Where rocketeers like Elon Musk see engineering as the key to human survival in space and places like Mars, McKee argues that these traditional technology approaches require humanity to forever live in bubbles or, in the case of Mars, domed habitats where Earth-like environments are replicated.

Here on Earth, we are already familiar with genetic engineering. Before we started messing with genes, we were engineering new species through selective breeding. Now we are doing it at the cellular level using tools like CRISPR Cas9. We even have the tools to do gene sequencing in space. MinION is a technology developed by Oxford Nanopore Technologies which has allowed astronauts on the International Space Station to sequence the genomes of microorganisms using a handheld device.

Having mapped the human genome and developed tools to reconstruct it, we now have the means to change ourselves to better fit the places where we want to go. That’s what synthetic biology will help us do, a technology that British biologist Jamie A. Davies calls “the creation of new living systems by design.” Creationists must be rolling over in their graves.

Why will synthetic biology be key to making it possible for humanity to fulfil what John Wyndham, in one of his science fiction novels, labelled the Outward Urge? In Wyndham’s book, he outlines a series of steps as humanity first builds a space station, establishes settlements on the Moon, lands on Mars, and initiates human exploration of Venus. Except for the last evolutionary step, Wyndham appears to have drawn the route map by which NASA and Elon Musk’s SpaceX are navigating.

Today, we do not know if there are Martians. If they have existed and still do, they are likely microorganisms that arose four billion years ago in the planet’s past and have survived its changes to become the dry, cold desert that it is today. Whatever we do on Mars, if Martians exist, we need to protect them before we start messing with the planet, as some advocate.

Terraforming Mars for Earth life is the dream of many science fiction writers. Terraforming involves introducing synthetic microorganisms to alter the planet to make it habitable for Earth life.

Other than finding a way to turn an inhospitable environment into one that is habitable, why would humans choose synthetic biology as the primary tool?

One good reason is to make it cheaper to exploit and inhabit the planet. The SpaceX plan to colonize Mars involves hundreds of Starships hauling freight between Earth and Mars over the next several decades. The cost of such an effort would make the Apollo Program budget from the 1960s look like a rounding accounting error.

Another reason is that, rather than attempting to rapidly alter an entire planet (let’s not talk about the two variables: time and cost), creating synthetic organisms and even re-engineering ourselves would be a far easier means to an end.

Change Mars Or Change Us

Humans are poorly adapted for living “off-world.” Our biological systems take a beating in space. Just ask the astronauts, cosmonauts, and taikonauts about what happens when exposed to microgravity, low gravity, extreme radiation and more during and after their time onboard low-Earth orbiting space stations.

After we know what, if anything, is still alive on Mars, we could consider introducing microbes designed to change the planet. These microbes would be synthetic and built for specific tasks. One could be designed to produce oxygen and sequester carbon dioxide (CO2). Another could fix nitrogen and remove perchlorate in the soil. Any microbes we engineer would have to withstand cosmic and solar radiation. They would be capable of thriving in lower amounts of sunlight, and like extremophiles and psychrophiles here on Earth, propagate in toxic and extreme cold conditions.

Once conditions were more Earth-like, synthetic biology could re-engineer the familiar plant staples that feed our planet. Terraforming would create conditions where re-engineered plants could survive on the planet’s surface. Once plants are thriving on Mars, the atmosphere will thicken and become more Earth-like. A greenhouse effect would begin to transform the planet.

How long would this terraforming experiment last before Mars became a second Earth? Estimates vary between two centuries to millennia.

On the other hand, using synthetic biology and genetic engineering could turn homo sapiens into homo sapiens martianus or just homo martianus.

Homo martianus would have re-engineered genetics to deal with the low gravity of Mars (38% of Earth’s gravity). Gravity on Earth impacts bone density and muscles. An enhanced LRP5 gene could make our bones better suited to life on Mars.

To deal with the low oxygen environment of Mars, we would enhance genes that make homo martianus efficiently use oxygen in similar ways to how Tibetans and Andeans do in high altitude conditions on Earth.

To cope with radiation, genes like p53 that suppress cancerous tumours could be enhanced.

We could consider inserting genes from extremophiles and psychrophiles to make homo martianus comfortable with Martian realities.

We could alter human metabolism so that homo martianus would require less food and water to thrive.

The post Synthetic Biology May Help Us Survive In Space And On Mars appeared first on Techso Mogro.

One of the consequences of the Neolithic Revolution was the massive alteration of natural landscapes. Growing crops required the cutting down of forests and plowing of grasslands. Once these natural carbon sinks started to disappear, the path to anthropogenic climate change began. Clearing the land not only contributed to global warming, it also changed groundwater aquifers. Our technology allowed us to engineer rivers, build irrigation canals, create artificial lakes and ponds, and inadvertently lead to the spread of diseases like malaria. We domesticated cows, pigs, sheep, goats, camels, llamas, alpacas and horses. By turning wild animals into providers of meat and dairy, we created a methane (CH4) bomb that further contributes to global warming. The greenhouse gas (GHG) these animals produce today accounts for 14 to 18% of global emissions. Our exposure to domesticated animals has also caused pathogens inherent in them to leap into us.

Selective breeding was the accepted traditional way to perfect crops and domesticated animals. Beginning in the 1970s, however, scientists started to experiment with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and gene expression. This led to a new scientific field of study: genetic engineering.

Genetic Engineering and GMOs

Genetic engineering has proven to be revolutionary. It has helped to create antibiotics and antivirals to fight diseases. It has led to new varieties of crops that can live in environments to which they were never adapted. We now grow GMO crops that can tolerate saline soils and withstand prolonged drought. The speed advantage of creating these new plant varieties through genetic engineering versus selective breeding has become increasingly important as global warming impacts life on Earth in the 21st century and beyond.

The first GMO foods began appearing in the 1970s. They didn’t cause environmental disruptions. They didn’t make people sick. They didn’t get labelled.  They were found in the produce departments of grocers and were ingredients incorporated into hundreds of different foods, This wasn’t to last.

Conspiracy theories are not new to the 21st century although it seems we live in an age rife with them. Near the end of the 1970s, in the absence of an open public discussion regarding the science, the fearmongers began to spread disinformation, sowing the seeds of doubt and fear and lobbying governments to ban GMOs.

Genetic engineering has been critical to the development of vaccines that have limited the number of people who died from COVID-19. Without genetic engineering along with over more than two decades of scientific research, we would never have developed and clinically tested the new mRNA and adenovirus-based vaccines that are seen as revolutionary.

Genetic engineering has been critical to the development of GMOs. Scientists have learned to combine DNA from different species to borrow traits that make domesticated animals and plants more resilient. Every GMO created involves laboratory experiments with the research published and peer-reviewed. Then the research has to be turned into a crop or product and tested. Government agencies are involved in the process which can take years before a GMO crop is released to farmers to plant, or a food product containing GMOs gets put on grocery shelves.

Precautionary Principles for New Products Minimize Risk

Consumer products can potentially pose safety risks. They go through a similar process of testing and government agency oversight. The precautionary principle looks at proportionality and risk for any new product introduced into the marketplace. That includes GMOs. The evidence from the science has to show proof that the health and environmental impacts are fully understood.

Knee-jerk responses to GMOs from regulatory bodies and governments on new crops introduced in the last several decades seem to have ignored proportionality and risk. That’s why GMO crops being grown by farmers in African countries for export, have had problems getting into European markets where regulations have exceeded the norms of precautionary principles.

This has also happened with genetically engineered drugs. One in particular, a synthetic insulin drug was shunned by many health regulatory bodies even though the biopharmaceutical manufacturer went through all the precautionary steps to ensure that the medical benefits of its engineered product over traditional insulin harvested from animal and human sources satisfied the level of risk needed for its use.

It appears that the developers of GMOs are without exception given a much harder time than let’s say, the producers of smartphones are even electric vehicles (EVs).

GMOs Need to Be Treated Equally with Other Human Inventions

If smartphones were GMOs, would they have become as ubiquitous as they are today with more than 7 billion estimated in use globally? Yet the evidence of lithium-ion chemical reactions producing instability leading to fires has been known since 1991 when a Sony laptop burst into flame.

How lithium-ion batteries made it past the precautionary principles established by government regulatory bodies is beyond my understanding. To my astonishment, there is no global database reporting battery fires. Yet between 2010 and 2019, it is estimated from U.S. sources there were over 109,000 battery fires with approximately 6,800 involving lithium-ion. These were the ones reported with some similar to one that occurred with an e-bike battery in the past week on a Toronto subway train.

Then there is the automobile. Even with government oversight that has led to safety belts, lockable fuel caps, airbags, safety brakes, safety glass and more, 1.3 million die in vehicle accidents every year.

Even the pharmaceutical industry which is subject to oversight during the development of new drugs, doesn’t get treated the same way as GMOs. Yet adverse health effects from prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe.

I would argue that smartphones, laptop computers, e-bikes automobiles and prescription drugs because of their social acceptance and convenience are not subject to the same rigorous oversight assigned to the producers of  GMOs.

Is it our lack of scientific literacy, our inability to differentiate between science fiction and fact, or our willingness to accept fearmonger “facts” that have turned GMOs into perceived safety threats? This has to end as we face growing food insecurity threats from climate change in the 21st century.

The post GMOs are the Key to Future Food Security appeared first on Techso Mogro.

For medicine, agriculture, biofuels, pharmacology and even space science and exploration, CReATiNG is a monumental change maker. In a USC Dornsife news release that describes this new process of synthetically assembling DNA from natural components in yeast, Ian Ehrenreich, lead researcher and professor of biological sciences, states, “With CReATiNG, we can genetically reprogram organisms in complex ways previously deemed impossible, even with new tools like CRISPR. This opens up a world of possibilities in synthetic biology, enhancing our fundamental understanding of life and paving the way for groundbreaking applications.”

Synthetic genomics is a new field of study. It involves working with whole chromosomes and even entire genomes of organisms. It doesn’t chemically synthesize pieces of DNA, but instead, uses natural pieces from yeast as parts in an assembly to create whole chromosomes. The method is described by its creators as being cost-effective, lowering the barrier to developing new uses for the advancement of biotechnology and medicine. CReATiNG can lead to new cell therapies for treating cancer. It can through specifically-engineered bacteria improve the remediation of toxins and pollutants left over from the production of synthetic fuels, different industrial processes and mining.

CReATiNG may help us to slow down ageing extending the human life span. It may allow us to change our genome to make us more adaptable to living in space, or on the Moon or Mars. It can be used to engineer microorganisms and plants suitable for growing on space stations and for long-duration missions in space. It can help us synthesize the plants that will support human colonies on the Moon and Mars.

In experiments conducted at USC Dornsife, CReATiNG has been used to synthetically recombine chromosomes between different strains in species, and even different species, to modify chromosome structure, and to delete many linked, non-adjacent regions amounting to 39% of the entire body. It illustrates that CReATiNG can help to recover from flaws in chromosome design between synthetic and native versions.

It appears that this new tool could have a dramatic impact on biological sciences. The research results have been published today, December 20, 2023, in Nature Communications in an article entitled, Building synthetic chromosomes from natural DNA.

The post Scientists Have Created Synthetic Chromosomes – A Revolution in Biology appeared first on Techso Mogro.

Food technology is turning science fiction into science fact one innovation at a time. It’s making eating ethically a head-scratcher. For vegans, the questions are no longer how sustainably agave is sourced, or whether environment-damaging pesticides are being used to grow kale. Now they have to consider ethical avoidance issues such as can they eat animal protein when it is synthetic. Imagine slaughter-free spaghetti bolognese or beef burgers where no cow is harmed.

Plant-based burgers on a roll

Meat alternatives aren’t new. Tofu and seitan have been around for over 1,000 years and veggie burgers have been in supermarkets for decades. Typically, these appealed only to vegans and vegetarians, a niche market prepared to compromise on how meat-like the product is for their own ethical reasons.

With the advancement of new food technologies, however, that may no longer need to compromise. Plant-based food is becoming increasingly convincing posing as meat. Look at Impossible Foods who are using genetically modified yeast to make vegetarian burgers that bleed.

“Meat” the new burger on the block

The search for sustainable, guilt-free burgers is going even further with the advent of cultured meat. A burger, made from 100% real beef, where no cows were harmed has become a reality.

Cultured meat is produced from the same or similar animal cells that make up conventional meat. As a result, it is possible to create meat products completely indistinguishable from meat on the hoof. Since the world’s first cultured burger was produced in 2013, the industry has been growing with start-ups around the globe competing to be the first company to commercialize cultured meat products.

In December 2020, Singapore became the first nation to grant regulatory approval for commercial cultured meat products. Eat Just, began selling its hybrid product made from plant protein and cultured chicken cells. And in June of this year, Future Meat Technologies, an Israeli company opened a cultured meat facility with a daily capacity to produce 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) of cultured chicken, pork and lamb meat.

For more information on cultured meat and companies in this new business read the IDTechEx report “Cultured Meat 2021-2041: Technologies, Markets, Forecasts”.

Vertical farming takes agriculture to new heights

Today we have vertical farms growing fresh produce on skyscraper walls. That includes lettuce and tomatoes as garnish for your cultured burgers.

The beauty o vertical farming is locality. Instead of produce being grown, harvested, and shipped from fields far away, a successful vertical farm means the veggies you will buy will come from markets mere metres away from where you live.

Vertical farming involves growing crops indoors in controlled environments and vertically stacked to save space. Vertical deployment means yields can be 20-30 times higher per hectare than in normal agriculture. Using advanced growing methods such as hydroponics and LED lighting tailored to the exact photosynthetic needs of the crops, vertical farming can also achieve yields hundreds of times higher than that from conventional farmland.

Almost any location can be used for vertical farming, with companies operating out of old shipping containers (Freight Farms), disused warehouses (AeroFarms uses a warehouse in New Jersey for its indoor farming) and skyscraper walls. The only limitation is getting resources in and harvested plants out.

Precision agriculture

Increasing agricultural yields in a sustainable manner is critical in meeting the demands of a growing world population. Precision farming provides one answer. It uses an approach where each individual plant (or a specific region within a field) receives targeted treatment. Planting and harvesting are tailored as well to existing ground conditions and the status of a particular fruit or plant.

This marks a technological transition from the broad-brush farming methodologies still being used today. To implement it farmers need to embrace robotics, imaging, machine vision and low-cost sensor technologies. With precision agriculture farming practices will more closely align with industrial automation seen in other business sectors.

Hyperspectral imaging

Hyperspectral imaging monitors plant health and catches diseases early, minimizing the risk of wastage and lost crops. Rather than expressing images as red, green, and blue (RGB) values, each recorded pixel provides a complete spectral view of the plant, allowing farmers to gain far more information than what can be gleaned from standard imaging. This enables supervised artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to quantify the plant’s chemical composition and determine its health status. For a detailed look at the technologies emerging in this field refer to the IDTechEx report “Emerging Image Sensor Technologies 2021-2031: Applications and Markets.”

Agricultural robotics and drones

Once AI reviews the data collected by precision agriculture technologies it can provide actionable insights which call for execution. This is where the robots come in producing precision-targeted planting, fertilizing, weedkilling and harvesting. You no longer need to imagine this happening. Today robots can vary planting densities across a field in response to soil conditions and target specific areas within a field with pesticides.

Short-wave infra-red imaging

To target fertilizer or application of herbicides, attributes of individual plants need to be ascertained. This can be done using algorithmic image analysis acquired from conventional cameras in the visible spectrum. But the limitations of the technology mean you cannot necessarily identify subtle differences between leaves or fruit at different stages of ripeness. That’s where short-wave infrared (SWIR, 1000 to 2000 nm) imaging comes in. Using this technology when imaging plants provide substantial differences. SWIR light can detect bruised from healthy fruit. And SWIR imaging isn’t negatively impacted by clouds, dust, or mist which can make other imaging technologies less effective.

Biostimulants and biopesticides

Synthetic chemical pesticides and mineral fertilizers are less and less sustainable. Farm runoff contributes to algae blooms in our rivers, lakes and oceans. Their overuse is leading to natural soil depletion and growing weed and insect resistance. Much of the world’s food supply, however, still depends on these products being applied to farm fields.

There is a solution. It is called agricultural biologicals derived from nature. Biostimulants can be used to boost crop yields and reduce the need to apply synthetic fertilizers to boost soil health. A good example is PROVEN, developed by California start-up Pivot Bio. It uses genetically engineered nitrogen-fixing bacteria to form a symbiotic relationship with the roots of corn plants in order to boost nutrient uptake.

Biopesticides are pest management agents that use living organisms or natural products. They have proven potential to provide pest management but currently are heavily regulated by systems originally designed for the chemical pesticide industry. Examples include bait sweeteners that get carried back to an insect’s nest, pheromones that distract insect pests, sterile pollen carried by insects that land on weeds to make them infertile, and bee carrier biopesticide delivery systems.

Genetic engineering

Some aspects of agricultural biotechnology are controversial. One such is genetic engineering. But this is a technology with enormous potential for improving food security.

Crop biotechnology tools and disciplines focus on modifying the genome of organisms for a particular purpose, for example, increasing yields, or developing innate resistance to diseases in order to reduce crop losses and pesticide use. The technology identifies specific genes that confer advantages for a particular crop or livestock, and then implants and replaces the existing genetic material.

For many, there is controversy in inserting and replacing genetic material to improve farmed plants and animals. But genetic engineering is really selective breeding by another means and instead of taking generations to breed a true improvement, saves enormous time when attempting to address challenges like developing drought-resistant crops at a time of climate change.

A Final Word

So there you have it. Today we are at the beginning of an agricultural and food revolution where you can have a burger made from cultured meat, topped with vertically farmed lettuce, and genetically modified tomatoes. Are you game? If so, then bon appetit.

The post How The Food We Eat Is Being And Will Be Made In Our Near Future appeared first on Techso Mogro.

DeLisi describes how difficult it is for Developing World countries seeking to improve their peoples’ lives by increasing energy capacity, to avoid using fossil fuels, particularly coal. And he notes how the Developed World is reluctant to end its dependence on natural gas, or implement policies with teeth aimed to regulate carbon emissions. As a result, he argues that meeting Paris climate targets globally because the above remains highly unlikely.

A number of industrial carbon sequestration projects have been built to-date, representing efforts to remove atmospheric carbon and permanently store it. They are expensive and time-consuming to engineer, and we would need thousands of them to be built to begin drawing down atmospheric CO2 in sufficient quantity to alter our current path to temperatures well above 2 Celsius by century end.

Because of this DeLisi believes that SSB involving genetically modifying plants, and in particular trees, to alter the natural carbon cycle could prove effective. He writes, “some 120 gigatons of carbon are removed from the atmosphere by terrestrial photosynthesis, and every year essentially the same amount is returned by plant and microbial respiration.” But with a small reduction in the return step he believes we could “substantially reduce atmospheric carbon.”

How could this be done?

1. Engineering plants to absorb more carbon.
2. Engineering soil microbes to convert the organic carbon created by engineered plants turning it into permanently sequestered carbonates.
3. Or modifying the pigment in a few tree species to make them more thermal reflective to increase the albedo effect, cooling the atmosphere.

DeLisi focuses in his article on the first point arguing that through the modification of a few tree species we could accomplish significant carbon emission reductions. An alteration of 10% of the planet’s trees re-engineered to absorb more carbon could drop the annual 5 Gigatons rate increase by 22% without using any other mitigation technologies or practices.

That’s why DeLisi believes that SSB should be given consideration as a valuable tool under the broad umbrella of negative emissions technologies, and that it would be a mistake to omit it from serious consideration.

Why use genetically modified trees?

Because trees are “the dominant engine of carbon turnover” in the natural world. The process of experimenting with altering the plant genome of specific species will not necessarily be an easy task. But if we begin now we can identify favourable plant genomes that can be engineered and introduced into species to improve permanent carbon uptake.

For those who fear genetically engineering plants because of concerns related to the food supply, and protest all genetically-modified organisms (GMO), this proposal to modify trees to reduce atmospheric carbon should prove less worrisome.

DeLisi points out that humanity has been wrestling with carbon emission controls for over three decades since general consensus emerged about global warming. Negative emissions technologies such as industrial-level carbon sequestration projects have proven extremely expensive, with industrial partners often backing away from implementing them because of cost. What DeLisi proposes would entail a fraction of the investment, and yield within a few decades a far more effective long-term atmospheric carbon control.

The post Synthetic Biology Can Be a Key Tool in Mitigating the Causes of Global Warming appeared first on Techso Mogro.

And we also are developing the means to integrate ourselves with our creations, combining our sentience and consciousness with technology to create a living intelligent machine, not bound by the limits of biology.

Which of these two or will neither be used to help us colonize Mars and other off worlds?

When confronting the risks associated with sending human crews to Mars, let alone establishing ourselves on that very inhospitable world, it appears foolhardy at best to make the attempt. On the International Space Station, in a relatively benign area of space partially shielded by Earth’s magnetic field, we humans over time experience some significant physiological changes. Low-Earth orbit space weakens our immune systems and circulation, leaches calcium from our bones, thins our muscles, alters our visual acuity, and increases our cancer risk.  Traveling into deeper space, to the Moon and beyond, could prove to be a death sentence to those making the daring leap.

Currently, the way we adapt to space is to create a habitable Earth-like environment that serves as a fish bowl bubble surrounding us. That means we carry a lot of baggage along with us when we go into space. And it also means so many things can go wrong. Apollo 13 showed us just how limited our survival options were based on the technology of the late 20th century.

Are we better prepared now? We haven’t returned to the Moon since the Apollo Project. And we have yet to test a space habitat in Deep Space that could sustain us for months or years. It won’t be until the early 2020s when NASA’s STS and Orion system launch a crewed mission to near-lunar space to test the durability of long-duration human flight. And that test will fall well short of the timelines needed for a journey to Mars, a stay on the planet, and a return to Earth, easily a multi-year mission.

So it would seem that while we are developing long-duration space flight technology, we might consider alternative approaches to the human challenge of Deep Space and off worlds.

What would it take to harden our species to Deep Space and living on the surface of Mars? 

A proposed 500-year plan for the colonization of Mars and space beyond includes genetically altering our species. It includes the genetic engineering of humans to survive in space-based environments and on other planets. Among its recommendations:

• A “do-not-disturb” list of genomic characteristics that remain off limits to any genetic alteration to ensure our human essence remains.
• Improved DNA damage detection and self-repair capability.
• Technology to carry insulated genetic payloads that can then be used upon arrival at an off-world destination to generate supporting life.
• Development of synthetic biology to support off-world and Deep Space human life.

Phase 1 of the plan which involves development of cheap, whole-genome sequencing of human and other mammalian species is to be completed by 2020.

Phase 2 from 2020 to 2040 involves experimentation on integrating new elements into human and mammalian genomes and observing test results.

Phase 3 to 2050 begins the first altered human genome trials.

Phase 4 to 2060 tests altered human genomes in space environments.

Phase 6 (there appears to be no Phase 5) ends at the turn of the 22nd century and involves settlement of altered humans and supporting species on off worlds. Mars isn’t even mentioned.

Phase 7 to 2150 expands our altered genetics to make us tolerant to extreme cold, heat, acid and base environments.

Phase 8 to 2300 sends altered genomes to seed Earth-like exoplanets to make them more compatible for our altered genetics.

Phase 9 to 2400 begins altered human migration to exoplanets.

Phase 10 to 2500 has us engineering a new solar system to become the model for spreading humanity throughout the Milky Way Galaxy and beyond.

And finally, there is a Phase N, a determination on whether we humans should prevent the Universe from self-destruction, reversing expansion while ensuring no implosion, and stopping entropy.

What would it take to integrate us with machines that then colonize space and off worlds?

Today we explore many of the planets, moons, asteroids and other objects within our Solar System using robotic spacecraft, landers, and rovers. Although individually expensive, these one-off machines and missions have produced well beyond our expectations giving us a better understanding of our local space beyond Earth. On Mars, we have discovered an ancient landscape that once supported lakes and streams, and probably exotic life based on trace evidence of organic carbon found in surface rocks. The moons of Jupiter and Saturn reveal frozen ocean worlds and complex geochemistry that could prove to be a place where there is life. Even dwarf-planet Pluto has yielded secrets that indicate a dynamic subterranean world where life may exist.

This machine approach to exploration works really well. The environments in which they operate and explore for multiple Earth years would be hostile to any human making a similar attempt. So why not incorporate the best of both worlds, merging the two to create a spacefaring species, both human and machine? A cyborg.

Cyborg is a term that first appeared in Astronautics magazine back in 1960. Coined by Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline, it described a human-machine capable of adapting to the extreme environments of space and off worlds. Back in 1960, the two scientists saw in cyborgs, a cybernetic replacement for our fragile biology.

Frederik Pohl, science fiction author, and editor, in two of his novels, Man Plus, published in 1976, and Mars Plus, published in 1994, described a human-machine approach in the colonization of the Red Planet. His cyborgs roamed the surface of Mars with no need for attendant life support. They had all the bells and whistles machine technology could provide.

HUMAI, a California-based organization, is out to realize what Clynes and Kline proposed. The organization describes its mission to transplant a human brain into a bionic body using a brain-computer interface. Each Humai, the name of the bionic being would incorporate artificial intelligence along with its imported biological brain. Synthetic organs would replace human ones. Genetic engineering plus nanotech robots would regenerate and repair the biological brain components preventing aging. Humai will take different shapes and forms to suit the destinations they intend to visit and explore.

Elon Musk recently launched Neuralink, a brain-computer interface initiative. Although not focused on creating cyborgs, the technology could certainly be used for the purpose of freeing humans from being planet-Earth bound.

Clynes and Kline wrote in their 1960 paper:

“If man in space, in addition to flying his vehicle, must continuously be checking on things and making adjustments merely in order to keep himself alive, he becomes a slave to the machine. The purpose of the Cyborg, as well as his own homeostatic systems, is to provide an organizational system in which such robot-like problems are taken care of automatically and unconsciously, leaving man free to explore, to create, to think, and to feel.”

Another alternative

But exploration need not be physical. It can be virtual giving us access to space, planets, moons and other worlds currently far away and environmentally harsh for normal human exploration. We already know how to build spacecraft, landers, and rovers that can act as our eyes and ears through 3D cameras and sensors. So why not use virtual reality to explore the Cosmos allowing us to see, touch and taste exotic environments, all while staying safely back here on Earth. You can get a sense of what this will can be like at “Destination Mars,” NASA’s Kennedy Space Center virtual reality tour in Florida. It uses Microsoft HoloLens headsets and Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s OnSight software plus all the images and data collected from Mars rovers, landers and orbiters to let you walk on the Red Planet.

The post The Key to Space Colonization Lies in Altering our DNA or Merging our Sentience with Machine Technology appeared first on Techso Mogro.

Misinformation on GMO crops is doing a disservice to the science behind genetically improving what we grow. The term GMO has become associated with the Monsanto, Dow, and BASF-led cabal of biotechnology and chemical companies that were first to market genetically modified staple crops. These companies through their controlling behaviours propagated mistrust in a large section of the public and even in the farming community. The stop Monsanto movement is more about the company’s corporate behaviour with numerous lawsuits against independent farmers who challenge the restrictive rules around growing Monsanto-modified seeds.

At the dinner party I asked the guest what is the difference between genetically altering a plant through gene insertion or deletion, versus selectively breeding a plant over many generations to inhibit an unwanted trait?

Her response was that gene insertion could mean putting something from a tomato into corn. She is absolutely right. This form of genetic modification, practiced by agro-scientists has produced herbicide resistant corn and soybeans. It has introduced insecticidal toxins from a bacteria into food staple crops to helped them fight off crop-eating pests. It is helping to create new varieties of plants that, with features borrowed from bacteria, are better at fixing nitrogen, critical to plant health and growth. That means farm field with fewer applications of fossil-fuel based nitrogen fertilizers. And that means less nitrogen-laced water from runoff and fewer algae blooms in neighbouring downstream lakes and rivers.

This form of bio-engineering gene traits from one species to another is also having an impact in biomedicine where new medications are being developed using genetically modified sheep and goats milk containing clotting factors.

Before GMO science came on the scene plant genetics was a random process. Agro-scientists cross bred varieties of plants. That meant they were combining lots of genes hoping that over several generations and a lot of patience they would yield new desirable character traits in a species. Today scientists bypass the multi-generation hit and miss approach by selecting known desirable traits represented by specific genes and splicing them into plant DNA. It works. It saves time. And it can save lives.

But just how far is society willing to accept the full implications of genetic modification? Those opposed have coined the term “frankenfoods.” As a term it invokes an unholy pursuit that is unleashing monsters and demons in the foods we eat. But “frankenfood” may be one answer to a growing global population, and not the source of ills as stated by the dinner guest I spoke of earlier.

For example in China today GMO is big business with the government spending billions of dollars and engaging thousands of research scientists in its study. The immediate response of course is, sure China with its centrally planned economy can get away with this.

Well in recent years graft and corruption have yielded a number of food scandals in China and although the acronym GMO has come up, none of these have involved anything genetically modified. Remember the melamine-tainted milk formula, some of which arrived in North America, or the tainted cooking oil sold to consumers resulting in many deaths?  No GMO in either.

But there is one scandal involving a GMO crop, golden rice, developed in 1999, which was served to hundreds of unsuspecting families not told what they were eating was genetically altered. And although no child suffered, and probably many were protected from Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) a cause of blindness in up to a half million children annually, when the news came out a number of senior Chinese officials lost their jobs.The genes inserted in golden rice were not manufactured but came from plants like squash, carrots and melons, all great food sources for Vitamin A. But in South Asia that’s not what people eat. They eat rice and the lack of Vitamin A in the diet has proven to be a great danger to children in the first few years of life.

In China today there is less arable land than in the past. Urbanization and industrialization is destroying farms. So the country has to produce more on less acreage. That’s why China is the world’s top spending nation when it comes to genomics and GMO research. Chinese leaders see GMO as insurance, helping them feed a population of 1.3 billion, expected to peak at 1.4 billion in 2030. GMO is a way to fight climate change, developing crops resistant to heat and drought, using fewer pesticides and herbicides, reducing nitrogen-based fertilizers manufactured from fossil fuels. And although the country today is self-sufficient in food production the fear of climate change impacting future yield levels has the government focused on creating crops that will be even more successful.

Today outside of China the war against GMO is fought in skirmishes from Hawaii to the European Union. In Africa governments are in a quandary to allow GMO plantings or restrict their use. The misinformation in social media and the blogosphere is abundant. Just look at the links to articles across the web provided below. Lots of people see Frankenstein’s monster in those three letters – GMO.

A solution may be to get rid of them, that is the acronym GMO, altogether. In her book, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food, Pamela Ronald, a professor in the Department of Plant Pathology at University of California, Davis, argues that “the term GMO is scientifically meaningless.” In her book she argues for the blending of genetic engineering and organic farming practices to help meet the needs of a growing world population in both a sustainable and environmentally balanced way.

Ronald is calling it genetic engineering. We’ve been doing it since we gathered the first wild wheat stocks on Mesopotamian hillsides and harvested the seeds to plant over 12,000 years ago. At every harvest we selected the best seeds to repropagate the next year’s crop, genetically engineering one growing season at a time.

Related articles across the web

• A guide to the fight over GMO labeling in Colorado and Oregon
• 53 Real Reasons We Cannot Support Monsanto and GMOs
• Maui just banned GMO farming. Will it hold up in court?
• Which Countries Have Banned GMO Crops?
• Health Scandal Of The Century – Monsanto’s Gmo Perversion Of Food: Includes Seeds of Death movie

The post GMOs Defined – The Knowns and Unknowns appeared first on Techso Mogro.

The arguments for this approach include:

1. Human engineering may be potentially less risky than geo-engineering the planet to mitigate climate change.
2. Human engineering could decrease human-induced climate change.
3. Human engineering could solve many of our social and health problems and contribute to a more sustainable planetary footprint.
4. Biomedical modification is already within sight with the mapping of the human genome and our ability to insert genetic information into the DNA of individuals suffering from genetically induced diseases.

Why would re-engineering us be better than re-engineering the planet?

1. Geo-engineering is a very imperfect science and climate scientists are still trying to perfect models to explain the interaction between atmosphere, solar radiation, our oceans and land masses.
2. Geo-engineering requires all nations to commit to a common strategy for reducing our carbon footprint. Humans have shown a disinclination to achieve any kind of consensus on a common approach to date.
3. Ge0-engineering could have unforseen consequences that further damage the environment globally. We could create a runaway cold event or induce more rapid heating if we choose the wrong technological solution.

What kinds of changes would we consider making to humans?

1. Make humans smaller so they need less to eat and use fewer resources.
2. Make all humans vegans by genetically modifying them to not tolerate meat and thus free up land currently used for the meat industry and repurpose it for crops.
3. Make humans less prolific in reproduction to reduce population.
4. Make humans more sympathetic and altruistic to reduce war and conflict.

I recently read Margaret Atwood’s messianic novel of the future, Oryx and Crake.  If you are not familiar with it, the subject focuses on bioengineering with outcomes darker than that suggested by the proposals made by Liao et al. The authors freely admit that human engineering solutions may be considered preposterous but if we are to survive as a species in a habitable Earth, it is an option worthy of debate.

The post Bioengineering Update – If the Climate Changes Wouldn’t it be Easier to Change Us? appeared first on Techso Mogro.