Human Venom

[magnemoe]

Can we please stick to the original discussion?

P.S: It's not just soldiers, but these people would be able to survive / hunt in the wilderness extremely easily & effectively! They could save loads more people from starvation in Africa by bringing home very large quantities of food!

And what about the deserts? If we also give them reptile-like scales, they could thrive in those sandy wastes much easier.

Problem is that in this setting the only change is that you fight animals rather than humans.

Its even harder, an predator will kill you before the poison acts, for prey the problem is catching it not killing it unless its large and in this setting it will also kill you before the poison acts.

Some tribes has used poisioned weapons but it has always been ranged.

[Torquemadus]

One of the greatest advantages that humans have is that they can "modify" themselves and their environment by inventing and implementing new technologies. Humans don't need "natural" weapons such as claws and poisoned fangs, because the weapons and other tools they have invented are vastly superior!

Humans have two choices when dealing with a challenging environment: Adapt to the environment, or adapt the environment (or both). Humans can invent technologies to allow themselves to operate in extreme environments. They can also undertake engineering projects to modify extreme environments to better suit their needs. This may seem "unnatural" to some, but it is in fact, part of the process of life evolving onto ever more complex forms and seeking new ways to survive and reproduce itself.

The long term survival of life on Earth depends on the evolution of life forms that can defend against the threat of asteroid impacts, and spread life to new biospheres. At this point, the Earth has produced a life form that is sufficiently complex that it can contemplate concepts such as asteroid defence, and the settlement and terraforming of other worlds, such as Mars!

The humans that settle Mars, and those that come after them to explore and settle other worlds far beyond our own solar system, might ultimately choose to modify themselves to better withstand the challenges posed by their environment. However, I doubt that they will choose to give their descendants claws and poisoned fangs, when they can give them far more advanced weapons and tools to use instead!

[RainDreamer]

Can we please stick to the original discussion?

P.S: It's not just soldiers, but these people would be able to survive / hunt in the wilderness extremely easily & effectively! They could save loads more people from starvation in Africa by bringing home very large quantities of food!

And what about the deserts? If we also give them reptile-like scales, they could thrive in those sandy wastes much easier.

1. The problem in africa is not about people not being able to hunt for food effectively, but there are just too many people and too little food. If you hunt more there, a lot more species is going to be extinct. Genetic modification here better applied to food itself to create higher yield to sustain more people.

2. You need water in desert, and as a warmblood human, you are big (need more water to survive) and you waste a lot of water (through sweating profusely). Reptile scales are good for sliding over sand, but if you are walking, not much differences. Being a camel would give more desert survivability.

[KerikBalm]

Venom? that requires getting to point blank range... and then it takes time to act... meanwhile the other guy probably stabbed you to death if he hadn't already shot you before you even got close...

As animal size increases, poison takes long to act via simple diffusion.

There is a reason that most animals do not kill with venom, and those that do use it either defensively, or against prey that does not pose an immediate threat to them (like a mouse to a snake, or a fly to a spider).

Venom would be a terrible battlefield weapon.

A better improvement would be a fully redunant vital organs (we've got 2 lungs, although only 1 airway, only 1 liver, only 1 heart), and sphincter muscles around major veins and arterys.. natural tourniquets to stop blood loss.

I wonder what sort of modifications could be made to bone to make it stronger... There are a number of organic(carbon based) fibers (kevlar, for example), that if embedded in the bone matrix, could probably increase its resiliance.

It could be pretty cool if we had carbon fiber reinforced bones, with our skulls and ribcages modified to be some form of composite armor... but... that's pretty far out there and way beyond what we can do now.

But venom?

No.

That could be useful for an assasin, but not a soldier on a battlefield.

Reptile scales don't help stop water loss... its the lack of pores (for sweating), and simply thicker keratin skin.

Perhaps even more importantly, its that they excrete their nitrogren waste as Uric acid, not Urine.

Uric acid can be very concentrated... and comes out as a white paste with little water (Side facts: Birds are reptiles, and like other reptiles they have 1 orifice for wate excretion, not 2 like us. When a bird "poops" on you, and there's a whole bunch or white stuff... thats actually the Uric acid... the equivalent of bird *....*, not poop... the dark stuff that is often at the center, is the poop)

Mammals lose a lot of mater through pores in our skin, and our Urine.

Reptiles don't have the pores, and they don't need to use nearly as much water to get rid of their nitrogenous waste.

Excreting uric acid instead of Urea does take more calories though, and thus is not favored in environments where calories are more limiting than water.

Edited May 24, 2015 by KerikBalm

[peadar1987]

Humans are natural hunters, we are built for endurance, not speed or power. Essentially, our ancestors (and some tribes today) would hunt by pursuing groups of animals at a relentless jogging/walking pace for days until the weakest member dropped from exhaustion and could be finished off. Having poison fangs wouldn't help us with that. To be honest, any situation in which you'd use poison fangs "in the wild" would be just as easily resolved using a spear, without the need for genetic engineering.

[Scotius]

Venom? that requires getting to point blank range... and then it takes time to act... meanwhile the other guy probably stabbed you to death if he hadn't already shot you before you even got close...

As animal size increases, poison takes long to act via simple diffusion.

There is a reason that most animals do not kill with venom, and those that do use it either defensively, or against prey that does not pose an immediate threat to them (like a mouse to a snake, or a fly to a spider).

Venom would be a terrible battlefield weapon.

A better improvement would be a fully redunant vital organs (we've got 2 lungs, although only 1 airway, only 1 liver, only 1 heart), and sphincter muscles around major veins and arterys.. natural tourniquets to stop blood loss.

I wonder what sort of modifications could be made to bone to make it stronger... There are a number of organic(carbon based) fibers (kevlar, for example), that if embedded in the bone matrix, could probably increase its resiliance.

It could be pretty cool if we had carbon fiber reinforced bones, with our skulls and ribcages modified to be some form of composite armor... but... that's pretty far out there and way beyond what we can do now.

But venom?

No.

That could be useful for an assasin, but not a soldier on a battlefield.

Reptile scales don't help stop water loss... its the lack of pores (for sweating), and simply thicker keratin skin.

Perhaps even more importantly, its that they excrete their nitrogren waste as Uric acid, not Urine.

Uric acid can be very concentrated... and comes out as a white paste with little water (Side facts: Birds are reptiles, and like other reptiles they have 1 orifice for wate excretion, not 2 like us. When a bird "poops" on you, and there's a whole bunch or white stuff... thats actually the Uric acid... the equivalent of bird *....*, not poop... the dark stuff that is often at the center, is the poop)

Mammals lose a lot of mater through pores in our skin, and our Urine.

Reptiles don't have the pores, and they don't need to use nearly as much water to get rid of their nitrogenous waste.

Excreting uric acid instead of Urea does take more calories though, and thus is not favored in environments where calories are more limiting than water.

Worry not - evolution already is on it

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/24344/title/The-world-s-densest-bones/

I wonder how people described in this article would fare in micro-gravity? Maybe instead of making venomous humans, we should concentrate on developing gene therapy for astronauts that will give them bones not dissolving in freefall?

[dansmithers]

To quote a problem solver:

The answer is a gun.

And if that don't work, use more gun.

[kerbiloid]

We already have proteolitic venom - pepsin. It's an analog of a viper's venom active agent.

1 g of pepsin splits 50 kg of albumin, coagulates 100 t of milk, dissolves 2000 l of gelatin in 2 hours.

The only difference: viper bits a prey and waits, while we tear it into pieces, swallow and then use our venom on it to dissolve.

[Stargate525]

We already have proteolitic venom - pepsin. It's an analog of a viper's venom active agent.

1 g of pepsin splits 50 kg of albumin, coagulates 100 t of milk, dissolves 2000 l of gelatin in 2 hours.

The only difference: viper bits a prey and waits, while we tear it into pieces, swallow and then use our venom on it to dissolve.

...Are you suggesting we projectile vomit on them?

[kerbiloid]

...Are you suggesting we projectile vomit on them?

Why not? This really works in various movies.

Or to modify some cells (salivary glands or so) to produce the desired enzymes and then cosplay a spitting cobra.

[Scotius]

Oh great...just what we need. Not only cavity searches in airports, but also oral check-ups for snake fangs and venom-spitting glands.

[Stargate525]

Oh great...just what we need. Not only cavity searches in airports, but also oral check-ups for snake fangs and venom-spitting glands.

And if they get found? "I'm sorry sir, you need to remove your... fangs...

Ohwait.

[Aanker]

The basic version - make one of our already fully functional and extant salivary glands produce a venom by modifying the DNA segment(s) of some protein they normally and naturally produce. To prevent self-intoxication from digestion of the venom, make it sensitive to acidity and possibly include an 'antidote' protein that binds the venom and makes it harmless until it enters human or animal blood. Of course, this version would be sensitive to blisters and wounds within the oral tract, so it might not be such a good idea.

However, developing the whole tooth funnel thing might be more than just a quick everyday genetic mutation. I'm not sure the reptilian solution would be compatible with a mammal's anatomy or physiology, but hey, maybe.

[Nuke]

humans are already one of the most deadly species on the planet (right behind mosquitoes) and you want to make it deadlier.

[DarkGravity]

The problem I see with questions like the one the OP has is the law of unintended consequences. You probably can genetically engineer fangs and venom in a human, but then what? Our entire ecosystem, the only planet that we know of that supports life could be affected. Maybe by a tiny amount, maybe by a lot. There are currently students in university genetics classes working on projects like making the bacteria in your gut create a minty fresh odor. Well, guess what, feces don't smell bad because it just does, we have evolved to think that toxic substance is something to be avoided. That's why it stinks. If we make feces smell good, babies will be playing with it, and the chain of unintended consequences can lead anywhere, and only rarely anywhere good. We live in a time where the power available to each human is enormous compared to any previous generation. If you alter the chemistry of a human enough to make venom, the resulting ripples in the chemistry of the Web of Life on Earth need to be considered. Please, any time you ask something this profound, please understand how profound the question is, and also ask "and if we can, what are the chances it will reduce the entire web of life to fossils?" We are already in a Mass Extinction. Let's try to keep that in check. Let's not be like a kid with a chemistry set who blows himself up.

Edited June 4, 2015 by DarkGravity

[jrphilps]

You're kidding, right? We're some of the tougher animals on the planet when it comes to surviving damage. Besides somehow mitigating the psychological effects of shock, I'm not sure what you'd do.

Because of our ridiculously big brains, humans are tragically vulnerable to heat, cold, injury, hunger, thirst, etc. I've been studying wound profiles and terminal ballistics for years, and you'd be surprised at how much you can do to improve survival rates. I'm no doctor, but I know how bullets affect human tissues. With germline engineering and in vitro fertilisation, you could endow humans with all kinds of features to limit damage. I did a whole post about this on my blog, check it out if you don't believe me.

http://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.ca/2014/09/physiology-of-super-soldier.html

[KerbMav]

At point blank with no weapons I guess. Still, I'm pretty certain you could do this with pipes and pumps no problem (if you didn't mind having to refill some kind of venom tank manually)-but I don't know how you'd make YOURSELF immune to the poison. Anyone got any thoughts here?

Get me into point blank range I would not need any fangs or venom - also if I had, who would be the first adress for the FBI to go to in the "man sized venomous bite murder victim" case?

Why does it have to come back to soldiers, or more concrete, actually applying it to a warfare situation?

We have this tool to help mankind in a way that no other tool can, and yet some choose to drift their ideas towards aggression.

Is that the first thing that comes to peoples minds?

You are basically saying "How can we use this tool to kill our enemies?".

It's this thinking that made people scared of nuclear energy and, on a more important note, made people afraid of science.

"What is science doing now to kill us?".

Because we're a crappy species, that's why. Whatever good we do, we spoil it.

Sometimes the sad thought creeps up in me that this trait may have been one of our biggest assets during evolution.

Although I think this trait it less genetic than socially inherited.

[PB666]

I wonder if it would be feasible to modify the human genome in order to give us:

1. Fangs.

2. A sac that contains venom.

3. Something in our bloodstream to make us immune to our own poison.

4. Some new snake-like instincts.

Imagine the supersoldiers / assasins we could create if this succeeds, and imagine how hard it'd be to do it.

Well, that would put a kink in breast feeding and teething.

[baggers]

Because of our ridiculously big brains, humans are tragically vulnerable to heat, cold, injury, hunger, thirst, etc. I've been studying wound profiles and terminal ballistics for years, and you'd be surprised at how much you can do to improve survival rates. I'm no doctor, but I know how bullets affect human tissues. With germline engineering and in vitro fertilisation, you could endow humans with all kinds of features to limit damage. I did a whole post about this on my blog, check it out if you don't believe me.

http://kesler12-jamesrocket.blogspot.ca/2014/09/physiology-of-super-soldier.html

Look interressing, but a few drawbacks:

-> Morale problems: born soldiers, unable to do anything else.

-> Costs problems: specific gestion from born to adult: can't use the "main" school and stuff.

-> Controls problems: who can ensure theses "supersoldiers" won't just take their freedom and rule the world?

Fot theses to be viable, you have to be sure that theses will be cheaper than a bunch of "basic humans" fitted with a lot of gear, drones, and stuff. (think long-term costs)

The long-term is a problem too: if you have 15 years for a "super soldier" to grown + 30 years use, it's going to be way too long in a warfare situation: just look how quickly technology and general warfare face evolve in only one year of WW1 or WW2.

A "born soldier" able to sustain blade wounds will not last face a musket bullet.

A born soldier able to sustain a musket bullet will be cut in two by a machinegun

A born soldier able to sustain 5.56 will be downed by a 7.62

Able to sustain a bullet wound, it will be killed by a laser.

And so on...

technology, and especialy military technology when on total war evolve way to quickly for any "born soldier".

Edited June 3, 2015 by baggers

[jrphilps]

Look interressing, but a few drawbacks:

-> Morale problems: born soldiers, unable to do anything else.

-> Costs problems: specific gestion from born to adult: can't use the "main" school and stuff.

-> Controls problems: who can ensure theses "supersoldiers" won't just take their freedom and rule the world?

Fot theses to be viable, you have to be sure that theses will be cheaper than a bunch of "basic humans" fitted with a lot of gear, drones, and stuff. (think long-term costs)

You shouldn't worry about cost that much, seeing as the MIC is tremendously expensive by its nature. The war department and its contractors waste stupendous amounts of money on projects that never come to fruition, and no one in a position of authority ever trys to penalise them. If a metahuman soldier project is done properly, it could yield enormous and long lasting benefits: We would have a soldier with combat skills above and beyond what any normal human could hope to achieve. Think of someone like Big Boss, or Todd 3465, but with superhuman strength, speed, and durability. Imagine having even a few thousand men like that! It would give your nation an insurmountable advantage, and would change the nature of war itself.

For thousands of years, military innovations have consisted of adding superior tools and weapons to our inventory: The crossbow, the muzzle loading musket, the breech loading rifle, the repeating rifle, then semi-automatics and full automatics. You know what none of these weapons did? They never changed the nature of the man holding them. A human soldier is still a human soldier. No matter how much gear or training you give him, his fundamental psychology and physiology can only be altered so much. Metahumans are much more flexible. They are a sub-species designed to thrive on the battlefield, avoiding all the weakness' of the human body, and adding all kinds of new strengths. We have been developing improved weapons for so long, wasn't it inevitable that we would someday want an improved soldier to go along with them?

The long-term is a problem too: if you have 15 years for a "super soldier" to grown + 30 years use, it's going to be way too long in a warfare situation: just look how quickly technology and general warfare face evolve in only one year of WW1 or WW2.

A "born soldier" able to sustain blade wounds will not last face a musket bullet.

A born soldier able to sustain a musket bullet will be cut in two by a machinegun

A born soldier able to sustain 5.56 will be downed by a 7.62

Able to sustain a bullet wound, it will be killed by a laser.

And so on...

technology, and especialy military technology when on total war evolve way to quickly for any "born soldier".

Some of the initial advantages may dissapear over time, but at the end of the day, these troops are simply better suited for the demands of war than an ordinary human, and thats what counts. Very few military innovations have been transformative in nature: Many of those which claim to be transformative were merely incremental. Having a qualitatively better soldier, though? That would rank right up there with the advent of motorisaton.

FYI, a metahuman soldier project is a long term commitment, its not like the military is going to create just one generation: Those soldiers will become an important demograph within your nation, responsible for defense against external threats. If kids are being born every 15 years, that gives you alot of tactical and operational flexibility. After all, their genomes can be altered with every successive generation to meet the changing nature of warfare: If new challenges are encountered, then we devise new adaptations to overcome them (whereas with baseline humans, you are SOL).

Their increased survivability is a major selling point, true, but its not like the soldiers will suddenly become useless if new types of weapons are able to kill them: Metahumans are only meant to be tough, not invulnerable. Besides, what are the odds of laser or plasma weapons being introduced? We have been using firearms for half a millennium: It was round shot from 1500 to 1850, then conical bullets from 1850 to the present. Humans are locked into bullets from a cultural and technological standpoint, and thats not likely to change anytime soon.

Edited June 3, 2015 by jrphilps

[baggers]

15 years is way too long for me: look at WW2: in only 6 years, the tanks have incredibly quickly evolved (and became obsolete), the same for most gear parts, not counting tactics on the field, planes, boats...

I really fear you would "specialize" some humans that will quickly became obsolete monsters.

[jrphilps]

15 years is way too long for me: look at WW2: in only 6 years, the tanks have incredibly quickly evolved (and became obsolete), the same for most gear parts, not counting tactics on the field, planes, boats...

I really fear you would "specialize" some humans that will quickly became obsolete monsters.

Again, you are talking about these soldiers like they are just another weapon or piece of equipment: Thats not how it is. Human personnel are the integer exponent through which all wars are won or lost. With a project like this, what you are doing is improving the human part of the military, and changing the force on a fundamental level: How exactly do your enemys counteract an advantage like that? They can't, not without raising their own force of metahumans (which takes at least 20 years to do, too late to influence the wars outcome).

You seem to be myopically focusing on whether there is a weapon that can kill these soldiers, thinking that if it gets developed and mass produced, they will quickly lose their importance. Thats very much a mistaken opinion: Considering that virtually every weapon in our arsenal (from small arms, to artillery, to aireal ordnance) can kill a foot soldier today, why do we even have an infantry branch? Because, combat is not predicated on the invulnerability of each and every soldier.

This topic goes way beyond the simple exchange of bullets between two forces. It goes way beyond whether you can kill a metahuman with small arms fire. This is about better soldiers, who can perform their missions far more efficiently than baseline humans.

[baggers]

Note that you have forget the "asymetrical war" in your point of view.

I'm not sure seeing genetical monsters in streets will ensure you a victory of "heart and spirit".

Modify geneticaly humans to "specialize" today in a task, look like a evolutionnay deadlock to me: "better humans" of the 16 century is not the "better human" of today.

And you can't just make "matahumans" without thinking it was humans with theyr need: freedom of choice, family, rest, vacation, live together with "normal" humans, and so on.

[Stargate525]

Modify geneticaly humans to "specialize" today in a task, look like a evolutionnay deadlock to me: "better humans" of the 16 century is not the "better human" of today.

That's the trick. The 'better soldier' of 1760 would be faster at reloading, less tired of a marcher, and probably smaller than the average (to minimize their target). In 1400, it would be bigger, stronger, tougher, with little regard to endurance or creativity. Modern day, you'd make them more flexible and tough, and especially mentally hardened.

[jrphilps]

Note that you have forget the "asymetrical war" in your point of view.

Could you elaborate on that?

I'm not sure seeing genetical monsters in streets will ensure you a victory of "heart and spirit".

I acknowledge the possibility that some elements of society will look very dimly upon genetically enhanced soldiers. There are alot of ethical boundarys that get crossed with such a project, just like alot of ethical boundarys were crossed when we used nuclear ordnance against japanese civilians. Whether you like it or not, though... If a course of action is seen as militarily expedient, the generals are going to take it.

Modify geneticaly humans to "specialize" today in a task, look like a evolutionnay deadlock to me: "better humans" of the 16 century is not the "better human" of today.

In the decades to come, I foresee humans splitting into many diverse clades through the use of genetic engineering. The differences will be minor at first, but as time passes, there will eventually be entirely new species of humans within our society. And since some of them will be doing jobs that we are unable or unwilling to do (colonising hostile planets, tending to ecologys in the ocean depths), how much could we really complain about them?

And you can't just make "matahumans" without thinking it was humans with theyr need: freedom of choice, family, rest, vacation, live together with "normal" humans, and so on.

Yes, and I took all of those things into consideration in my article. Genetically altered or not, they still have human needs that must be attended to.

That's the trick. The 'better soldier' of 1760 would be faster at reloading, less tired of a marcher, and probably smaller than the average (to minimize their target). In 1400, it would be bigger, stronger, tougher, with little regard to endurance or creativity. Modern day, you'd make them more flexible and tough, and especially mentally hardened.

The skills and abilitys desired in a soldier have actually remained fairly consistent throughout history. He needs to be able to march long distances with a pack, make camp in unappealing locations, operate various types of weapons and equipment, work with others as part of a team, engage other humans in lethal combat, etc. Specialisation in humans is different from specialisation in insects

Edited June 4, 2015 by jrphilps