1. No wings: Genetic engineering will be used to alter Hox-box promoters and micro-RNA gene enhancers to re-activate the pre-wing somite program. A dab of stem-cell therapy might help here, too; at any rate, it cannot hurt, can it?
2. Too heavy: Although the average pig cell is a chunky 20 microns in diameter, microbiologists have recently documented (R. M. Morris et al., Nature 420:806, 2002) free-living organisms as small as 0.8 micron in diameter. By the well-known inverse cube law, a reduction in mean cell diameter of 25 will lead to a reduction in volume of 253 = 15,625, with a corresponding reduction in pig weight.
3. Gravity problem: This one's easy -- either move the pig to Phobos, one of the low-gravity satellites of Mars, where people are going anyway, and can just drop the pig off on the way, or else use transient hypergravity attractivity to hollow out the Earth by removing the heavy and unnecessary core. As a side effect, if this is done properly, it just might speed up the Earth's rotation sufficiently to provide the pig with a bit of a push to get it started, too.
4. Can't climb trees: Who says pigs cannot climb trees? Because so far most of their food has been placed in troughs or in the undergrowth of French forests, pigs have not previously been motivated to climb trees. In any case, toxin-constrained nano-bonsai ought to do the trick here.
5. No feathers: The Drosophila antennapaedia gene (for which a Nobel prize was recently awarded) allows the transformation of bristles into legs or antennas, and there's no reason this wouldn't work for feathers and pigs, too.
6. Lack of motivation: Easy to solve: LSD.
7. Tweet problem: Implantable helium sacs, just under the armpits, so whenever they flap their wings a bit of helium gets squirted into their vocal cavity.
Although each of these strategies is based upon sound scientific precedent or fantasy, nonetheless some of my conservative critics here on the local faculty have argued, from their ivory tower, that no one has yet proven that any one of these methods has been shown to convert porkers to parakeets. But no one has yet tried all seven of them together, don't you see! In addition, funding for porcine avionics research has to date been very, very low, due to the stubborn insistence of NIH on peer review. The PEPA program, however, has been endorsed, or at any rate not publicly pilloried, by dozens of eminent scientists whose names I could give you if necessary.
Amazing though it may seem, I believe that we are now at what I call a "cusp" in the history of either porki-culture or -aviation or both. Pigs born before April 14, 2009, will be destined to a life on the ground, rooting about for scraps, grunting unpleasantly, and constantly getting their curly little tails entangled in low-lying shrubs. Pigs born after April 15, 2009 (or perhaps a few days later), will in contrast waft lazily through the lambent skies, tweeting merry greetings to one another, nibbling at an occasional air-truffle, and enjoying panoramic views of either Cambridge or Phobos, depending. Also, they'll get to live forever, by following the practices so stirringly depicted in your own articles.
All I need is a clever marketing gimmick -- perhaps a prize of some sort -- that will fool journalists and conference organizers into thinking that the only reason none of this works yet is that scientists are afraid to debate me. Any advice?
All the best,
Richard Miller
Comments
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/30/2005
Posts:1
11/30/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/30/2005
Posts:1
11/30/2005
Posts:1
mmmm.....
Those guys were fun to clown around with but I dont think I would take thier opinions of biology too seriously.
This kind of thing may be amusing, but really does nothing to help my understanding, as an ignorant lay person, of the relevant issues.
I read Technology Review to help me understand the issues. I read the Onion for humor and satire. This article would be better there.
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/30/2005
Posts:1
12/13/2005
Posts:1
11/30/2005
Posts:1
12/13/2005
Posts:1
If they have something scientific, I would suppose they will accept the Challenge and try to win the 20.000 $ of the Challenge.
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
Dr. Miller: grant wings using stem cells.
Noel: Too expensive, and too much work. Create a bird-pig hybrid (to ensure no immune respose) and graft the wings to the pig. Now its just a matter of nerves and muscle.
Dr. Miller: reduce cell size to reduce weight
Noel: Increase bouyancy by implanting hydrogen-generating bacteria in a skin sac, to inflant the pigs back.
Etc. Give solutions, not mocking. Tell us what the scientists are doing instead.
PS: I didnt include opportunity cost.
11/30/2005
Posts:1
IMHO, whats more important about De Greys work is not necessarily whether he identified all the causes of aging and offered realistic cures for them. What is important is that there has been a radical new way of thought about the process of aging. It used to be "something natural" that "just happened" to "everyone". Now its something that is considered a disease like cancer or aids that needs to be fixed.
The problem appears to be that just a few small groups work on this (as compared to other common mortal diseases). Why? Who would have a problem with doubled, tripled, quadrupled life spans? A couple of very powerful groups come to mind...
12/06/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
Dr. Miller: grant wings using stem cells.
Noel: Too expensive, and too much work. Create a bird-pig hybrid (to ensure no immune respose) and graft the wings to the pig. Now its just a matter of nerves and muscle.
Dr. Miller: reduce cell size to reduce weight
Noel: Increase bouyancy by implanting hydrogen-generating bacteria in a skin sac, to inflant the pigs back.
Etc. Give solutions, not mocking. Tell us what the scientists are doing instead.
PS: I didnt include opportunity cost.
11/30/2005
Posts:1
IMHO, whats more important about De Greys work is not necessarily whether he identified all the causes of aging and offered realistic cures for them. What is important is that there has been a radical new way of thought about the process of aging. It used to be "something natural" that "just happened" to "everyone". Now its something that is considered a disease like cancer or aids that needs to be fixed.
The problem appears to be that just a few small groups work on this (as compared to other common mortal diseases). Why? Who would have a problem with doubled, tripled, quadrupled life spans? A couple of very powerful groups come to mind...
12/06/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
Perhaps, the ink was actually wasted when Tech Review posted this flimsy rebuttal... Oh, but wait! This isnt even paper. So really, hes just wasting our time.
If De Greys argument is flawed, thats fine. He should provide a counterpoint. Put up, or shut up. Dont patronize De Grey and the readers with nonsense that claims to be a valid view.
11/30/2005
Posts:1
Perhaps, the ink was actually wasted when Tech Review posted this flimsy rebuttal... Oh, but wait! This isnt even paper. So really, hes just wasting our time.
If De Greys argument is flawed, thats fine. He should provide a counterpoint. Put up, or shut up. Dont patronize De Grey and the readers with nonsense that claims to be a valid view.
11/30/2005
Posts:1
While I disagree with some of De Greys points that this article would get published when there are serious questions is a black eye to Tech Review.
If you dont or wont ask intelligent questions maybe it would be better to stay quiet. How about a discussion point by point? Is that too hard or too much work for Tech Review?
We may never achive immortality but until we try we will never do it either.
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
Sounds like some people are taking themselves and the authors too seriously.
Read it for what it is . . . two opinionated intellectuals with opposing positions applying their own sense of humor to a common rhetorically “negative” position – when pigs fly!
11/30/2005
Posts:1
Sounds like some people are taking themselves and the authors too seriously.
Read it for what it is . . . two opinionated intellectuals with opposing positions applying their own sense of humor to a common rhetorically “negative” position – when pigs fly!
11/30/2005
Posts:1
Sounds like some people are taking themselves and the authors too seriously.
Read it for what it is . . . two opinionated intellectuals with opposing positions applying their own sense of humor to a common rhetorically “negative” position – when pigs fly!
11/30/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
12/01/2005
Posts:1
01/13/2006
Posts:1
Cant Miller see what this sort of thing is fuelling?
mw
12/06/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
mmmm.....
Those guys were fun to clown around with but I dont think I would take thier opinions of biology too seriously.
This kind of thing may be amusing, but really does nothing to help my understanding, as an ignorant lay person, of the relevant issues.
I read Technology Review to help me understand the issues. I read the Onion for humor and satire. This article would be better there.
11/29/2005
Posts:1
If they have something scientific, I would suppose they will accept the Challenge and try to win the 20.000 $ of the Challenge.
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
While I disagree with some of De Greys points that this article would get published when there are serious questions is a black eye to Tech Review.
If you dont or wont ask intelligent questions maybe it would be better to stay quiet. How about a discussion point by point? Is that too hard or too much work for Tech Review?
We may never achive immortality but until we try we will never do it either.
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
11/29/2005
Posts:1
12/01/2005
Posts:1
Cant Miller see what this sort of thing is fuelling?
mw
12/06/2005
Posts:1
Nabukadnezar
04/03/2007
Posts:4
The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it. . . . Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.
- Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839) French surgeon
Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean.
- Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1838) Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College, London
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist
Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value.
- Editorial in the Boston Post (1865)
madella1
08/14/2007
Posts:1
Anyway, heres that wired article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSk9_ZeciEk
Enjoy!
HighBar
06/29/2008
Posts:1