China conducting biological tests to create super soldiers, US spy chief says
China has conducted testing on its army in the hope of creating biologically enhanced soldiers, according to the top intelligence official in the US.
John Ratcliffe, who has served as Donald Trump's director of national intelligence since May, made the claims in a newspaper editorial, where he warned that China "poses the greatest threat to America today".
[...] "US intelligence shows that China has even conducted human testing on members of the People's Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities," Ratcliffe wrote. "There are no ethical boundaries to Beijing's pursuit of power."
Also at The Wall Street Journal (archive), BioSpace and Interesting Engineering:
In a report published last year in Jamestown, the authors Elsa Kania and Wilson VornDick offer insight into China's interest in gene editing.
"While the potential leveraging of CRISPR to increase human capabilities on the future battlefield remains only a hypothetical possibility at the present, there are indications that Chinese military researchers are starting to explore its potential," state the scholars, Elsa Kania, an expert on Chinese defense technology at the Center for a New American Security, and Wilson VornDick, a consultant on China matters and former Navy officer.
See also: State Dept. terminates five exchange programs with China, calling them 'propaganda'
Related Stories
French army gets ethical go-ahead for bionic soldiers
The French armed forces now have permission to develop "augmented soldiers" following a report from a military ethics committee. The report, released to the public on Tuesday, considers medical treatments, prosthetics and implants that improve "physical, cognitive, perceptive and psychological capacities," and could allow for location tracking or connectivity with weapons systems and other soldiers.
[...] The committee said that France needs to maintain "operational superiority of its armed forces in a challenging strategic context" while respecting the rules governing the military, humanitarian law and the "fundamental values of our society." As a result, it has forbidden any modification that would affect a soldier's ability to manage the use of force or affect their sense of "humanity." Further examples of banned modifications include cognitive implants that would affect the exercise of a soldier's free will, or changes that would affect their reintegration into civilian life.
Armed forces minister Florence Parly said "invasive" augmentations such as implants are not currently part of military plans. "But we have to be clear, not everyone has the same scruples as us and we have to prepare ourselves for such a future," she said in a press release published Tuesday.
PDF here (8.1 MB, in French). Round table discussion (1h18m35s, also in French).
Also at BBC, IFLScience, and The Defense Post.
Related: U.S. Director of National Intelligence Claims China is Testing on Humans to Create Super Soldiers
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @10:37AM (14 children)
QFT [caitlinjohnstone.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @11:08AM (2 children)
If it's true, we can have a nice super soldier arms race.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:30PM (1 child)
Right up until the soldiers start questioning why they're taking orders from a bunch of genetically inferior political asshats, and decide to take over themselves.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:35PM
They should do that now. No more Pooh!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:23PM
Gllllooooowwww
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:26PM (8 children)
Nonsense. It's definitely true, for certain limited meanings of "biologically enhanced super soldiers". They were vaccinating many of the soldiers with an experimental anti-COVID vaccine months ago, and that's a biological enhancement.
If he means something more definite, he needs to be more explicit.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:47PM (5 children)
This is the full paragraph. I seriously doubt he's referring to something as mundane as (anti-)COVID vaccine testing.
If it has nothing to do with gene therapies, maybe chemicals? That is far from unprecedented [wikipedia.org]. For "biologically enhanced capabilities", look to the wonderful world of athletics. Dual-use research: enhance your soldiers and your next batch of Olympians.
If it's not a lie, I hope we see a follow-up soon with actual details.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 06 2020, @09:35PM (4 children)
He basically said that China stole American super human solder technology. Interesting...
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday December 06 2020, @10:32PM
It helped us to defeat the Red Skull all those years ago.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @11:07PM (2 children)
I think the intended implication there is that "China is very aggressive in its pursuit of becoming the world's foremost military power; they are even doing this unethical stuff to their soldiers." Not that they are stealing the super soldier sauce directly from America.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 06 2020, @11:33PM (1 child)
Well, for me this sounds like an excuse. We develop super human things, but don't test them; not unethically at least. Chinese stole them and testing therefore we have to either stop them or do the same.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @11:52PM
"but don't test them; not unethically at least."
yeah, right
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @09:59PM (1 child)
They could be eating diets full of green leafy vegetables, kale smoothies, and other good sources of vitamin C and fiber. American soldiers won't stand a chance.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 07 2020, @12:15AM
Actually, you're on to something there. Just plain good nutrition goes a long way toward making a "super soldier". Starvation and malnutrition have been problems throughout human history. China is certainly no exception. They've had multiple upheavals in the past ~400 years that contributed to poor nutrition. After 3, 4, or more generations of well nourished people, the soldiers will appear to be "super soldiers" in comparison to their ancestors.
Of course, Americans in general have taken that "well nourished" a couple steps too far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @05:51PM
We are having more than enough problems with a bunch of ordinary villains at the moment.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @11:51AM (49 children)
When it comes to 'enhanced' we aren't really so much worried about being stronger, faster, etc...
First of all humans are pretty well adapted over thousands of years to be good persistent hunters.
Secondly there are animals that can climb better than we can, are faster than we are (in the sprint at least, perhaps not in the marathon), are stronger than we are, can withstand more damage than we could. But we still destroy them.
Where it matters is if they biologically engineer people that are 'smarter' than we are. If they can engineer better scientists.
The thing is those scientists might eventually take over the Chinese government in ways that are well beyond our understanding with weapons that are well beyond our understanding. Kinda like how we've never seen animals overthrow humans, the animals may be stronger and tougher but they don't stand a chance because they don't understand our weapons. They don't have the same intelligence that we do.
No, modern wars are no longer won by having the strongest soldiers. That was perhaps back in biblical days. They are won by who has the smartest scientists.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @12:05PM (34 children)
Chinese project probes the genetics of genius [nature.com]
They are probably working on that angle as well.
The modern environment has created opportunities for new adaptations. For example, there's an overabundance of food if you're a well-paid scientist. So if you could create a genetic modification or therapy that increases "brainpower" at the cost of double the calorie consumption, that's a better tradeoff now than it would have been 10,000 years ago.
There's at least some value in having faster, stronger soldiers since we still live in a human-centric world. If you have to send a low-tech human to do something instead of a robot or drone, then genetic advantages could be helpful.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @12:37PM (32 children)
I'd bet good money that we'll be growing biological computers long before we figure out how to make humans "smarter" through genetic engineering in any measurable or practical manner. Plus, the technological path brings us machines without millions of years worth of evolutionary baggage holding it back. Being scared of bumps in the night is great for survival as a scavenging beast, but it has no relevance to modern human life.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @12:40PM (14 children)
China can afford to throw money at both.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @12:56PM (13 children)
The question is can you have human intelligence without having some degree of 'free will'. Even animals and pets have some degree of 'free will'. Humans are much smarter than animals and pets but they have much more sophisticated desires, demands, concepts of truth and morality, etc... They're a lot more demanding
Does increased intelligence come with more demands, more sophisticated demands, etc...
If the Chinese government creates smarter people will those smarter people have higher demands. Will they want to be overlords to the Chinese government and use their intelligence to take over. Will the Chinese government have to cripple them genetically (ie: give them no arms at birth?) to make them beholden to us and will they then be aware of what's been done to them and revolt and not fully cooperate. Will the Chinese government get their willful cooperation or will they hold back on their intelligence in terms of their willingness to cooperate.
I'm sure there have been enough movies of government created intelligent people that turn against the government because they feel like they are taken advantage of.
Does intelligence come with free will and will those genetically intelligent people sincerely use their free will to help the Chinese government and not themselves. Will they end up taking over the Chinese government and us?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:35PM (8 children)
I think the other AC is probably right and genetically enhanced "superintelligent" humans are not coming sooner than biological computer artilects.
Even if they're coming in as soon as 2-3 decades, China's government will probably face challenges on that timescale simply from its population becoming richer, more entitled, and better educated. And Xi Jinping getting old. No enhancement scenario needed. Although predictions of the CCP's imminent demise have been wrong so far.
Are you assuming that everyone would get it? Genome modifications probably aren't going to be given to hundreds of millions of new babies anytime soon. It could produce results on a far smaller scale.
There doesn't need to be any "free will" for that stuff to happen (whether or not a bunch of photogenic superintelligent humans are the cause).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:41PM (7 children)
Will more advanced biological computers have a greater degree of free will?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:43PM (6 children)
Does free will exist?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:03PM (1 child)
Who's to say that the free will or personal interests of an advanced biological computer can't be different than that of the government. Does the Chinese government have free will and whether or not they do can they truly bend the will of a more advanced biological intelligence to its will. Or will a more advanced intelligence have the option to make conflicting decisions, will some of its decisions, at most, have a potentially undesirable degree of inherent unpredictability that we can't do anything about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @07:59AM
Will an advanced biological intelligence be consistent with its decisions or could one intelligence make one decision and another seemingly identical one, under as identical conditions as possible, make a different decision with a potentially different outcome in ways that we can't predict.
Is life and the advanced intelligence associated with it reductionistically predictable? Or is there an element of unpredictability/randomness inherent in it kinda like there is an element of randomness associated with radioactive decay that can only be described statistically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:27PM
It's harder to bend your children to your will than it is to bend your pet to your will.
Is it harder to bend a more advanced biological intelligence to your will. Will this intelligence end up bending the Chinese government to its will.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday December 06 2020, @06:20PM (1 child)
Free will is an illusion.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:28PM
To whom?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @09:51PM
No, I prefer my universe deterministic and I'm lucky it's so complex it feels like I have free will.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:35PM (2 children)
How? There are lots of scientific geniuses in the USA. How many of them are in Congress?
There are lots of super smart people in China too. I think their chance of becoming the next top Chinese leader are even lower.
No matter how smart you are, you can still be controlled or killed by those with power.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:32PM (1 child)
Unless you use that smart to get more power than those with power. What's missing here is that those with power tend to be pretty smart too and that smartness is specialized around obtaining and using power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @03:55AM
Yeah some of them might be pretty smart, and just pretending to be stupid especially in the USA where there are a lot of stupid voters who prefer leaders who appear as stupid as they are:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/the-difference/president-bill-clinton-rare-talent-175757415.html [yahoo.com]
It's also harder to convince people you forgot stuff when it's publicly known you have a good memory:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-sep-28-mn-27284-story.html [latimes.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:44PM
I'd posit the opposite.
What do those who are of abnormally high intelligence want? One needs to only look through history to see it is very different than the desires of normal people. Einstein, in perhaps the simultaneously most iconic and most extreme example, was offered and rejected the opportunity to become the president of Israel. And there are countless examples of others who undoubtedly stood head and shoulders above their peers in various fields and desired nothing more than to be left alone to continue working in said fields. Another great example here is Grigori Perelman. [wikipedia.org] - one of the most brilliant mathematicians alive.
In 2006 he was offered the Fields Medal, at least the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in mathematics. He rejected such declaring, "I'm not interested in money or fame; I don't want to be on display like an animal in a zoo."
In 2010 he was offered another prize, which also came with a million dollars. He again rejected it declaring the decision to give him the award, for solving a famous century old problem, was unjustified.
And I do not think these sort of incidents are especially rare when speaking of those who are some orders of magnitude above the norm. Intelligence changes people's motivations and desires. And so positing what we may want or desire onto them is probably meaningless.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:49PM (3 children)
>I'd bet good money that we'll be growing biological computers long before we figure out how to make humans "smarter" through genetic engineering
That seems like a ridiculous position to me. We haven't the first clue how to grow a biological computer anywhere remotely as capable as the brain of a cockroach, much less that of a human.
Meanwhile, we have an incredibly sophisticated self-organizing biological computer already sitting in our skulls, and quite a bit of knowledge of various genetic anomalies associated with increased intelligence in humans - they're usually only associated with a few points each, but combine all of them into the same individual and you'd probably be edging up on genius territory.
We also have a few clues as to how we could take things much further - starting with how we got to where we are. Neoteny is a big one, and probably relatively simple to isolate - you don't have to have any understanding of how to add any special abilities to the brain, you just have to hit "snooze" on the biological alarm clock that says "adolescence has been reached, stop rapidly growing the brain"
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:08PM
Figure out the correct building blocks, scale it up, and strong AI *could* be created in short order. My guess is that it would need some kind of neuromorphic architecture and monolithic 3D fabrication. But that isn't a "biological computer" like the AC mentions, which could refer to some kind of hybrot [wikipedia.org]. That already exists, but seems difficult to scale up.
Genetically engineering a significantly more intelligent human could take longer, especially if you count the 2-3 decades needed for the human to mature, and the amplified outcry against genome editing thanks to He Jiankui's stunt. Ratcliffe's line might imply gene therapies being used on existing adults instead of genome editing, but it's a vague one-liner in an anti-China op-ed. More details needed, please. I hope we see some leaks or investigative reporting to flesh this out.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:33PM (1 child)
It's not a ridiculous position, but it ignores significant trade-offs. E.g. greater intelligence is usually coupled with slower decision making (for fairly obvious reasons). And I can't imagine speeding up a neuron to equal the speed of even a slow transistor (though admittedly a neuron does a lot more processing, so that's a false equivalence. Still...).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @11:11PM
> I can't imagine speeding up a neuron to equal the speed of even a slow transistor
Agreed.
However, some speedup can be seen in elite athletes. Several that I've heard of have roughly 1/2 the reaction time (eye-hand) than normal people. One Olympic cyclist could catch the "drop a dollar bill between the fingers" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaZ9Gdj93kg&t=33 [youtube.com] at about half the length of the bill. Much, much faster than I could.
This suggests that F1 drivers are about 0.2 seconds from lights-out (start) to car moving,
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/ics15y/f1_should_give_us_drivers_reaction_times_to_the/ [reddit.com]
Guessing a normal person might be a half second or so.
A useful advantage in many different situations.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:15PM (1 child)
Unless someone breaks into your home or you're living in a war zone. Or a tree falls on your power lines and starts a fire.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Sunday December 06 2020, @04:49PM
For what it's worth: I had a tree fall on my power lines and catch fire. Luckily, I'm in a fairly wet climate, and the tree had fallen in a storm, so it wasn't going to spread very quickly. And once I recognized that, it was a matter of waiting for the cops and firefighters to show up and make sure it didn't spread anywhere, and then waiting for the power company to turn the juice back on.
As for home invasions: You're far more likely to be killed in a car crash than by some crazy person breaking into your home. It's not that it never happens, but it should be fairly low down on your list of potential threats.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday December 06 2020, @04:10PM (10 children)
It's not that you're wrong, but do you really think that means people aren't being experimented on to find out for sure?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @05:58PM (9 children)
I could care less about the CCPs ethics or lack thereof. I don't live, vote, or do business in China, don't speak Chinese, don't have family there. The lack of ethics my own government demonstrates on a regular basis concern me far more.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:22PM
"An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:41PM (7 children)
I think this quote from Dr. Strangelove is appropriate.
When it comes to arms races, lack of ethics is another advantage. Lack of CCP's ethics can result in lack of ethics of your own government because the latter is keeping up (or preemptively getting ahead, for that matter). It's one thing for a small country like North Korea to completely abandon ethics. It becomes a much bigger deal when superpowers do that. But maybe you're not too concerned about the ethical lapses of a US or a USSR because they're not your country, right?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @09:22PM (6 children)
I live in the US, that's who I'm concerned with. I'd much rather crack down on the feds than have them play catch-up with China on authoritarianism, or engage in more nuclear dick waving. Why are you so afraid of China?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday December 06 2020, @11:41PM
Are all of your fellow citizens on board with that? No? That's the mine shaft gap.
A) because as I noted earlier, they provide a ready pretext for tyranny elsewhere, and B) because they'll eventually be top dog (in three to five decades).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 07 2020, @12:25AM (4 children)
Tibet.
Uighers.
Hong Kong.
China is not the most benevolent of all overlords.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @03:15AM (1 child)
Show me where they're worse than our own government. We do the exact same shit.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @05:24AM
Talk to a doctor about scheduling a heart transplant several weeks ahead. China does that routinely, for large sums of money. Funny that a heart is only viable for a day or two but they know weeks ahead that they are getting one. You just have to hope you are a match for a Uigher.
https://www.healtheuropa.eu/forced-organ-harvesting-this-is-beyond-understanding/96933/ [healtheuropa.eu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @05:17AM (1 child)
They are, in fact, no better than USA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @03:16PM
Meh.. Israel, Usa, China, Germany, England, south africa, Pakistan - everywhere you look there are insane monsters, ruling and enjoying..
All countries have so much blood on their hands...
All countries torture, liquidate and steal from their citizens.
There are no difference between them, they are large, multicellular entities and are completely evil, when seen from an individual position.
They see the sin as virtue, know no truth and are relentless enemies of life.
If humans don't abolish States and goverments, they (probably) will go extinct after social control is made into a high technology.
Good riddance.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday December 06 2020, @11:22PM
Too bad the "well-paid scientist" status is generally detrimental with having procreative sex. Those ankle-biters are such a nuisance for research. And those neglected children will mostly get to hate science, so their genetics doesn't become a survival trait.
Add in "my ignorance is as good as your science" and look how well-fed the ignorants are [youtube.com]... need I say more?
(grin)
Not gonna happen - the overall cost of raising a human is some orders of magnitude higher than mass production of drones. This letting aside the "production lead time".
After all, the drone rush is pretty effective in Starcraft, eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @01:27PM (6 children)
Just the way the genius Nazi scientists took over the government in Nazi Germany? And the same way many of those scientists took over the government in the USA/USSR where they moved to after WW2?
Or the same way plenty of genius scientists are now in power controlling the US Gov?
It's for this reason I think there's a low chance of the super intelligent AIs taking over. What will happen is what has happened for thousands of years or more - the humans in power will use the geniuses/AIs to do what they want.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:58PM (5 children)
I think what a lot of people overlook is that scientists become scientists because the find probing the mysteries of the universe a far more satisfying way to spend time than probing how to manipulate their fellows and accumulate power.
That's down to individual preference though, not capability. There've been plenty of brilliant politicians, generals, etc - we just don't normally think of them as geniuses because they're not unraveling mysteries of the universe, inventing revolutionary devices, or opening our eyes to the potential of art. But they're no less capable just because their medium of choice is human hierarchies and behaviors - just less immediately easy to recognize.
Create a new breed of superintelligent "scientists", and my money is that just as many go into art and politics as among normal geniuses, and will in fact rise to the tops of those fields as well.
As for AI - I think trying to speculate on the motives and objectives of a completely alien intelligence that vastly exceeds our own is a complete waste of time.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:38PM (4 children)
WRT AI, the motives of the AI will be those that were designed into it. This doesn't say anything, of course, about the decisions it will make based on those motives. And the basis of the motives will need to be something that is inherent in the structure of the AI, not in the data that it is trained with. (E.g., I can't imagine that "human being" will be even a component in the motives...because I can't imagine a structure that would imply "O, that's a human". That kind of thing will need to be data-driven, but motives are more primitive, similar to the axioms of a mathematical proof, or possibly to the rules of inference.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:28PM (3 children)
Perhaps - but especially with deep learning, etc. currently being on the forefront, we don't actually know what the motives are - we're evolving processing networks for outcomes, not motives. We assume those are linked - but as the many papers on bizarre AI behaviors reveal, things can go in very strange directions, especially when exposed to inputs far outside the training set.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:43PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday December 07 2020, @03:54AM (1 child)
You can't build it that way. Not without a very "non-primitive" definition of "motive". If motive is the basic underlying reason that you do something, then it needs to be built-in, and can't be secondary, because that's in conflict with "basic". It can't be "data-drive", because that's in conflict with "basic". Think of them as analogous to op-codes, though that's not quite right, as they're more equivalent to micro-code, i.e. the thing that op-codes are built from.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 07 2020, @04:50AM
I'm not hearing disagreement here. It just means that motive can be non-primitive and not built-in. Which, let us note, is a common situation with humans.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:15PM (5 children)
>When it comes to 'enhanced' we aren't really so much worried about being stronger, faster, etc...
Actually, I strongly suspect we are. Not in a hand-to-hand combat kind of way - but speed gives a commanding advantage in battlefield mobility. And strength and endurance increases the size and amount of equipment they can carry - at the simplest, having a few dozen extra grenades on their belt would greatly increase their destructive potential. One of the reason there's so much research into combat exoskeletons is because troops would be dramatically more effective if they could carry more equipment further for surprise attacks.
All else being equal, the faster, stronger soldiers are likely to be the ones that win the battle.
Reaction times are more of a challenge, but also a bigger benefit if it could be managed - the ability to fire two well-aimed shots before the enemy can aim the first one would be invaluable in a lot of situations. As I recall many governments have already been experimenting on various drug cocktails to do just that artificially.
Even more valuable would be abilities that might offer less immediately obvious benefits - rapid healing so that your elite troops could get back in the fight sooner after being injured. Immunity to pain so that injuries only slow them down as much as the mechanical damage requires. A lack of empathy so that they will not hesitate to kill domestic protestors, or suffer from PTSD from routinely killing civilizans. Greater loyalty to reduce the chances of them turning against their masters, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @06:16PM (2 children)
I think some of those will end up conflicting - lacking empathy and being loyal, for example. I think empathy is a great lever for inspiring loyalty, and you might not have loyal soldiers without it.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:23PM (1 child)
Perhaps. The interplay between a lot of psychological characteristics is poorly understood. Institutional loyalty though I think has more to do with an inclination towards authoritarianism/strict hierarchy loyalty. Consider the vicious attack dog that's fiercely loyal to its master.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @09:25PM
The dog is only doing as it's trained +/- some instinct. The owner who gives it food to reward that behavior is vicious, not the dog, who is only doing what it knows.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday December 06 2020, @06:28PM (1 child)
I seem to recall reading about US drone pilots being enhanced through transcranial electrical stimulation.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday December 07 2020, @12:52AM
Consumer versions of non-invasive tDCS have been available since at least 2013.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-diy-brain-booster-devices-work/ [scientificamerican.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Sunday December 06 2020, @08:23PM
Call me when women are required to register for the draft. Until then I'm not interested.
(Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:14PM (1 child)
Maybe they're trying to catch up [fandom.com]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:17PM
No, even better [tribecafilm.com].
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Sunday December 06 2020, @02:42PM
So it's a Chinese eugenics program that has, or may have, been updated with modern technology to create "super-soldiers". Wasn't this sort of bound to happen tho eventually? Technology helps us remove unwanted features while at the same time enhancing others -- be that being faster, or require less of certain things.
If it's the PLA they have about 2,000,000 "willing" test-subjects. Plus probably countless other more or less willing subjects in other parts of country. Just waiting for them to have some sort of breeding-program instituted to so they can go full Lebensborn, they might already have it for all we know. Breeding the next generation of little yellow übermensch.
(Score: 2, Troll) by SomeGuy on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:00PM (1 child)
Meanwhile China is experimenting on people in the US to create superior consumertards. This is done through hypnotic cell phone scrolling and blazing bright blue LEDS.
To see more, buy a brand new smart phone and download our FREE app/malware because muhahahaha.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 06 2020, @03:12PM
If they are conducting that experiment on U.S., they are conducting the same experiment on themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_smartphone_penetration [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @04:35PM
The genes these Next Generation Super Soldiers weren't from someone calling themselves BIG BOSS, I hope...
(Score: 1) by zion-fueled on Sunday December 06 2020, @05:01PM
There is DIY CRISPR being done by private individuals, biohackers if you will. Now add money, purpose and lack of ethics. Really we all should figure stuff out like this, it would improve our lives as some changes can be done way into adulthood. Instead we banned it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Sunday December 06 2020, @05:46PM (1 child)
After all, the US has done this many times:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study [wikipedia.org]
Pot, kettle...
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday December 06 2020, @08:03PM
But America is the good guy, so when America does it, it is fine.
(Score: 2) by oumuamua on Sunday December 06 2020, @05:52PM
All the things from the science fiction of our youth coming together almost all at once; moon bases, landing on Mars, flying cars, jet packs and now super soldiers. Behind schedule a bit, this was supposed to have been done in the 1990s oh well:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Eugenics_Wars [fandom.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @06:27PM (1 child)
Big, hairy, bruiser-bulldykes are the result.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @10:27PM
This sounds like promising research. Where may I donate additional funding?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrentDavey on Sunday December 06 2020, @06:31PM (11 children)
There were no ethical boundaries to Trump's pursuit of power.
'Member that guy?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @06:38PM (4 children)
We all do, but conservatives are overheating their CPUs running their paradoxical world view.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @09:32PM (3 children)
But at least Trump supporters are actually alive, with for-real computers. The other guy's asleep, and his supporters were cranked-out on some CCP printer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @10:23PM (2 children)
He lost! Get over it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @10:46PM (1 child)
You sound like you're out of red ink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06 2020, @11:41PM
Oh yeah! Then, uh, something-something-orange, uh, something-something-hate-black, uh, something-something-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 07 2020, @12:31AM (5 children)
*yawn*
Which of your more traditional politicians have demonstrated more ethics than Trump? Those who do seem to be rejected out of hand, like maybe a Tulsi Gabbard. Pick your favorite politician, and we'll all join in to tear him/her a few new orifices. Trump's single biggest fault, was to run at the mouth all the time, thereby alienating people he didn't need to alienate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday December 07 2020, @02:58PM (1 child)
Trump's running at the mouth was a minor flaw that revealed the major flaws of who he actually is. It is the things Trump did that are the major flaws.
Is running at the mouth a bigger flaw the locking children in cages? Separating them from their parents? Deliberating ensuring that they will never be reunited?
What about throwing paper towels to the people of Puerto Rico to demonstrate that he is "helping" while musing about selling Puerto Rico and complaining that they are poor.
I could go on, but running at the mouth is NOT Trump's biggest flaw. It merely exposed who he really is.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 07 2020, @03:35PM
Locking children into cages approved by Obama, and sold to the government by Biden? Ooooohhhh, how TERRIBLE!
The rest of that? Puhhh-LEASE. I never took it seriously, but obviously you do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @03:59PM
There are limits to political donations.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday December 07 2020, @09:01PM (1 child)
BWAHAHAHAH!
More ethics than Trump? Even the worst politician with only a shred of ethics is better, since Trump has none to speak of.
Running at the mouth is one thing, constantly spewing bullshit while doing so is worse. He lies so much that you can't trust anything he says, even if it happens to be true.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 07 2020, @10:14PM
Right. And, the question was, which politicians are better?
For example, I follow these people off and on https://www.numbersusa.com [numbersusa.com] They have actually made political donations to candidates who PROMISE to work for Number's goals. Candidate signs a pledge, takes the money, gets elected, and very promptly vote the opposite way that they pledged to vote. (sorry, not digging for names, if you're really interested you can search the site, if not, oh well)
Any number of promises can be made and broken by candidates, and everyone forgives them, and reelects them based on yet more empty promises.
And, Trump is somehow WORSE?
I insist that his worst trait was running at the mouth nonstop, giving his enemies more and more ammunition to use against him. He really isn't more corrupt than most of the politicians in Washington, starting with Pelosi.
I'll grant that a few of the newer members have only exhibited some minor corruption - like AOC doing that photo spread wearing more value in clothing than she had to her name before arriving in Washington. Money changed hands there, if all that expensive clothing didn't go along with it.
Seriously, name names if you have less corrupt politicians that you wish me to know of.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday December 06 2020, @07:35PM
Ratcliffe is a Trump moron appointment, only slightly more sane than Mike Flynn. No doubt these Chinese soldiers are being enhanced with advanced "reality detection" and "batshit crazy immunity" features. This very new and radical technology is called, 教学, something totally unheard of by the Trump administration.
,
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Sunday December 06 2020, @08:23PM (4 children)
By definition of war, soldiers are supposed and expected to be killed often.
Enhancing them for better survivability and combat effectiveness is surely an ethical thing to do, for them at least.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 07 2020, @12:32AM (3 children)
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
George S. Patton
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @03:48AM (1 child)
Propaganda. The object of war is to generate profits for bankers, industry, and their investors. The lives are just numbers up to a certain point. As long as /our/ casualties are acceptable and we win and throw a parade, nobody will care. A few families mourn heroes who fought for the liberation of strategic energy resources from the poor brown bastards who live there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07 2020, @03:53AM
So, maybe it's a good thing that Euros and white Americans have a low fertility rate?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08 2020, @04:32AM
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for your country.
- General Bonespurs