Why did Mesa ever develop Congo

I would expect a planet with such an interesting biosphere to generate a lot of interest from the Genetic Advancement and Uplift League, since Mesans apparently do not restrict themselves to modifying human DNA contrary to Beowulfers.

Tenshinai wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:If there's an organism that manufactures it, then that organism can be reengineered to manufacture it reasonably cheaply. As of right now, we're only on the threshold of that technology.

In any case, I'd imagine that gene therapy will substitute for most uses of medicinals for chronic conditions. With CRISPR technology, we're already at the threshold. Assuming things manage to hold together, we're going to see a biological revolution in the next couple of decades.

That´s pretty much the current hype yes.

And if it was actually that easy i would be really happy.

There´s a huge gap between specific cases and general ability to do it.

This is why if you walk into a drug store and start checking up how they´re actually made, you will probably find a lot of things that might shock you.

And the last 15 years or so, has been a constant stream of "within <5 years there will be...", and they´re still saying it, about the same stuff they said it 15 years ago. And in most cases they´re no closer to making it real today than they were then.

Yes there is definite progress and all, but the hype is just hype.

For example, CRISPR has the unfortunate issue that targeting just what you want may or may NOT be possible at all.
Not to mention that there´s a number of major sideeffect issues with it as well, issues that right now we simply do not know if they can be solved ever.
It might take just a minor modification/improvement to fix it up completely, or it might not be possible to fix it end of story. Sure it might still be highly useful even if it isn´t fixed, but it would be restricted to very few, very narrow uses.

Yes, there's a lot of hype going on. Breakthrough technologies usually have rough edges that will be resolved later. I haven't seen any writeups on the limitations or side-effects of CRISPR technology; possibly you have some in the open literature? (By open I mean free and internet-accessible from my home, not via a trek to a university library).

An analogy might be helpful to clarify how my thinking goes on the issue. Consider the penny-farthing bicycle (*) as analogous to classical methods of creating drugs. Now add the invention of the bicycle chain resulting in the safety bicycle as analogous to CRISPR and tailored microorganisms creating biological products.

In two thousand years, I'd expect to have a Ferarri.

As far as biological methods, I've got a handy-dandy hype clearer that lets me assess what a particular over-heated press release is really saying, and where it is with respect to actual commercial production. The biggest issue with gene-tailored organisms at the moment is that the changes tend to be unstable and also detrimental to overall fitness.

(*) The penny-farthing was that thing with the huge front wheel and tiny back wheel you see in late 19th century pictures. The safety bicycle is basically what we still have today.

JohnRoth wrote:In two thousand years, I'd expect to have a Ferarri.

I think at the time of the "Final War" and the creation of the various "super soldiers" you might have been able to custom order your "Ferrari."

The backlash against genetic engineering and "genies" resulting from the Final War is the primary reason you don't see "genetic Ferraris" all over the Honorverse. Even the Detweilers eschewed obvious modifications that made custom-orders look non-human.

The technological capability probably does exist, but the will to use it and any economic benefit would be minimal. If there were any significant economic benefit to gene-engineering easier access to Torch pharmaceuticals, Mesa probably would have done so.

Weird Harold wrote:The technological capability probably does exist, but the will to use it and any economic benefit would be minimal. If there were any significant economic benefit to gene-engineering easier access to Torch pharmaceuticals, Mesa probably would have done so.

Not necessarily.

For one, Manpower has a strange idea of economic benefits. In general, something that burns up thousands of people that you have paid to raise from infants would seem very expensive since you would otherwise sell them to real customers for really serious money.

Two, Plot.

kzt wrote:For one, Manpower has a strange idea of economic benefits. In general, something that burns up thousands of people that you have paid to raise from infants would seem very expensive since you would otherwise sell them to real customers for really serious money.

Two, Plot.

I did qualify that as Significant economic advantage. Obviously Mesa thought any economic advantage was
overshadowed by political and evil-empire concerns.

JohnRoth wrote:I haven't seen any writeups on the limitations or side-effects of CRISPR technology; possibly you have some in the open literature? (By open I mean free and internet-accessible from my home, not via a trek to a university library).

In this case it probably has more to do with my cousin being a biochemist. I expect it to be online, but heck if i know even where to look for it.

JohnRoth wrote:An analogy might be helpful to clarify how my thinking goes on the issue. Consider the penny-farthing bicycle (*) as analogous to classical methods of creating drugs. Now add the invention of the bicycle chain resulting in the safety bicycle as analogous to CRISPR and tailored microorganisms creating biological products.

Oh i understand your thinking. To continue your analogy, you might find out that the chain only works if it is a very specific length OR made out of paper.

JohnRoth wrote:In two thousand years, I'd expect to have a Ferarri.

Sorry, but you should probably research economic history.

First of all, if Ferrari is still around in 2k years, and make cars, those cars are still going to be sold at pricetags making them luxury cars well out of reach for anyone that isnt "rich" in contemporary terms.

2nd, wages does not follow productivity. If it did, an average industrial worker today could already afford that Ferrari.

JohnRoth wrote:The biggest issue with gene-tailored organisms at the moment is that the changes tend to be unstable and also detrimental to overall fitness.

Yes, and it may actually not be possible to fix this.
Precise targeting should also be included in those however.

Tenshinai wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:I haven't seen any writeups on the limitations or side-effects of CRISPR technology; possibly you have some in the open literature? (By open I mean free and internet-accessible from my home, not via a trek to a university library).

In this case it probably has more to do with my cousin being a biochemist. I expect it to be online, but heck if i know even where to look for it.

OK.

Tenshinai wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:An analogy might be helpful to clarify how my thinking goes on the issue. Consider the penny-farthing bicycle (*) as analogous to classical methods of creating drugs. Now add the invention of the bicycle chain resulting in the safety bicycle as analogous to CRISPR and tailored microorganisms creating biological products.

Oh i understand your thinking. To continue your analogy, you might find out that the chain only works if it is a very specific length OR made out of paper.

JohnRoth wrote:In two thousand years, I'd expect to have a Ferarri.

Sorry, but you should probably research economic history.

First of all, if Ferrari is still around in 2k years, and make cars, those cars are still going to be sold at pricetags making them luxury cars well out of reach for anyone that isnt "rich" in contemporary terms.

2nd, wages does not follow productivity. If it did, an average industrial worker today could already afford that Ferrari.

I'm not sure why we're talking past each other. My analogy had absolutely nothing essential to do with economics. It has everything to do with the curve of technological progress, especially when there's a benefit to pushing the curve.

Tenshinai wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:The biggest issue with gene-tailored organisms at the moment is that the changes tend to be unstable and also detrimental to overall fitness.

Yes, and it may actually not be possible to fix this.
Precise targeting should also be included in those however.

It's simply natural selection at work. If you add a synthesis path to an organism, that's going to take energy away from everything else the organism does. That, in turn, reduces fitness compared to organisms that don't have the synthesis path. Nothing to do with precise targeting; they've been able to that with single-celled organisms for a long time. CRISPR is simply cheaper.

Stabilizing it simply means building in something that would destroy mutant cells before selection has a chance to get its claws in. That, of course, is easier said than done.

JohnRoth wrote:<<SNIP>>
It's simply natural selection at work. If you add a synthesis path to an organism, that's going to take energy away from everything else the organism does. That, in turn, reduces fitness compared to organisms that don't have the synthesis path. Nothing to do with precise targeting; they've been able to that with single-celled organisms for a long time. CRISPR is simply cheaper.

Stabilizing it simply means building in something that would destroy mutant cells before selection has a chance to get its claws in. That, of course, is easier said than done.

I recently caught a portion of a PBS Newshour report about GMO maize in Brazil. Three years ago a company started selling GMO seeds that supposedly had a natural resistance to a specific pest (in this case a caterpillar). For two years it seemed to work just fine. This year, the bugs seem to find it especially tasty. 30 to 40% crop lose so far. The bugs have been naturally selected to no longer find this breed of maize unappealing. As the line from Jurassic Park goes "Nature will find a way."

KNick wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:<<SNIP>>
It's simply natural selection at work. If you add a synthesis path to an organism, that's going to take energy away from everything else the organism does. That, in turn, reduces fitness compared to organisms that don't have the synthesis path. Nothing to do with precise targeting; they've been able to that with single-celled organisms for a long time. CRISPR is simply cheaper.

Stabilizing it simply means building in something that would destroy mutant cells before selection has a chance to get its claws in. That, of course, is easier said than done.

I recently caught a portion of a PBS Newshour report about GMO maize in Brazil. Three years ago a company started selling GMO seeds that supposedly had a natural resistance to a specific pest (in this case a caterpillar). For two years it seemed to work just fine. This year, the bugs seem to find it especially tasty. 30 to 40% crop lose so far. The bugs have been naturally selected to no longer find this breed of maize unappealing. As the line from Jurassic Park goes "Nature will find a way."

We're seeing similar things here in the U.S. This is why a lot of the sustainable agriculture types are very heavily into legacy crop strains. There are other ways of dealing with pests; they just don't adapt themselves to mono-culture factory agriculture.

I'm thinking about the "politico-economic" state of affairs...
W're told that the "pharmaceuticals" are essentially profitable because of marked-down slave labor. But the planet is growing stuff that is uber-worthwhile, and in an OK neighborhood (Manticore and Erewhon) to boot, so...

Instead of thinking "evil Mesan corporate" economies, think 600 year plan, because the Detweilers acknowledge that their public face "Manpower" -- incluing "Verdant Vista" is to hide the onion. A parallel is Trevor's Star terminus, simultaneously a sword at the neck of the Manticoran home system while it was held by the PN, and then a sword at the neck of the RH once White Haven recaptured it, all because of the wormhole terminus. As soon as the MA found the wormhole essentially leading back to their more important population and fleet worlds, they had to control the system.

They did it by populating the planet with genetic slave labor, to make "visit" a real yutz of a place to stop by. So instead of making it a resort world a la Hawaii or Cancun, etc., they make it a suckish backwater Amazon River/ugly south seas Borneo/Malay outlying island that "you wouldn't want to visit there even if you're half dead" terminus dominated by those evil Manpower brutes.

Keeps the nice people, tourist ships, and honest merchants (who would love to find that wormhole) very far away.