Intelligently Design a Human

[Starglider]

Though the avian lung project obviously have a lot more things going for it besides preventing coking.

One problem with bird lungs is that the more efficient gas exchange and transport creates a higher vulnerability to airborne pollutants (thus the whole miner canary practice). Thus a comprehensive set of biochemical upgrades to remove these vulnerabilities (as well as a host of others - evolution couldn't anticipate modern pollutants) should accompany any improvements to the respiratory system.

[Mayabird]

Or you could leave them and hope that their increased vulnerabilities make them confront their own pollution problems a lot more quickly than they would otherwise. Unless you WANT them to turn their world into Mote Prime.

[Tasoth]

Skimmed the thread as school is eating up my time, but it seems like all the proposed changes aren't improvements, but completely new insertions for reasons along the lines of 'Cool!'. All these new sensory additions are going to require more brain mass for processing without considering the benefit. I think Mayabird may have been the only one I can remember as being an improvement with the Vitamin C gene.

And of course I have suggestions. Some kind of redundant mutation correction system, not that ours is bad. But even a single mutation in the wrong gene and the whole system can go offline. Additionally, some form of chromatid maintenance system, not to make the organism eternally young, but make old age a little easier with regards to cell function and how the tissues/organs work. Finally, some kind of system to correct the various little covalent bonds that form between collagen tissues and what not as we age to keep the body from falling apart.

[Broomstick]

The vitamin C synthesis is a good addition.

Tweaking the knees, spine, and so forth also makes a lot of sense.

Some of the other changes... well, it would debatable if such a creature would be considered "human" by most humans. I realize we have transhumanist enthusiasts here, but not everyone is so enchanted with such radical changes.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm wondering how you would engineer human beings to make birth easier on women. Make the hips bigger? Make the infants smaller when they are born, and grow up quicker for a period?

[Lord of the Abyss]

I'm wondering how you would engineer human beings to make birth easier on women. Make the hips bigger? Make the infants smaller when they are born, and grow up quicker for a period?

Joints in the hips that only unlock during birth, perhaps. And something related for the birth canal; design it so that one or two sides during birth"unlock" some sort of organic hook or adhesion that normally keeps it constricted, with the portions beyond the "lock" being very stretchy ( probably not explaining my idea well ).

[Crossroads Inc.]

I'm wondering how you would engineer human beings to make birth easier on women. Make the hips bigger? Make the infants smaller when they are born, and grow up quicker for a period?

you could do a combination of larger hips and more elastic Vagina.

Or you could go to extremes and give Humans "Marsupial" births which would have us 'birthed' as premature fetus things that grow inside a pouch.

[Tasoth]

As for the joints in the hips of females for birth, that would be the pubic symphisis which is a cartilagenous joint at the front of the hips that softens leading up to birth, allowing more give for passing an infant. Back the pelvic girdle is actually only held to the sacrum by ligaments.

[Broomstick]

I'm wondering how you would engineer human beings to make birth easier on women. Make the hips bigger? Make the infants smaller when they are born, and grow up quicker for a period?

you could do a combination of larger hips and more elastic Vagina.

Or you could go to extremes and give Humans "Marsupial" births which would have us 'birthed' as premature fetus things that grow inside a pouch.

Human babies are already "premature" in a sense even when full term. No animal has such a long gestation to wind up so helpless. Having babies arrive even sooner would, in a sense, only be an exaggeration of this trend.

Such babies would need to have their lungs and digestive tracts mature faster than the rest of them to permit early survival outside the wombs. Marsupial pouches might be a little more complicated to engineer, but I won't declare it impossible.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Well if you want to make birth easier, there are only a few things you can do here..
Either you make babies smaller or The Birth canal larger/more elastic

[Darth Holbytlan]

Why go for even more radical pelvis redesigns or marsupial births when it would be so much easier to move the birth canal? The childhood notion of babies coming out of the belly button isn't really that bad of an idea, considering.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I'm wondering how you would engineer human beings to make birth easier on women. Make the hips bigger? Make the infants smaller when they are born, and grow up quicker for a period?

Make the head smaller. Going back to my first suggestion, if we reorganize the brain in such a way that all the "think" goes on in more than just the surface layers, then the brain can be dramatically reduced in size, without giving up functionality. I proposed a dramatically expanded meninges made up of fluid-filled sacs to cushion this smaller brain against impacts, giving every ID human the equivalent of a helmet. One could tweak development so that the skull and meninges are as they are in regular human beings, and only expand after birth. Mind you, this will result in babies with, to us, ridiculously tiny heads; but it does away with their mothers needing to have really crazy adaptations like unhinging pelvises.

Why go for even more radical pelvis redesigns or marsupial births when it would be so much easier to move the birth canal? The childhood notion of babies coming out of the belly button isn't really that bad of an idea, considering.

You do realize that beneath the navel are the muscles of the abdominal wall? The birth canal is already in the optimal place.

[Molyneux]

I'm wondering how you would engineer human beings to make birth easier on women. Make the hips bigger? Make the infants smaller when they are born, and grow up quicker for a period?

Make the head smaller. Going back to my first suggestion, if we reorganize the brain in such a way that all the "think" goes on in more than just the surface layers, then the brain can be dramatically reduced in size, without giving up functionality. I proposed a dramatically expanded meninges made up of fluid-filled sacs to cushion this smaller brain against impacts, giving every ID human the equivalent of a helmet. One could tweak development so that the skull and meninges are as they are in regular human beings, and only expand after birth. Mind you, this will result in babies with, to us, ridiculously tiny heads; but it does away with their mothers needing to have really crazy adaptations like unhinging pelvises.

Why go for even more radical pelvis redesigns or marsupial births when it would be so much easier to move the birth canal? The childhood notion of babies coming out of the belly button isn't really that bad of an idea, considering.

You do realize that beneath the navel are the muscles of the abdominal wall? The birth canal is already in the optimal place.

...except for the problem of the pelvis.
It is a bit of a kludge any way you look at it.

[Coalition]

I'm wondering how you would engineer human beings to make birth easier on women. Make the hips bigger? Make the infants smaller when they are born, and grow up quicker for a period?

Two stage birth? Women give birth to a smaller creature that can survive on its own, and has the embryo inside it. The family takes care of the critter, it grows large enough to let the baby mature. The baby is then grown to 'proper size', and the smaller critter dies in the process.

Caterpillar -> butterfly style metamorphosis, essentially.

A bit weird, I'll admit.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I'm wondering how you would engineer human beings to make birth easier on women. Make the hips bigger? Make the infants smaller when they are born, and grow up quicker for a period?

Two stage birth? Women give birth to a smaller creature that can survive on its own, and has the embryo inside it. The family takes care of the critter, it grows large enough to let the baby mature. The baby is then grown to 'proper size', and the smaller critter dies in the process.

Caterpillar -> butterfly style metamorphosis, essentially.

A bit weird, I'll admit.

Or you could have the arrangement that the Pierson's Puppeteers had in Larry Niven's Known Space works. A male gender, a female gender, and a non-sapient third gender whose primary role is to carry and birth the species' young. This, of course, leads to the thoroughly squick-inducing image of both men and women possessing penises and having an unhealthy fascination with a talking animal looking suspiciously like a sheep. It would also substantially reduce the species' mobility, since the ID humans must care for this third (likely quadrupedal) gender.

There aren't a lot of ways to solve the birthing issue, since you can't really re-locate the birth canal without fundamentally changing the human body plan into something that is no longer really human. And if you were to go that route, you'd might as well go all-out. For example: You could engineer a nanomachine utility fog that can take human form and reproduces via binary fission (sort of like the carbosilicate amorphs from Howard Tayler's Schlock Mercenary webcomic.)

[Starglider]

You do realize that beneath the navel are the muscles of the abdominal wall?

Yeah, and those are a waste of mass as well. Change the skeleton to an articulated geodesic structure (lighter and more redundant; see the Wellington bomber), attach organs individually to that with shock-absorbing ligaments, then you don't need abdominal wall muscles. Birth canal can go through the stomach area without trouble and as a bonus, large tears in the skin will not cause your guts to spill out.

[Broomstick]

Just ignore the little detail that a LOT of people wouldn't consider such a creature to be human anymore....

[Starglider]

Just ignore the little detail that a LOT of people wouldn't consider such a creature to be human anymore....

Bah. If it looks human, sounds human and acts human (at least when trying to blend in), isn't that good enough for the stupids?

[Lagmonster]

Just ignore the little detail that a LOT of people wouldn't consider such a creature to be human anymore....

I really meant 'human' in the sense of 'designed supreme earthly lifeform' rather than in the sense of 'homo sapiens'. Frankly, it's entirely possible that an honest-to-god (ha!) intelligently designed humanity-replacement organism wouldn't look or function at all like we do except in ways where our design is as good as it gets given the need for reliable reproduction.

[Broomstick]

Just ignore the little detail that a LOT of people wouldn't consider such a creature to be human anymore....

Bah. If it looks human, sounds human and acts human (at least when trying to blend in), isn't that good enough for the stupids?

Considering that historically many "stupids" have regarded fellow H. sapiens as another species based upon superficial or even mere cultural differences, no, it's not.

[Starglider]

Considering that historically many "stupids" have regarded fellow H. sapiens as another species based upon superficial or even mere cultural differences, no, it's not.

Ah, but this problem is solvable by engineering. I assume you're going to rule out involuntary brain restructuring of said prejudiced individuals to reformat them to a worldview suitable for the New Rational Order (tm). No matter, we can equip these newly created creatures with such features as variable skin coloration (handy for thermo-regulation and camoflauge purposes anyway), facial structure (just need to tweak that muscle layer a bit, and replace some bone with cartilage) and improved audio mimicry (refined from songbirds perhaps). They will be blending in at the average Teabagger Town Hall Meeting in no time! All the better for subverting the enemy organisations and... oh, look at me, monologuing again.

[Solauren]

One should take this into consideration when redesigning the human species, or creating a trans-human.

If you remove some of our vulnerabilities, or give unusually new abilities, you may eliminate some of our drive towards technology.

Consider;
If you give humans stronger muscles, thicker skin, strong bones, etc, they can now go toe-to-toe with alot of animals on the planet, and win, without using weapons. Therefore, no need to develop them.

If you make humans able to take colder temperatures, there is no need to develop clothing. That means when they reach arctic climates, they don't know how to protect themselves, and it limits migration. End result is North America has no humans in it.

If humans can breath water, then there is no need to develop boats. Therefore, more limited migration.

If we can digest more, we don't need as much food, and might slow down agricultural development.

The best thing to do when intelligently designing a human is to eliminate our problems which we have no off-set with technology. i.e Correct our backs + limbs, elminate genetic diseases, but 'improving us' phyiscally, means we have no reason to compensate, and would slow down technological development.

[Lagmonster]

One should take this into consideration when redesigning the human species, or creating a trans-human.

If you remove some of our vulnerabilities, or give unusually new abilities, you may eliminate some of our drive towards technology.

Consider;
If you give humans stronger muscles, thicker skin, strong bones, etc, they can now go toe-to-toe with alot of animals on the planet, and win, without using weapons. Therefore, no need to develop them.

I pointed this out a page ago; the counter seemed to be that in intelligent beings, civilization would happen via curiosity. Frankly, I don't see why there's a guarantee that a super-being would even be social, let alone cooperatively build a civilization, because it's not nearly as dependant on others for its survival. At this point, in order to replicate technological civilization, I'd be worried that we'd be down to introducing social dependancy, curiosity and drive to pursue scientific ideas purely by programmed fiat.

[Starglider]

At this point, in order to replicate technological civilization, I'd be worried that we'd be down to introducing social dependancy, curiosity and drive to pursue scientific ideas purely by programmed fiat.

Why is that a bad thing? It seems strange to me that you'd condone radical and comprehensive artificial and forward-looking design of the physiology, without encouraging the same for the cognitive architecture. The one problem with that being that it's nearly impossible for us to predict what the actual civilisation-scale outcomes of a given cognitive design are (literally impossible with organisms of significantly transhuman intelligence), even moreso than for physiological changes.

After all, don't the creationists you referred to in your original post believe that we have a pre-programmed capacity and/or need for faith in their god?

[Simon_Jester]

Starglider, the point is that if we're going to take the idea of designed intelligence seriously from an engineering standpoint, we do need to consider potential failure states- something the creationists don't worry about because they aren't taking the problem seriously.

You propose that we compensate for removing all our hypothetical designed species's needs by the brute force solution of programming it to do the things we want it to (build civilizations and discover X, Y, and Z) whether it needs to or not.

Which, I agree with Lagomonster here, is likely to backfire. There's the danger of having the programming be too strong (in which case you get a culture that's so busy investigating that it winds up neglecting the few survival needs it does have). Or of having it go in a slightly weird direction, in which case you get a race of obsessive navel-contemplaters, or a bunch of people too busy collecting butterflies to show any interest in the wider universe.

And to make matters worse, a key aspect to the evolution of science is the mixing of pure curiosity with the practical question "Yes, but what are we going to do with it?" That's how science diverges from philosophy- you don't just come up with clever ideas about nature, you actually try to do something with them.

You'd have to wire people to not only discover things they don't need to know, but to use that knowledge to build things they don't need to own... and that could backfire even more excitingly.