout, you need the fundamental technologies behind a change protocol just to get started. Chicken, meet egg.

You got me to a realization here. Thank you very much.
Pantropy is what really attracts me at furry, at least as far as becoming one or creating them as a species is concerned. So it would be Be furry, but for the senses and what else works better and not for the looks.
Now that I think about, pantropy also plays a big role in many of my non-furry stories, just using different means.

(Fetishes and design also are things that attract me at furry, and speculative fiction about how their world works, but these three are not related to the topic here)

I am not selling cybernetics short. But you need technology and knowledge to operate them and keep them usable and available. Which can make you very vulnerable in a crisis that affects whole civilisations.
For keeping the advantages of a modified germline, you just need to survive as a kind. Further modifications of course require technology and knowledge again, but it is way easier to keep the status quo.

The advantages of cybernetics are that you can pass them on as well (they might last longer than a lifetime), can modify them easier and faster and can get rid of them (and store them somewhere for later use) to blend in with the unmodified people. And that you can easily switch parts to change your outer appearance.


Making new parts immunologically compliant with the host is no problem when you build them from the host's cells. A guy was able to regrow a fingertip using an extracellular matrix as framework http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regene....._%28biology%29 and I saw a documentantion about them trying build those frameworks with a modified printer. Then you only need cell cultures from the host.
They are able to cultivate skin, with all it's multiple layers, when they have a sample that includes all layers in working order.

I wonder how they solved the issue with reconnecting the nerves at the transplantation.


Some time ago I stumbled over a scifi webcomic that also might interest you, http://freefall.purrsia.com/default.htm Very funny, good stories and also deals with the implications of creating a sentient species.

Guess where my original "chrome dragons" came from?

Yeah, early thoughts on transhumanism, before I think that word was invented, up to and including ideas about how to make them shrug off anything up to and including near-ground-zero atom bomb strikes. (Reflective, ablative composite scales... might work for most of reentry too, save the sudden stop at the end.) The stated design goal was to survive and thrive in a "Fallout 3" scenario.



How much cyber are you thinking? We have some of this, right now, and it tends to last a lifetime (that's the design life, anyway). Probably the best example is the cochlear implant in the deaf. Making new ones may not be practical, but as long as you can find batteries... At least the stuff that's reached prime time has reached a point where a toddler has to work at breaking it. The problem is that so terribly little has reached prime time.



The problem with autotransplantation like that is that there will be a lot of lead time on a cosmetic alteration, which may not be commercially viable, and you're limited to the tissues that can be taken from the host. Interesting anatomical changes could happen, but the finishing touches would be entirely beyond the reach of that technique as you mention. (IE, fur, scale, etc.) On the other hand, I've been reading up on the immunological privilege of the hair follicle; this may allow for xenotransplantation of intact follicles, if separated from the skin around them, with no immune rejection. The downside is that making this commercially viable will require one of two (maybe both?) paradigm shifts - a large scale shift to personalized medicine, and the creation of workflows to make this practical, or the ability to grow immunologically null transplants that can be accepted by the vast, vast majority of people. Until then, this sort of thing will only ever get as possible as a hellishly expensive one-off.



Regarding the ECM and printing organ templates, I expect that to be ready for prime time in ... oh, ten years? Possibly not including regulatory hurdles, but the FDA is a fickle bitch. Like I said, until you can start applying genetically tweaked tissues to these templates, the full power of the technique will be limited to putting back what was there before, not creating things de novo.



Oh, and I've been reading Freefall and referencing the author's reference, Atomic Rocket Ship, for years. That site got me through college level Physics 2 with a high B on half my tests, and and a high A on the other. :D

I was more thinking about robot cybernetics, like for example a motorized exosceleton linked to the nerves (instead of genetically modified muscles and bones), or robotic legs for difficult terrain (you implant a switch in the leg nerves, both those coming from the brain and those leading to the brain. The switch then decides if the brain is controls the robot legs or the natural legs. The natural legs would strapped in place so they do not get in the way), or artifical fins, all the heavy equipment that could be unpractical in places tailored for a normal human.

An application that would be interesting for secret service uses or simply for somebody who wants to be a chameleon would be implanting an electronical display under the skin like a tattoo. They already have the techlology to build it inot walls and into relativley flexile tissues like shoe leather. The image needs no electrical current to be maintained, only needs one to be changed. And that current could even be provided by the body itself with some luck. The challenge is to build to the display around the nerves and veins.


As far as I know there two ways they try to solve the immune system response to xenotransplantation.

One is to cover the transplant with modified algae tissue which masks it from the immune system while the blood still gives the cells nutrients. They work at treating diabetes by implanting insuline producing cells this way. Problem is that it only works in loose cell structures since you would have to coat the insides of the veins in implants. And the capillaries get too small for that.
You would have to replace the very walls of the vein by artificial framework and algae for membranes to mask the foregin parts from the immune system. The problems are the number of expensive nanomachines necessary to replace that, and how to feed the cells while you replace it. One solution could be saline with nutrients.
The third, worst problem is that as soon as there is an injury the immune defense gets from the blood between the foregin cells. So that would still not really work.
Except you keep the nanomachines in to rebuild the walls and hunt down any intruding parts of the immune system or completely foregin cells. The problem with creating an artifical nanobot immune system is the cost again.

The other way is to reprogram the immune system to treat the new parts and their genetic signature like a part of the original body. Have read some article about it a year ago. When they get it working it would be the easiest solution.

The only truly genetically null transplants would be cybernetic replacements or transplants with a separate blood circuit including heart of their own. The question is how to link that blood circuit to the host's intestines and lungs. Algae masking could work here.

I disagree on the null transplants - you could do it by making sure that all the proteins expressed on the surface of the cell are only the ones found somewhere else in the human body.


As for exoskeletons, I don't expect neural prosthetic control to be an either/or switch - either it's a brain-linked vehicle, or it's a ... like the powerloader in Aliens, or the hardsuits in Bubblegum Crisis.


Re: chamelions, color e-paper technology is emphatically not ready for even alpha testing yet. I don't see this taking on any real chamelionic use, but Philips has a concept video of animated tattoos that respond to touch and ... sex.

The proteins on the surface of the cell just being what you find in the human body in general would not suffice. If it did, you would have no immune rejection against transplants from other humans.
The solution would be to genetically modify them to develop a neutral surface, like the algae. This on the other hand maybe could backfire if the body would not recognize when the transplant is damaged and therefore not repair it. Though this issue could be solved by giving the transplant the ability to regenerate itself.

Making anything directly brain-linked has a certain abuse potential. When they implant the sensors to read your signals and the electrodes to give your brain feedback, what do you know what else they could put in?

The US Government tried to force hardware developers by law to integrate a remote-controlled kill switch into their processors so they could disable the computer if it was used by a terrorist. And the US sometimes seems more ruled by the pentagon than the president. Who do you know who they define as terrorist next?
You want nothing that could have a kill switch in your brain.

Ah, but what I'm calling for is basically the creation of type O negative transplant organs. Remember, there's a metric fuckton of human serotypes to deal with. If that doesn't work, creating the entire catalog (even if only on demand) of serotypes for each transplant is certainly more doable.

Come to think of it, we're talking about the same thing, but you as a coating, and me as an integral feature of the transplant.

The body doesn't need to recognize that the transplant is damaged to repair it; that would be the nanotech solution (but we're not using nanotech yet). The implant's cells would be required to divide and multiply to replace damaged tissue, exactly as unmodified tissues would be.

Oh man, this topic looked absolutely awesome, shame I'm late to the party. The hilarious thing is I'm writing a comic book based on this exact concept xD Personally i think it'd be pretty neat to see from a scientific point of view, but it would be devastating from a sociological point of view.

who in god's sweet fuck wants actual furries running around