anyone thought of this yet?

[GST_Nemisis]

ok so we all know the global warming is bad right, and a large part of it is the CO2 problem called the green house effect. what if we were to genetically engineer the chloroplasts of plants into some bacteria which would be able to survive at high altitudes. this would cut down alot of the CO2 right?

i only just thought of this but would it work?

 

[Malufa]

Actually what causes the depletion of the ozone is chlorine molecules. They attach to an O3 molecule, break it up by attaching to one and the other two attach. Then a "free" 01 mole comes and breaks off the chlorine molecule, which goes over and breaks more 03. This cycle is repeated quite a bit. One small molecule of non-soluable chlorine that can make it into the ozone (any non-soluable basically) is capable of destroying 100.000 O3 bonds.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

yhe but im talking about the green house effect not ozone depletion.

 

[Ralle]

I guess yeah or maybe make a fast growing plant that is very good at that kinda stuff.. and pay people for having it

 

[GST_Nemisis]

no it would have to be a bacterium because it would need to float to very high altitudes. but yet it would have to be fast growing and also it would need to be sustanable it high altidudes on something....i suppose the water from clouds could work.

 

[Malufa]

If you properly ionized the water int he clouds, maybe. I see what you are saying tho and a bacteria would be better suited for that line of work. The problem, however, comes in genetics. It would be "easy" to make it, but to have it in the germline cells so that it reproduces is hard, and then you need to worry about all sorts of other things. Certain amounts of chemicals in the air is natural, so if you removed it all you could be creating just as big of a hazard. Also how would you prevent it from mutating undesirable characteristics? There is a lot involved in this line of thought, there is too much to risk in such a chancy proposition.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

well i have thought about several of the things you mention, while i dont know alot about the genitcs side i can think of a few solutions the the other problems.

what if there was an antibiotic specifivally designed to harm that bacteria and no other, what if we engineered it with a difficiency so that it was affect by something simple like alcohol. then there could be a spread of alcohol every week killing off the bacteria, then a new batch of bacteria put up there. the main concern then would be the bacteria mutating to be immune to the alcohol, but how common would that be? i think there would have to be a solution to this problem some how.

 

[Malufa]

You sure do like to add a ton of 'what if's there Dan.

Yes, the bacteria will become immune to the alcohol in a very short amount of time. Antibiotics run the same risk of harming the environment in the long run. Plus where the hell will you be getting the alcohol and how would you be spreading it all around up in the air?

 

[GST_Nemisis]

Plus where the hell will you be getting the alcohol and how would you be spreading it all around up in the air?

remember i asked a about the sugar cane?

(tho the sugar cane ethanol is for another thing...)

and some sort of plane i guess.

ok well heres another idea, that if possible, would be completely controllable. can the bond of CO2 be broken bya certain UV ray width like alot of other chemicals can? because if they can u could make a plane that pumps out those UV rays to break the C=O bond (= mean the double bond).

 

[GST_Nemisis]

not nessicarily, the C=O bond is a very specific bond and with correct wave lengths would be the only bonds affected. and it wouldnt stop ozone being broken down. infact i think this is right..

ozone is affected by a range a UV light wave; it is the way that it stop us being hit by them. the ozone molecule absorbs these waves which gives the bonds energy, this does not affect us until a cholorine free radical is intruduced by a chloro-fluro-carbon (CFC) which can break down creating chlorine free radical, which, as malufa said, can be VERY hazardous for everyone.

basically if we get the wave length right, theoretically it would work.

 

[Malufa]

Im 2 lazy to read all that so some of this might have been said but meh...


If that method worked (Which i doubt i dunno )

it wouldnt stop after it got rid of teh bad Shit... it would egt rid off the good shit too (Which is the same shit as the bad shit but theres too much of it)... That would end up with us having No protection from teh sun which would eman pollution and ALOT of it very fast would be our only hope of survival...... How ironic...

If you are too lazy to read do not comment.

 

[Shados]

The risks in genetic manipulation of virii are ridiculous, most virii mutate so fast that their original purpose would soon be lost. Without an effective method of killing off the virii with no fear of them becoming resistant, genetically engineering virii becomes inviable. And if we could effectively kill them off afterwards then we probably could use that same technology to do what the virii were meant to do in the first place. Using nanite colonies that replicated themselves using basically the same materials as plants might work.

 

[asasin850]

Wow Whichever assfuck deleted my post shoul go shoot themselves. Fuckin pricks.. I make a comment thats perfectly legit n a fag cracks down on me....

 

[Malufa]

Wow Whichever assfuck deleted my post shoul go shoot themselves. Fuckin pricks.. I make a comment thats perfectly legit n a fag cracks down on me....

That was me and if you would read posts you would know why. And stop cursing so much, we have rules against it.

 

[Malufa]

The risks in genetic manipulation of virii are ridiculous, most virii mutate so fast that their original purpose would soon be lost. Without an effective method of killing off the virii with no fear of them becoming resistant, genetically engineering virii becomes inviable. And if we could effectively kill them off afterwards then we probably could use that same technology to do what the virii were meant to do in the first place. Using nanite colonies that replicated themselves using basically the same materials as plants might work.

I am glad you agree with my conclusion as well. Playing around with genetic structures of such viruses and bacteria is extremely unstable and can cause more problems than they solve.

 

[Shados]

Yeah, and the only way to be sure you've killed off all of any virus is to use a virus-like organism against it, therefore, other virii or nanites. I'd much prefer to go down the nanite path, as nanites aren't going to suddenly mutate and cause horrible damage to the environment.

 

[asasin850]

I Was answering the original question Stated... Theres no law against that... And i was rather annoyed at teh time i was having a fight with my mate so :roll:

 

[Malufa]

I do not care to hear excuses, asasin.

Yes, nanites would be slightly better, but bacteria will mutate when they encounter them as well. Bacteria mutate when they encounter anything at all.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

unless! why dont we make hydrogen ballons, or air ballonswhich carry large sacs with the bacteria inside, the large sacs have pores in them which allow small molecules to diffuse through but large ones not, similar to the ones found on most organisms, so the bacteria are trapped inside, but the materials they need to surivive pass through freely. then every month the ballons brought down and sterilised, then new bacteria put up there.

 

[Malufa]

Sounds like a multi-billion dollar solution versus a simple, cost effective one. Your idea might possibly be concievable, but it would take a large amount of time, effort, and resources to accomplish. Or, alternatively, people could continue to follow the simple plans that are already working and cost nothing.

 

[Shados]

I do not care to hear excuses, asasin.

Yes, nanites would be slightly better, but bacteria will mutate when they encounter them as well. Bacteria mutate when they encounter anything at all.

You can't mutate against nanites, they could simply physically bash the bacteria in, for one thing. Or they could deliver fatal electric shocks or release deadly chemicals. Bacteria wouldn't really be able to mutate, and we could always make better nanites.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

wtf are nanites? i thought they were small machines.

 

[Malufa]

Yes, they are small machines, and yes bacteria would still mutate. Believe me, bacteria mutate when they encounter absolutely anything that does not imediately kill them.

Dan, look at the newest Scientific America that just came out for March 2006, it might help you answer some of your questions.

 

[Shados]

Thats just it, nanites have the capability to kill them outright before they mutate, and how the hell are virii meant to mutate against purely physical attacks? Machines > Organisms in a physical fight.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

nanites would cost millions in development and even more in implementation. i think my idea would be economially viable however, i think that the development of the bacteria would be the most expensive, but after that it wouldnt cost much. the only problem might be doing it on a large enough scale.

and unless scientific america is online i wont be able to read it.

 

[Malufa]

Thats just it, nanites have the capability to kill them outright before they mutate, and how the hell are virii meant to mutate against purely physical attacks? Machines > Organisms in a physical fight.

Haha, that is funny. If that were true, Shados (why not just go for shadows?) then we would have no illness in the world, no parapalegia, and no injury at all. STDs would be obilderated, organs 100% reliable, and we would have computers attached to our brains.

Dan, go to your local bookstore or newspaper stand and buy a copy You might also be able to find it at grocery stores, it is not very hard to find.

 

[Shados]

Who says we won't? Nanites have almost unlimited potential, if used correctly they could turn the world into a utopia. Or, in the wrong hands they could destroy it. The reason the world isn't like what you say is that they haven't been developed yet, although they and other very interesting things like quantum supercomputers (if they succeed in creating a quantum supercomputer they'll also prove the existance of other realities) and stem cell research. And GST_Nemisis, yes, they would cost millions, just like succesfully creating highly advanced bacterial colonies. However, the materials would be rather inexpensive, after all, you're working with things the size of a nanometer (one billionth of a metre (i think)). And to create the bacterea I think you'd need an RNA re-encrypter (correct me if I'm wrong) and they cost thousands for small amounts.

And Malufa, Shados is a word, though I seriously doubt you can find out it's meaning, and i'm certainly not going to tell you,

 

[Malufa]

Well I know it is not Celtic, Gedelic, Goilec, Dutch, Engligh, Middle English, Sumerian, Ancient Greek, Latin, French, German, Russian, or Pictish.

As for the reason, we do have nano-tech, and a lot more than you might think. We have nano-survelliance systems, audio recorders, probes, reconstructive instruments, armour, and more. We do not apply it too much to medicine because of what I have said about bacteria. Believe me, I know what the hell I am talking about here.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

yeh i swear its like the NSA spends billions every year developing tech for survalence and stuff. do we have railguns yet? things that can fire using electro-magnatism at almost the speed of light?

 

[maxi1]

yeah but only as big as a house and mounted on an american destroyer.
except for secret prototypes of course...

 

[Malufa]

No, the technology is not practical. Where the hell did you hear that at Maxi?

If you look through CNN you can find this really cool survelliance bot that actually eats real bugs for its power. I think that is rather awesome.

 

[Shados]

As for the reason, we do have nano-tech, and a lot more than you might think. We have nano-survelliance systems, audio recorders, probes, reconstructive instruments, armour, and more. We do not apply it too much to medicine because of what I have said about bacteria. Believe me, I know what the hell I am talking about here.

I know we have nano-tech, but not on the level of advancement I'm talking about, there are other technologies that need to be developed before you can have a worldwide nano-utopia, and on a side note, have you heard about the nuclear fusion reactor they're trying to build in Europe?

Well I know it is not Celtic, Gedelic, Goilec, Dutch, Engligh, Middle English, Sumerian, Ancient Greek, Latin, French, German, Russian, or Pictish.

Not bad, but you're heading in the wrong direction, you've missed the language altogether. And what the hell is Goilec?

 

[Malufa]

'Tis an ancient form of Gedelic.

I think you are missing the entire point I am making about nanites, not seeing the forest for the trees and what not.

 

[Shados]

Well, try and make your point again.

 

[GST_Nemisis]

why doesnt goverment go puplic about nano tech?

and remember a while back i asked you alot about conspiracies and that, come on man, what REALLY happened at roswell

 

[Shados]

my god, you aren't one of those crazy alien invasion conspiracy weirdo's, are you?

Speaking of conspiracies, we all know America DIDN'T land on the moon first, that was all faked, I mean come on, no stars in the background and...

 

[GST_Nemisis]

im not a crazed alien guy, but i do love conspiracies. my two favourite conspiracies are david ickes lizard nation and gene rays timecube. both nut jobs, both very funny.

btw, i rarely believe any of the conspiracies (i dont believe anything happened at roswell, i believe lee harvey oswold did shoot JFK, i dont believe we have EVER made contact with aliens), i just think its facinating what some people think...

 

[Malufa]

Aye, it is not that conspiracies are believeable, it is that it is fun to see how people react and what they believe. That is what Dan and I like about conspiracies, how people react to them. Also, just to clarify, governments DO admit that nanotech is avalible and being developed. In fact about 4 or 5 months back there was an article that CNN or MSNBC did on those little fly cameras I was talking about. Believe me, if it was classified info you would not be hearing about it from me, let alone a public news broadcaster.

As for my point about nanites it is simple: they are not a solution. They have problems, flaws, and can cause more damage than they are worth very easily, just like the whole bacteria thing. The problem with the ozone is a molecule up there that should not be up there, but it is self-repairable and the ozone is making a comeback. You must realize, however, it takes about 30 years for anything we do down here to reach up there, and it takes even longer to fix things on a global scale.