Tell me Veeky Forums, which is better, and why?

Por que no los dos

Genetic engineering, because your kids will have those benefits too, and organic enhancements repair themselves and require no maintenance besides maybe some small dietary requirements.

However, you need to supplement that with at least an implanted wireless brain-computer interface to function in a proper futuristic society.

I would day on an individual level cybernetic is more likely, but on a societal level genetic is superior.

Except "genetic engineering" doesn't let you spawn biomass out of nowhere, let alone FUCKING METAL BLADES.

And that's not even counting all the problems with re-absorbing that stuff back into your body afterwards.

As tempting as it is, don't be the first in line to cybernetically do anything to your brain. Your brain does NOT like having machine code filtered through it. The solution I suppose is to have a layer of separation. Just like C code is compiled into Assembly a new type of code would be compiled into wavelengths or something that your brain won't spaz out at. Genitic engineering honestly wins out as the more immediately viable option here because it fiddles with the main hardware and there's a not layer of abstraction to work around our flaws.

Yeah, that user is talking about bio-horror magic, not genetech.

>As tempting as it is, don't be the first in line to cybernetically do anything to your brain. Your brain does NOT like having machine code filtered through it. The solution I suppose is to have a layer of separation. Just like C code is compiled into Assembly a new type of code would be compiled into wavelengths or something that your brain won't spaz out at.
Dude, that's what datajacks and brain-computer interfaces are for. Literally no cybertechnology can do without them, they basically go without saying.

This desu. There's no reason you can't breed hardier people to stick your robot bits on.

The obvious answer is neither genetic engineering nor cybernetics. It's nanomachines

That's a type of cybernetics. Probably how we'll actually enhance ourselves. It might even work in conjunction with genetic engineering such as having the nanobots deliver a protien to change your body in order to better handle an enviroment or trigger the release of a hormone that enhances your performance.

A whole plot point in DEHR is that enhancements are easy with a chip that performs that function

tactile feedback is on the horizon. Within our lifetime, prosthetic replacements will feel in some capacity.

Well, depends.
If you are a huge faggot, genetic engineering.

If you don't mind being a brain in a jar in a robot, cybernetics.

If you are dumb as shit, neither and we should all just accept that we were never meant to be more than human.

You're already a brain in a jar in a robot. It's a pretty well-made model, but it has a fuckton of non-obvious emergent flaws.

The question is: can we get a better robot?

Genetic engineering will always win out unless you go full retard with cybernetics and turn into a fucking one man tank. And it's much easier to have a genemodded soldier to rehabilitate and go back to society than a man wired into a walking life support machine.
The only exception would be... I suppose neural modifications.

Armstrong also required massive amounts of power to keep that body up. If he hadn't ripped into Excelcus's power lines, the fight would have lasted ten minutes maximum.

>The question is: can we get a better robot?
More like how can we not?
The base model is utter trash, making a better one is a matter of time.
I'm guessing that 2nd or 3rd gen models will be well worth using.

Why does he have 2 drill arms? You'd think like 1 and an impact driver or something else would be better.

Genetic engineering leads to furries turning into their fursonas, beware.

Genetic engineering probably has less upkeep.

Robotics would probably be more powerful.

Genetic engineering if you want your kids kids to be awesome.

Cybernetics if you want to be awesome yourself.

Progress both, and they end up becoming the same thing. Biology and technology can make up for one another's flaws, and far enough down the line we can master utilising the strengths of both and the drawbacks of neither.

cyberetic enhancements on an individual basis

genetic enhancements for the "greater good"

bear in mind
-genetic enhancements usually mean becoming sterile
-genetic enhancements have a high chance of causing cancer if not done in vitro, or to the embryo

so if you wanted vestigial wings it would be better to get robotic ones
because otherwise you would need to raise an offspring with that genetic modification

Genetic engineering to support cybernetic enhancement

He only has on. Thats their shadows.

A combination of both in my opinion.

This to be honest. Your body is pretty squishy and unless you replace ALL squishy with metal your body won't stand up to the forces put upon it by cybernetics.
of you strengthen the core components, bones, muscles, and all the connective tissues involved, around tenfold(this does not mean actually making the muscles stronger just ten times more durable) you could probably mount a cybernetic arm with actual robot strength and not have your shoulder, spine, or legs break at some point due to all the forces involved(crushing, pulling, shear, torsion forces, and general load bearing). This also might mitigate the tissue damage giant metal bits going straight to the bone tend to incur through simple abrasive forces. While you're at general healing ability increases would be ideal but that will get into technical immortality territory by not only increasing general responsiveness, speed, and actual tissue rather than our shitty ductape-esque place holder that is scar tissue but also either extending the hayflick limit or eliminating it somehow otherwise that cell death around the mounting area will quickly turn to non-responsive scar tissue or cell division will run out assuming scar tissue is solved.

Reminder: all robotic arms on the market today, whether prosthetic or otherwise, have one quarter the power-to-weight ratio of their biological equivalents.

I always thought they go hand in hand.

For now.

>That feel when I have a great big firm sci-fi story in my head that poses this very question and I will never be able to write it.

Personally, I think that each has its values. One as a means to improve/diversify the species and the other as a tool to improve individuals -within- the species.

Genetics has the potential to produce some pretty fabulous shit but it will still be living shit and, thus, bound by all that entails. It could also just be a dead in that spawns life altering cancer. Like Veeky Forums.

Cybernetics will open doors for individuals and for the species as a whole but it (a) requires one to undergo some pretty drastic surgeries and (b) may not even work as our brains simply aren't built with the notion of six mechanical tentacles-hands and three penises and two vaginas that wobble, spin, vibrate, twist and spit out ice-cream, respectively. Then again, there's always the solution of:

>Your old, baseline brain can't handle the newest hardware?
>Shove more chips in it!

This solution runs into a philosophical problem, though:

>How much of ones mass/volume may be replaced with synthetic parts before that one may no longer be considered human?

In short, there are deep, fascinating, possibilities for either path and also deep, horrifying possibilities.

The argument could go either way. Personally, I'm attached to my body so I'd rather genetic enhancement.

There's one answer.

It's called claytronics.
Shees user, didn't you listen all the optional codec calls?

Also, I'm vouching for cybernetics, mostly because I have studied biochemistry and microbiology but now very little about robotics.

Genetically engineered person stays genetically engineered "freak" so to call. Really depends on the severity of the alteration and general acceptance of those mods in the society.
Cyborg could swap out into less intimidating body when the tankbody is not needed. Then again societial attitudes affects here too.

>THAT WILL BE FOR THE COMMANDER TO DECIDE

There's also the easily forgettable part of "will your body accept your cybernetics or reject them and make you totally sick".

In my setting i tend to have both: cybernetic enhancements are low/middle level, as they require maintenance, but are cheap to get (if you go for low level ones), easy to replace and functional. At high level there genetical engineering as it does not require maintenance but also tends to make your DNA property of a medical corp. At top level cyber enhancements come back, but it usually means becoming a walking tank, and usually only armies and sports corporations can afford that.

This of course implies you have enough of an organic body left to reject the new parts.

Full body cybernization is the way to go. You might be a brain in a jar, but make that jar modular, and you can fit into all sorts of bodies. Plus, so long as your brain case doesn't get damaged, who cares how much damage the body takes? You can always swap out the parts later.

Friends, let us not quarrel.

Cybernetic enhancements is the way to go.

To meddle with our genes will alter everyone afflicted and the offspring he might spawn, which will grossly mutate the human genome over the years.

In just a few generations, the human race would have died out and many new mutant species would have arisen in its stead - But none of them have the graceful body and adaptable mind of their progenitor kin.

But if we alter ourselves with machines, then that is temporary, and will only help to preserve the human form in its original shape. To replace limbs lost or to restore eyesight with the things we craft is safer, and such damaged parts may be replaced just as easily.

However, and that is the truth: The human shape is not accostumed to the gifts of the machine. It will take long hours of research, crafting and experimenting until we have figured out the right ways to graft cybernetics permanently to the flesh. Until then, harnesses that interact over touch alone must suffice.

JC Denton style nanoaugmentations were the coolest. The aggressive defense system was my favourite (disperses a cloud of nanobots that detonate incoming explosives before they come within lethal range). He was undoubtedly stronger than people with less advanced augs, but never felt overpowered.

This depends on the technology involved.
Cybernetics is likely to be outright better because parts are more likely to be easy to replace so you don't care how many times you break your arm every day. Electricity is also really, really good, which means that motors will probably surpass muscles in short order, while being easier to replace and maintain in general.

Just because you are genemodding yourself doesn't mean that you will affect your progeny because the cells that you use to procreate and the cells that you use to do things with your body aren't the same and in fact don't interact much if at all.

>this is what the Adeptus Mechanicus actually beloved.

Loyalcucks get out. Gene modification is the way too go.

Literally all the cool shit in 40k exists because of gene mods. *cough cough eversor cough cough*

Forgot pick related.

Cybernetic Enhancements. One must become closer to the Omnissiah, and improve one's efficiency.

Metal is stronger than flesh and machines will always be faster than organic systems.

Besides, it's easier to hide a gun in your robot arm than your flesh one.

Well presumably the organic augments don't need separate power source and don't need maintenance to the extent cyberware would.

Still I'd prefer to only use it to restore "natural" functionality, not to turn myself into a freak.

What if those more over-the-top gene enchanments would require insane calorie intake. Especially glucose for brains. That would mean you'd have to a lot. I mean professional weightlifters already have insane diets.
>These Genemodded supersoldier peacekeepers brought to your by McDonalds&Coca Cola

I'm have my doubts, but I admit I have not enough knowledge in biology to make disprove your statement about progeny. I just feel that there must be some imprint on what you pass on to your children if you alter your basic coreDNA to support longterm and efficient mutations.

>Sybreed

This band had, like, two good songs off their first album.

And then they disbanded because their vocalist is a pussyfagbitchnigger.

You could just have food designed for that shit. We CAN make food with scary amounts of literally anything theres just no reason too or it won't pass FDA standards. That would obviously change when that food is fucking required though. You could also offset that by genemodding better metabolism and digestion.

Whynotboth.jpg

As someone who fancies himself a transhumanist and an engineer, I believe it comes down to the simple fact that engineering wise, cybernetics are reinventing the wheel in comparison to genetics.

Genes are essentially a development platform just like how the arduino is for DIY people or prototypers. Except there's literally millions of years of development going for you. Instead of coming up with the same sort of designs that organics have evolved to do, focus on making our genetic programming skills better. I'd rather re-learn how to program in genetics than have to reinvent the wheel with what I currently know in computers

The issue is we can't tell if we can target solely the cells we want effected. We don't know if it will remain solely in say the muscles, eyes, or brain for example rather than say targeting all cells but only enacting on target cells. You could now send off genes to your child which might just make a cancerous mass of an embryo or hinder growth later in life.
Halo has an example of this where mk.1's were stable super soldiers needing only minor meds off the bat to guide growth then supplements to keep things regular when eating standard fair. All signs showed that shit wasn't going to effect their kids beyond making them more receptive to the same treatment. This wasn't the fact and led to serious issues that required powerful meds to fix. Children at age 3 who's bones grew 8 times faster than kids their age but the rest didn't, crazy tumors, massive muscle growth that not only halted growth overall it sometimes crushed the child, and many other unpredictable mutations. This, as mentioned earlier, was treated once recognized using powerful medications to help growth especially during puberty. The end result actually turned out better people over all raising top athletes who had better immune systems and were far less prone to injury. Real olympic material that in the end made better super soldiers even as their acceptance to super soldier treatment, as predicted, was far higher.

End of the day we just plain don't know if we can actively target and keep it segregated to specific cell types or if we have to rewrite parts of your entire genome and let nature take over as the new cells your body uses to replace dead cells just end up with the desired effect.

>Except there's literally millions of years of development going for you.
You're looking at it wrong.
Those millions and millions of years aren't a benefit they are the problem because they aren't years of quality development.
Evolution is a series of accidents that just so happen to stick around because they are convenient at the time.

That's why metal bits are so much better - sure, we've only been developing them properly for a few hundred years but that's a few hundred years of actual quality work.

Learning biology for the purpose of enhancing existing parts is the equivalent of eating shit pie in order to make a better shit pie. Sure, it's better but that doesn't make it any less shit.

Biotech weapons

translation? I can't speak burrito torreador

Your desire to remain what you are is what limits you.

What did posting this before opening a google translate tab contribute?

You have the whole world at your fingertips, user. Take advantage of that fact.

Genetic enhancement combined with nano-technological augmentation

With the number of deformed and disabled people I see on a daily basis I would say genetic engineering. I mean what the fuck is wrong with everyone in the south?

>JC Denton style nanoaugmentations were the coolest. The aggressive defense system was my favourite (disperses a cloud of nanobots that detonate incoming explosives before they come within lethal range)

Me too, man. I've actually tried to figure out how such a system would be implemented; given our theoretical understanding of near-future nanotechnology. Closest I've come up with is a nanite swarm that disperses itself to just the right spacing - if it's made out of the proper materiel... it's basically a fuel-air explosive. Detonates itself, takes out the incoming weapon.

Only question is, how fast can the nanobots disperse? Can it really function as a true point-defense system; spurting towards the target, or would you have to wait for it to kind of float out in front of you?

...

Cybernetics are better. They are more predictable and free us from the moral dilemma of eugenetics.

>[X]Mind Hates Matter

>Metal is stronger than flesh
Wrong. Metal is stronger than HUMAN flesh.

>and machines will always be faster than organic systems.
Way wrong.

meat machines are good at being living: growing, healing, learning, and making more of the same model of meat machine

inorganic machines, so far, are good at being objects
with progress though, the inorganic can copy anything the living can do
no so much the other way around

Personally I'd say genetic engineering because it is less likely to get firmware/driver issues.

Also, what do you do if your Apple iNerves are updated to be incompatible with your Android arms just so Apple can force people to buy iArms?

>genetic engineering because it is less likely to get firmware/driver issues
what are coding errors and or cancer?

But we'll be getting into furry territory!

Can't help but feel that wetware would have higher production quality to avoid that stuff since you can release a hotfix for chrome but not meat.

>Personally I'd say genetic engineering because it is less likely to get firmware/driver issues.

I just wanted to tell you that right now Mechnical heart valves have a much better life expectancy and than artificial tissue valves. Mechanical valves can (but not necessarily will) last your entire life, while replacement biological tissue valves last only 10 to 15 years.

So don't underestimate the issues with biological engineering

I mean, this could change in the future easily, but I just wanted to ground the issue in the real and tangible

This. We're already working on reading and writing data to DNA I don't see why we can have a mixture of specialized organic components as well as synthetic ones that work seamlessly to fulfill functions that before you had to have an xbawx huge robot arm to do or fiber cables and metal antennae to send and receive data

>moral dilemma
We should be more optimistic than this. There will be mistakes and oversteps, but time will work out th kinks. Morals shouldn't become a paralyzing fear that cowers in the shadow of progress.

So, lets stick some poor people in giant glass tubes and splice the DNA of unborn children. If we go hard as a motherfucker on this shit, we could probably cure death in our lifetime. Which will really come in handy during the mutant uprising and/or super virus epidemic.

But we should worry less about that stuff and more about all the lessons we'll have learned getting there. Hell, if anything war and the existential threats will fuel even greater invention.

Only one of them is in use by humans today.

youtube.com/watch?v=OxbAliBxuOE

>no moral dilemma from cybernetics

Please be joking. Even not counting all the stuff popular works have covered there's also all the stuff /g/ is concerned about like proprietary closed source software vs. Open Source or Free (as in freedom) software. Or how about Apple, Microsoft, and Google competing for hardware and software space in your body?

Both of them are, it's just that China doesn't really brag about their latest achievements nearly as much as some other countries.

Genetic engineering.
The sheer SAVINGS of being able to modify someone and have all their future generations have it make it basically superior to cybernetics in the ways that matter.

Sure but in that case progress is controlled by the invisible honest hand of the free market. It may not always be a benevolent hand, but evolution guided by market forces is still better than relying completely on those lying hoax spreading scientists. Mechanical engineers are alright though. Their tech sector overlords keep their eyes on the profit horizon.

Which is exactly why we have to kill it. Until we can find a better way to monetize it, that is.

There already is. Just patent your mutant crop and extort people with it.

Why not both

Given the choice, I'd be all about cybernetics.

I would like to retain at least some part of my original consciousness, assuming the genetic engineering is a choice post-birth, which means I'd probably live a happier life as a brain in a jar. That being said, genetic engineering is a pretty fluid concept. You could literally have cronengberg-style hybrid horrors, or some sort of perfect symbiotic setup with cybernetics, it just depends on the application. As time passes, assuming there would be advancement in both forms of technology, cybernetics are more capable of being upgraded. I'd hate to have a first gen unfixable genetic mutation, but I'd be totally alright being some sort of archaic gritty-tech robot with various retrofitted contraptions.

Guys but what about the furfags? Think about it.

...

you do know we have GMO foods that can't reproduce or need a special whatever to do so or that if they do reproduce they just make a retarded organism
bioagriculture is a billions dollar industry

currently, people have the pesky opinion they have a right to reproduction
once we nip that in the bud or work out that the alterations brought about by an RNA virus or whatever is the intellectual property of the entity that designed it and not the person that's altered they'll have a license to breed money

Not if I make a spooky movie or book about the dangers of having a part of your body be someone's IP!

sorry user, but piracy is a thing, and home genetics labs are becoming a thing.
If genetics ever becomes commonplace enough for it to be a thing applied to PEOPLE, and not just specifically industrial uses, then that shit is going to be MAD PIRATED.

And, since the justice system doesn't work on the sins of your fathers, you can't press charges on someone you found out has genetic modifications after the fact.

>home genetics labs are becoming a thing
and we all know where that leads

anyways, just because you have the code to make the alteration won't mean you'll have the means to apply it or the designers can put in booby trap code or you'll have malicious individuals putting out bad designs on purpose

>the justice system doesn't work on the sins of your father
kek
>in some states, children can be held responsible for a deceased parent's unpaid medical debts. In virtually all other circumstances, creditors can come after your estate

U wot m8

>This band had, like, two good songs off their first album.
>And then they disbanded because their vocalist is a pussyfagbitchnigger.

That's why they disbanded? Shit.

Also I dunno, I like the band a lot but their first album was pretty meh. Antares was their best album and they never topped it though. It's their only album with more than three songs worth listening to.

Never found another band quite like them though.

WWTCD?

What Would The Culture Do?