I think it's more likely to be a design decision. If you try to model a large real world area, some people will immediately notice how it is unlike reality; so the constraints of computational power, design skill, and developer ability are multiplied. The differences can be truly jarring.
My guess is that there is more upside to creating unique areas. This affords more creative freedom and the luxury of changing the simulation in accordance with constraints and resources.
This might be a situation where a story merge feature would come in handy.
In a "merged thread" the title could have more than one link value (but still have a canonical (by mod standard) top ranked url.) And the discussion could be merged to one thread (or version controlled in correspondence with a particular top level link.)
> ...I'm not sure it ever will. A lot of the power of the reproductive system is in the DNA, and this simulation does not model DNA.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Not incorporating a full simulation of genetic expression does not preclude the authors from incorporating a simulation of C. Elegans reproduction or the reproductive system in some capacity.
DNA is just a container of letters that ultimately form the words that are amino acids. These amino acids are formed into sentences and phrases that are proteins. Should these proteins be arranged in a functional grammar, their structure and actions collectively express the language of life.
DNA is just the machine code for the emergent system that is life.
A biological system, such as the reproductive system, is comprised of some components that are several layers of abstraction above the DNA; as each system is an emergent property of the symphony of molecular machinery and interaction that constitutes a living organism.
Since many authors were already able to simulate abstractions over other structures and systems, there is no reason why the C. Elegans simulation could not extend their model further. As far as I know, they were not simulating gene expression at all.
Saying that a particular biological abstraction cannot be simulated because it does not contain a lower level simulation of genetic expression is a bit like saying you cannot simulate a ball bouncing because you do not include an atomic resolution molecular force simulation of rubber molecules. Or, that you cannot program a football simulation, like FIFA, because you do not include lower level simulations of aerobic and anaerobic respiration.
Obviously, molecular force dynamics and respiration are integral phenomena that enable bouncing balls and football matches, respectively. (I'm unaware of existing respiring balls.) But those phenomena can be closed over by abstraction, in order to create sufficiently educational simulations for particular scopes of understanding.
Of course, it would be computationally difficult to simulate each level of abstraction, all at once, at atomic "resolution" (or molecular or macromolecular etc. "resolution"). It would be impractical to simulate molecular dynamics, or transcription and translation, or protein folding; when all you care about is the general concept of reproduction and the more abstract structures involved.
You could certainly produce a sufficiently useful naive simulation that is faithful to the spirit of an organism's reproductive system.
There is always a hard boundary on the "resolution" of a biological system simulation, limited by computational power, but there is no logical limitation preventing some simulation of the reproductive system at some educationally valuable level.
Also, the "outrage tourist". Which was an eloquent way of summing up a significant chunk of 2013. Although, at this point, the outrage tourism might be part of the 'markov comment' background radiation of hacker news.
> somatic cell nuclear transfer isn't really cloning because it doesn't include the mitochondria.
That really depends on how you define "cloning". It absolutely can be considered therapeutic cloning, and it would serve as an initial step in reproductive cloning.
> Impressive from a perspective of science, but also deeply unsettling to me. It's clearly only a matter of time before a human clone is created.
Identical twins are "natural" clones. They are genetically identical. (Barring mutation.)
People take issue with "artificial" or reproductive cloning.
If you reproductively cloned an identical twin, you would end up with three genetically identical people. One is just born later, with a more certain outcome.
[Edit: I am not advocating anything. This is a descriptive observation of genetics, not a normative one.]
Keyword is natural though. It's one thing to push science to it's limits. It's another entirely to delve into eugenics.
It's pretty understandable and a default position to advocate for it, but it could be a slippery slope, and will definitely push the politics towards engineered babies over natural ones.
For what it's worth, I wasn't advocating anything. I was just pointing out that cloning occurs every day. I was also hoping to highlight that deliberately cloned people are essentially the same as 'randomly/naturally' cloned people.
A hypothetical clone (in the popular connotation of the word) of myself is essentially identical to my hypothetical identical twin sibling, the distinction is that the hypothetical clone is born after me, and was 'deliberately conceived.' Declaring one to be 'natural' and one to be 'unnatural' is unkind. And arguably, bigoted. (I'm speaking generally, not accusing you of doing this.)
The hypothetical clone will still be a human being in every sense of the word. I suppose you could call them the 'deliberates', but are they more 'deliberate' than those born of copulation or old fashioned, 20th century artificial insemination?
Would identical twins be considered as a higher caste than the 'deliberates'?
Also, what percentage 'clone' do you have to be to be considered a 'clone'? (After all, each 'normal' person only differs from one another in one nucleotide out of every thousand.) Can we replace our damaged organs from those bio-printed of our own DNA? How will this limit proteomic engineering? If we engineer a protein that confers some immunity or cure to an affliction, would we have to deliver it like we do 'artificial' insulin? Or could we "cut the middleman" and edit in a 'copy' of the engineered gene that yields the engineered protein? Might that put the entire genome over some arbitrary 'clone' threshold? Do we wait until the genetic immunity randomly/selectively occurs in nature? Or do we stay 'organic'?
Genomic engineering and artificial genomic reproduction will certainly be the debate of the 21st century. The two fields might engender the next major civil rights movement.
What about eliminating allergies, Alzheimer's, and cancer? How about increasing the intelligence of the human species?
Do we want to give our children better opportunities? Forget superficial stuff like blond hair and blue eyes, we're talking about the possibility of having guaranteed super-healthy, super-happy, super-smart children.
That's all been doable for a long time, using controlled breeding. We do it all the time with animals; look what we've done to dogs. The only difference genetic engineering brings is how quickly it can be done.
But that's eugenics, and it's been rejected as immoral by pretty much everyone. A big part of the problem, I think, is that a custom-engineered child is a lot more expensive to create than a natural random-chance child, and therefore eugenics only produces super-humans for the rich and powerful, who will become even more rich and powerful by breeding themselves into master race that enslaves everyone else.
Eugenics can't upgrade all of humanity directly because natural breeding, being cheaper, is also much more common. So the vast majority of inferior humans will always outnumber the eugenics-produced super-humans. That's where the enslavement comes in; the super-humans will have to use their inherited wealth and power to make sure they retain control because they can't out-breed everyone else.
The other possibility, and the only way the super-humans can replace the normals, is to kill off all of the normals either directly or by making them infertile. That's even worse than enslavement.
No matter how you look at it, eugenics has a bad outcome if it's not available to everyone at the same time. And if it was available to everyone, we wouldn't call it eugenics. We'd call it 'medicine', 'vaccination', 'pre- and post-natal care', and 'preventative care'.
> That's all been doable for a long time, using controlled breeding. We do it all the time with animals; look what we've done to dogs. The only difference genetic engineering brings is how quickly it can be done.
Selective sexual reproduction and genetic engineering are actually markedly different. Genetic engineering involves precise splicing, insertion, or rearrangement of an organism's genome (or subset of genes). Selective sexual reproduction is a directed random rearrangement of genetic material over successive generations based (on often poorly understood) "meta-characteristics" or traits.
The critical distinction is that genetic engineering is the deliberate editing of exact genetic information, whereas selective sexual reproduction is a gradual, iterated, locally-random mixing of genetic information with imprecise results.
Furthermore, genetic engineering enables genetic mixing that aren't possible with selective sexual reproduction. For example, the insertion of genetic information into E.coli in order to produce human insulin for diabetics. Or, the modification of a particular cyanobacteria to secrete petroleum after photosynthesis.
>> ...eliminating allergies, Alzheimer's, and cancer...
> That's all been doable for a long time, using controlled breeding...
This is incorrect. You may be surprised to learn that those deeply complicated, diverse families of afflictions would not be effectively treated via 'controlled breeding'.
A simple, naive disproof of the assertion that cancer can be eliminated in domesticated or selectively selectively bred animals (via artificial selection): pigs, huskies, and laboratory mice all get cancer at rates that are more or less congruent with wild boar, wolves, and rats.
I don't think you can have both - super-happy and super-smart. But otherwise, yes. I see no problems with you creating super-smart children that will be able to wipe out all the stupid ones. Who knows, maybe this is the only way to save humanity from AI menace ;)
I think it's not quite that simple. We're more than just our chromosomes. How much more is a matter of philosophy, but even restricting ourselves to just what we know by science, we know that the fetal environment, mitochondria, etc. play a role. Artificial cloning methods as I understand them are distinct from the way natural identical twins form. If it were so simple to reproduce "natural cloning", it would already done and commonplace. In reality, it seems to require quite a bit of hacking.
I don't think something having a natural analog makes it any less unsettling. I also have not specifically advocated anything, although it's probably clear that I have reservations.
I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me. I wasn't really trying to simplify anything. I was just saying that genetic clones already exist.
Identical twins are clones. They are genetically identical barring mutation. That's basically a catch-all for copying errors, environmental mutations, fetal environment, etc.
> Artificial cloning methods as I understand them are distinct from the way natural identical twins form.
Correct, artificial cloning is commonly divided into therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. The pop culture idea of cloning is closest to reproductive cloning. You mentioned that we were close to creating a 'human clone'. I was just pointing out that there already are clones. We might be talking past each other, I was not saying that we have reproductively cloned (or that the two methods are the same). I was just trying to highlight the fact that twins are essentially genetically the same as what reproductive clones would be, as in the outcome isn't that much different.
People do take issue with reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning in humans is still hypothetical at this point, but it is theoretically possible and could yield people that are 'identical' in the same way that identical twins are 'identical.'
> If it were so simple to reproduce "natural cloning", it would already done and commonplace. In reality, it seems to require quite a bit of hacking.
I didn't really say it was simple or currently possible, I said people take issue with it.
> I don't think something having a natural analog makes it any less unsettling.
Suppose, that whether we like it or not, for better or worse, somewhere cloning occurs. Through no choice of their own, these clones exist. They are exactly the same as the natural analog. They are people that would deserve the same treatment and consideration as you or I. The thought of these people being oppressed is unsettling.
The job offers you are getting now are roughly fungible with initial job offers you will get in the future.
Unfortunately, time isn't fungible. Every period of your life is unique. You can always go back and finish your degree, but you can never reclaim youth.
You have a tremendous freedom to take advantage of the wonderful privilege of an 'undergrad experience' (whatever that may mean to you) at a top school, while you are still young.
Is the expected value of startup experience now, worth more than every other possible way to spend youth? Whatever you decide, savour it.
If the startup fails, you won't be any less employable and you can always go back for your degree. The potential sourness you anticipate will not likely be the bitter aftertaste of a career setback...
"...the great lock controversy of 1851..." That's so quaint. I wonder if "The Browser Wars", or something of its ilk, will have the same ring to it in 160 years.
As I understand it, the toxicity is caused by the implementation of the LNP delivery system, rather than a factor inherent to LNP delivery in general. As there are LNP systems that have proven to effectively deliver to target.
Basically, this LNP delivery system is for encapsulating a desired portion of RNA within a 'shell'[+], so that it may be delivered to a biological target.
The shell is necessary because siRNA is anionic and hydrophilic (negatively charged and water loving/binding.) Which makes it difficult to deliver to targets. It is also unstable in serum (component of blood) and can have unintended side effects if delivered to the wrong target.
There have been attempts to engineer custom siRNA directly. These attempts have resulted in siRNA that cause fewer unintended side effects and have higher stability. However, this method still requires high dosage in vivo and the effects are limited to the liver.
The more promising approach involves wrapping the siRNA in a lipid 'shell'. The 'shell' is inserted into the biological system and travels through the bloodstream to the target area.
The two underlying causes of toxicity (in some LNP delivery implementations) seem to be: the charge of the LNP system and the 'dosage' of the LNP delivery system.
Recent research has shown that it is possible to engineer these 'shells' in such a fashion that they can carry the siRNA safely to target, mitigate the undesirable surface charge, and require relatively low dosage.
Specifically, they have developed ionizable cationic lipids with pKa below 7 to encapsulate the 'package' at a low pH, while maintaining a relatively neutral surface charge at physiological pH. Also, the delivery 'package' itself is made much smaller.
([+] Lipid Nanoparticle delivery is a means of biological/in-solution transport for small matter in general, in this case it is specifically a means of delivering small interface RNA, siRNA, within a biological system.)
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, but I do have experience in a somewhat related field. This is a high level explanation and it's possible that my explanation handwaves or is mistaken in some aspect.
These papers do a better job of explaining it than I can:
My guess is that there is more upside to creating unique areas. This affords more creative freedom and the luxury of changing the simulation in accordance with constraints and resources.