Breeding humans for battle - Page 3 - Writers Forum

Hodge · 06-05-2007, 12:45 AM

That's not really the technology, though. The insurgent forces have no qualms about killing innocent civilians in addition to U.S. troops. We do. If we didn't, you can bet we'd use more powerful explosive than car bombs.

Creator · 06-05-2007, 02:03 AM

Well are we getting a little off topic?

Mike C · 06-05-2007, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

That's not really the technology, though. The insurgent forces have no qualms about killing innocent civilians in addition to U.S. troops. We do. If we didn't, you can bet we'd use more powerful explosive than car bombs.

That's kind of my point. You can spend billions on technology, but you can't beat a guerilla army with smart bombs. The huge spending power of the US didn't beat the Viet-cong, nor is it beating the insurgents in Iraq.

And although our guys may have qualms about killing civilians, there's an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians that would argue otherwise. If they weren't dead. And I think you'll find that the explosives we used were far more powerful than car bombs. The insurgents have no qualms about killing civilians because they are - to them - legitimate targets.

And creator, I think this is hugely ON topic because if you're going to write about war, you need to know it's about more than guys pushing buttons. Politicians do that, but it's the ordinary folk, whether American, British or Iraqi troops, or innocent civilians, who do the dying.

Warfare in the west will now always involve spiralling technology, because the people back home don't like their kids coming home in pieces. The enemies we're facing in the recent past, and in the future, in eastern Europe and the Middle East, don't have such qualms.

Unless you reduce a country to a radioactive wasteland, wars of the future will no longer be about who has the greatest engineers, but who has the strongest stomach and who can absorb the most casualties. The lesson learned in Vietnam is that it's the will of the people back home that decide who wins, not the poor fuckers on the ground taking bullets.

Creator · 06-05-2007, 03:47 AM

Ain't we a little off topic regarding combative human farming. I have heard of animal husbandry for farming animals and dogs but IN humans?

Creator · 06-05-2007, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archduke Robert of France

Watch GATTACA if you want to see genetic discrimination. They wouldn't let the naturally-born kid into school becuase they were afriad he's cut himselfm get an infection and die and that the parents would sue the school.

Yah the very first scene in GATTACA

I was frightened by, was the part where they diagnosed the main character as a baby, lifespan 30 years, heart disease 30%......etc, very disturbing.

But for soldier farming, a lot of stuff would be needed especially in the beginning stage,

lot of surrogate mothers
Sperms from lots of men with desirable traits, Volunteers? Jango Fett

?
The originals may be subject to serious screening of performance and even culling thru competition!

Also a lot of ethic probs too

Mike C · 06-05-2007, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creator

Ain't we a little off topic regarding combative human farming. I have heard of animal husbandry for farming animals and dogs but IN humans?

There's no need to farm or genetically modify humans. We've evolved into the nastiest, most bloodthirsty species on earth without any help.

And farming happens. It's called conscription.

Lord Raiden · 06-05-2007, 08:20 AM

Creator: My suggestion is this. Robots are far cheaper and quicker to build than any kind of human. They supersede us in every way. The only thing that would one up them is a cyborg. It would take the best of a machine and mix it with the best of a living being and come out with a hybrid that'd beat both of them hands down. Machines have the advantage in speed of thought, physical strength, and endurance. But humans have the advantage in cunning, creativity, adaptability and what I would call "premonition." IE, the ability to know something's going to happen before having any hard data to back up that feeling.

I used a type of cyborg in one of my books that was like that. They were more flesh than machine, but the enhancements made to them created a super soldier that was superior to a cyborg that's mostly machine. Not saying it was better than the typical cyborg, but it provided a good plot element for the story to go with the particular race they were attached to.

Mike C · 06-05-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Raiden

Robots are far cheaper and quicker to build than any kind of human.

Really? Since when? Humans are, and have always been, cannon-fodder in war. Cheap and plentiful. And a robot soldier is impractical, maybe even counter-productive. If I'm faced with a robot army, am I going to stand and fight it (when for every robot I 'kill' all I do is create more work for your factories) or do I go fly a plane into a building instead, and kill real people?

Or what about if we both have armies or robots? War then becomes pointless, unless I ignore your army and start blanket-bombing your cities.

War only works if innocents get slaughtered.

Creator · 06-05-2007, 10:07 AM

Yes a human is much cheaper to produce and it is unlikely you get a Terminator-like scenerio....... which is even more deadlier[counterproductive].

CaptainFreedom · 06-05-2007, 07:35 PM

Selective breeding can produce very rapid results. This is going to be an uncomfortable topic, so don't kill me. I'm not a racist, I'm just making an observation.

If you look at blacks in the US, they are in many ways physically superior to US whites, but if you look at most of the people in Africa they are much more lightly built than the blacks in the US. I think this could be because the slaves in America were bred to be able to bear heavier loads. If a slave owner had a big woman and a strong man they would breed them in order to get stronger offspring. The results we see today happened over a couple hundered years on a very limited scale.

As far as robots go, it depends when your story takes place. In 300 years,
people aren't going to be doing the fighting for developed nations anymore. It's mainly a question of software, we can already build a machine better than a man if we put our minds to it. (helicopters, tanks, etc...) It's just that computers haven't shown any sign of creative thought yet.

Creativity is important for war because if it's relatively even, then the plan is going to go in the pooper at some point, and individual decisions will determine the outcome of the fight between the remnants.

Regarding the people griping about the performance of the US military in the past 50 years, that is a result of TV. Atrocities were commonplace before they were broadcast into every civilian's living room. These atrocities are a prerequisite if a country is fighting agaist a force which uses the population as hostages and human sheilds.

There was no significant resistance in Germany after WWII because every person of fighting age was dead, injured, or imprisoned. English fighter planes flew around the country for two weeks after the cease fire and shot everything that moved.

CF

Ilan Bouchard · 06-05-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainFreedom

Selective breeding can produce very rapid results. This is going to be an uncomfortable topic, so don't kill me. I'm not a racist, I'm just making an observation.

If you look at blacks in the US, they are in many ways physically superior to US whites, but if you look at most of the people in Africa they are much more lightly built than the blacks in the US. I think this could be because the slaves in America were bred to be able to bear heavier loads. If a slave owner had a big woman and a strong man they would breed them in order to get stronger offspring. The results we see today happened over a couple hundered years on a very limited scale.

Or it could be because people who live in the U.S. are better nourished than Africans. And saying that black Americans are "physically superior" than white Americans is a stereotype. So not only does this analogy not apply correctly, but even if it did it would prove that it takes several generations' worth of humans to produce superior offspring.

Quote:

Creativity is important for war because if it's relatively even, then the plan is going to go in the pooper at some point, and individual decisions will determine the outcome of the fight between the remnants.

Robots can be controlled via remote by creative humans. The idea of robots and machines isn't for them to replace people, necessarily, but for them prevent human casualty, and disperse destruction that a mere human isn't capable of.

Creator · 06-05-2007, 09:26 PM

For farm animals, I heard that humans select the traits. but lets say for a human army.... The evil mastermind can select the right traits like say, they grow to adult size at 5 years[plus a bit of genetic stuff] or they select the ones with very good stamina or good amount of obedience.

Does artificial selection work this way?

Shawn · 06-05-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilan Bouchard

So not only does this analogy not apply correctly, but even if it did it would prove that it takes several generations' worth of humans to produce superior offspring.

Not to mention it is extremely dangerous. Diabetes is dominant in my family because my ancestry is quite close in line... distant cousins and such. I'm also shocked that the House of Windsor isn't plagued by severe disease. Mixing genes that are closely related will result in a really messed up gene pool, simple as that.

Creator · 06-05-2007, 10:30 PM

Errr, but with growth acceleration like in certain farm animals..... you can have 3 gens or more in one generation...... think about it! But these soldiers are battle ready but age fast.... I think Jango's clones might age pretty fast. But genetic code tampering might change this.

OK but if I am the mastermind I would cull the diseased ones...

Shawn · 06-05-2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creator

OK but if I am the mastermind I would cull the diseased ones...

That's not quite how it works. With a limited gene pool, the entire batch would be vulnerable to a certain disease.