Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
1. Those fictional LAWS ban modifying the genetic make up of a zygote (CRISPR gene editing).
2. The initial plan of Zero Dawn was that as a reward for Alphas, they would each get to make a clone of themselves whom they could raise in the Elysium bunker; later, this was dropped, but not before EACH OF THEM had their genetic material sampled and a frozen embryo of their 'perfect' copy prepared. This is what GAIA used to make Aloy -- a prepared frozen embryo of Elisabet Sobeck.
3. The reason for https://horizon.fandom.com/wiki/Patrick_Brochard-Klein's speech is to prevent endless pointless debates in a situation where they had to progress at insane speed; if he didn't say "genetic modifications are off the table", some of the Betas would keep pestering him in the exact fashion you are trying to do now.
VERY Good point. Aloy was not just a clone but a filtered/edit clone so she would have the best chance of completing her task.
There are a few books and movies that go into potential dangers of cloning and genetic engineering, and include things like:
A) Clones are grown specifically to harvest organs from in case their original body needs an organ replacement, because clones have no rights/are regarded as subhuman because they're copies
B) Multiple clones of the same person/people are terrible in terms of guaranteeing genetic diversity when restarting a civilization
C) Geneticlly engineered babies will become the new standard, leading to a genetics-based social status a la Gattaca
D) Clones will be genetically tinkered with to provide the military with "Soldier" types and Corporations with "Drone" types, leading to an unstable and untested societal change
E) People will push science too far in their attempts to do more elaborate genetic engineering - just because we can do something doesn't mean we should
There are a lot of concerns surrounding new technology, and most of the people trying to monetize it/use it the most heavily haven't considered the broader ramifications.
Gaia created Aloy as a last act contingency because it had lost control of its subordinates due to an unidentified signal that unshackled them and turned them into true AI. Gaia knew that an (almost) exact clone of Sobeck was the only way that anyone can unlock the various hidden facilities and bring this mess back under control.
These treaties don't mean anything anyway, there is no one to observe them and no one would care that this clone was created and it becomes even more meaningless when Ted Faro destroyed Apollo, because he didn't want the disease of the past to affect humanity in the future. He didn't want futuristic humanity to follow the same destructive path and rebuild their skyscrapers and fall back into the notion of nation states again, fighting each other.
Only 0.4% of Aloy isn't of Sobeck's genetic material, it was never explained where that tiny percent of dna came from and why it wasn't identified, but it was noted on occasion in HZD.
It is actually unclear if they were laws and whether they were binding on U.S Scientists at all. They are called, respectively, the 'Clone Act' and 'Raleigh Accords', which could mean international laws - that individual nations would have to ratify for them to become legally applicable within the nation, or they could be a declaration of ethical medics signed by a consensus of scientists, etc.
It is not confirmed whether they are de-facto United States laws that carry a criminal penalty on U.S soil, though of course they could very possibly be. That being said, even if they are, considering that Project Zero Dawn literally kidnapped people from across the globe without their consent and indefinitely imprisoned them, lied in official capacity to the entire public, is classified far above Top Secret, and so on, it has already breached standing law multiple times and is a full-blown Black Op that is no longer accountable to U.S Law.
Secondly, there is no comprehensive explanation of those fictional restrictions. All we know is that they are called 'The Cloning Act' and 'Raleigh Accords' and pertain to genetic engineering and cloning ( from the name of the act ). Regardless, banning the genetic modification of zygotes and CRISPR gene editing is the exact sort of idiocy I was addressing either way. There's no reason to dismiss technology which could enhance future humans to survive their budding planet better.
Lastly, as Elsiabet Sobeck said, Zero Dawn's goal is to develop a general A.I and it's sub-functions that will be intelligent enough to continue designing the post-apocalyptic biosphere and rekindling of the human species far beyond the weeks or years that were afforded to the Alphas. Patrick Brochard puts a manual block on EULUTHIA's potential to research genetic engineering as a solution for human adaption, instead limiting the program exclusive for the preservation of human DNA.
And if the Alpha's 'reward' was to get a bunch of clones to continue their legacy ( Can't remember this part, pretty sure most of the Alphas were expecting to just vanish from memory and talked about it in their recordings ), that just makes Patrick's statements even more hypocritical and the plot more flimsy.
It's both. He is anti-cloning because he's concerned about the dangers of cloning. There's no other context in which he could bring up 'The Cloning Act of 20xx" while admonishing genetic engineering and firmly declaring that they're only going to preserve human genetic diversity as it was in a snapshot prior to Zero Day, and nothing else. There's no "Half-cloning", he just doesn't want any clones, and indeed no *artificial womb* has ever produced any clones other than Aloy under special circumstances.
As far as the objections go, they're decent objections, but there are equally decent counterarguments:
A) Labeling someone as a subhuman or harvesting their organs unwillingly because of X reason is a failing of society moreso than a failing of cloning, and already happens even to humans who aren't clones. The obvious solution is to pre-emptively enshrine clone's rights in law and for educated individuals to avoid irrational designations.
B) If you already have General A.I, Robotics, Interstellar travel with antimatter drives, artificial wombs, cloning, etc, then you probably already have the genetic engineering or nanorobotics capability to manually fix genetic flaws independently of the embryo's source DNA.
C) This only happens when you divide people into castes of those who can't get or can't afford modification, those who can only partially afford or be entitled to it, and those whom it is fully available for. It does not happen if you collectively modify every single human on the planet.
D) I guess an A.I might be tempted to design something like that. I do love the Clone Wars though.
E) The whole goal of science is to push science too far. Plenty of people claimed that science is going too far at various points in history, sometimes with more justification than other times ( I.E Hiroshima ), yet science never stopped being pushed even then and isn't stopping now.
Yeah, which was once again an idiotic, short-sighted and lazy take inserted as a motive for Ted Faro, though since the game does depict him as an idiot in a suit, who knows ,maybe he's just that dumb. If humans are going to be recreated from scratch in the exact same circumstances they originally were evolutionarily, with a biosphere that resembles early human habitats, then humans have a very high likelihood of developing along exactly the same path as they did the first time around.
Destroying Apollo just delayed it. Instead of emulating modern humanity in 50 or 100 years, they'll be emulating modern humanity in 5,000 or 10,000 years. In fact, the Nora already precisely emulate Neolithic humanity, the Carja emulate Iron Age humanity, and the Oseram emulate a Steampunk hybrid between Late Medieval and Pre-Modern. And they're all building cities, creating nations, fighting wars and making weapons.
Ironically, there's in fact only one guaranteed method of altering the course of humanity - altering the human brain itself via genetic engineering. Toning down or eliminating aggression instincts, hormonal rebalancing, remodulation of the prefrontal cortex, removing primitive impulses and responses, changing neurochemicals, and so on. Then you'd actually get a different humanity.
And also it’s nothing to do with a lack of open-mindedness when somebody decides that not everything that _can_ be done is necessarily a good idea. (With great power comes great responsibility.) So, sure, Klein is saying: You picked me as an Alpha, so we’re playing by my rules. And I very much believe that Sobeck would have known about Klein felt about that, and that that was part of the reason she picked him.
To be fair, the artificial wombs that we know of weren't used for cloning purposes aside from Aloy. Precursors to the Far Zenith/HZD artificial wombs could have been used for cloning purposes elsewhere - especially if used by other companies and/or governments - and at the time of HZD we don't know much about the Far Zenith project and their uses of the artificial wombs. Beyond that, this isn't as simple as pro/anti- cloning: it's entirely possible to have a more nuanced stance on cloning and genetic engineering, and as one of the leading figures in the field I would expect Klein to have such a stance.
Yeah, and that sounds great, until you take into account that society was already massively failing in multiple ways. The environment is collapsing, powerful corporations are waging wars for resources via death machines, governments are getting more and more authoritarian in an effort to retain control, etc. Plus, for all we know, what you've suggested is what Klein said when he authored the cloning and genetic engineering accords. Your solution also relies on people acting rationally in a decidedly irrational world, and that's less of a solution and more of a pipe dream.
Setting aside the fact that technologies can advance at different rates, having the technology to fix "genetic flaws" is not the same thing as not having a diverse enough population, which was the original point. Off the top of my head I can think of several issues with assuming that technology will save humanity, but the two really obvious ones are 1) you need sufficiently advanced logistics/infrastructure and trained personnel to keep technology running and 2) somebody has to define what "genetic flaws" are, and that's incredibly contentious. The only somewhat reasonable line is correcting for medical issues, but then you get into territory of defining what constitutes a medical issue.
A few major issues with this. People are already divided in the world of HZD along the lines of the haves and the have-nots. It's also not possible to ensure no natural births without completely controlling the ability to reproduce, and ensuring there are no natural births is a prerequisite for ensuring that everyone is genetically altered. That sounds like the setup for an authoritarian and overbearing government. Also, somebody has to pay for all of this, which not only raises questions about taxes but also opens the door to wealthier people paying for better/more extensive genetic engineering. Your argument here also doesn't take into account that even if everyone has genetic engineering pre-birth, it will only lead to society dividing themselves along the lines of the genetic engineering itself: some people will have better enhancements, be it through money or simply having "better" base genes.
It's not just an AI being tempted to do that though. Note that with the Clone Wars, cloning technology is advanced enough that it's feasible to create a trained clone army that is more effective than a droid army. In the world of HZD, it just so happens that there are some breakthroughs in AI programming that made limited AIs easier to produce than equivalent cloning breakthroughs. Plus, being able to use robots for fighting helped eliminate that pesky morality question when you have real people fighting each other. That aside, opening the door to genetically engineered castes is a road right to dystopian nightmares. It's almost as if the world needs a set of rules to help prevent this from happening, potentially even Klein's accords.
To be clear: to me, "too far" generally means "humanity is all dead." Wiping out all of humanity is a big no-no. In the slightly more morally ambiguous areas are the questions "will this hurt more people than it helps?" and "are the people this hurts/helps arbitrarily divided by an unfair or corrupt system?" If the answer to either of those is "yes" then that means people have gone too far with their quest for science and/or monetizing science.
It's also worth noting that your logic disregards the moral and ethical questions that surround scientific advancement in lieu of "science never stopped being pushed." Indeed, science hasn't entirely stopped, but your perspective completely fails to take into account the various protective measures that both scientists and governments have put into place to ensure that science doesn't go too far. For example, a lot of research on dangerous and contagious illnesses takes place in ultra-clean and secure laboratories. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) exists because we want to ensure that people don't start secretly developing nuclear warheads, as well as ensuring that nuclear plants don't go the way of Chernobyl. Even something as simple as fire prevention methods, or wearing seatbelts are examples of basic safety measures that are technically not necessary but almost universally used.
The advancement of science isn't a binary on/off thing: it's not all or nothing. The vast majority of actual scientists recognize that their work could impact and change the world, especially so for scientists who work with more overtly dangerous things. Even something as innocuous as bird migratory patterns can become hugely important - remember Avian Flu? A slightly better battery design might mean that the prices for the raw materials skyrocket, leading to an increase in bandits and warfare in the region where the critically important raw material comes from. An archaeologist finding a bone shard might confirm a previously unproven theory, changing how we view early human and causing textbooks to be rewritten. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. Part of the core plot of HZD relies on Ted Faro reaching too far in an effort to make more money and disregarding practical fail-safes. "But you always leave a backdoor" isn't a valid defense when you specifically tell someone to create an unhackable ultra-secure killing machine. Ted ignores the potential consequences of his actions, and humanity pays the price for it.
As such, Ted's behavior stands in stark contrast to how actual scientists act. Scientists are pretty rigorous when they write up their experiments: explaining the boundary conditions, their suppositions, the experience/data of the experiment itself, and the review of the data generated by the experiment. Scientists consider the safety of performing the experiment, both for the people performing the experiment and for the environment of the testing site - for example, you don't see people testing new explosives in a populated city, and when they do test explosives they make sure that everyone stands far enough away to be safe. Scientific advancement doesn't have to come at the cost of the lives of everyone involved in the experiment, much less all of humanity.