/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3963427

>since when was the role of government to wager a vast portion of tax payer's money on something that does nothing for them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula

>>3940649

>Does this mean I can live forever and colonize space, and no money, and no possessions, and no religion, too?

No, not this organism. You're thinking of the immortal jellyfish. That's the one that may yield breakthroughs in longevity drugs. As for colonizing space, that's why we build manned outposts, mines and farms in the sea. Prototyping and resource acquisition. We develop habitats, suits and vehicles in the sea that will become the basis for Mars habitats, suits and vehicles. We harvest resources in the sea that will pay for all of it.

>>3801509

Biomedical engineering can be highly sea related if you specialize in applications of organisms discovered in the deep sea. Substances found there form the basis for many of our most advanced modern medicines, and could potentially offer the biological immortality enjoyed by the jellyfish mentioned earlier. Pic related.

If you specialize in reef organisms you could potentially be invited to work aboard Aquarius.

>>3647322

>Can you explain to me why investing all of our R&D resources into sea exploration is better than investing in recent developments in genetics and nanotech?

It's intimately related to genetics. We've found a deep sea jellyfish that's biologically immortal. It's the only immortal organism known to exist that isn't microscopic. I don't mean the negligible sensescence lobsters show, I mean it actually de-ages to juvenile form and then begins aging normally, in cycles, with no sign of cellular degeneration. It has huge implications for immortality research and we could not have found it without oceanic exploration.

>Technological progress is a positive feedback loop, you invest in the technologies with the biggest economic benefits then use the profits to invest in more research, if we invest in white elephants like looking at some patch of the ocean floor and saying "ooh look at this strange fish" we achieve nothing, we're back where we started.

The ocean contains the mineral riches needed to pay for much of that research. It doesn't just merit the initial funding for the sake of science, but also because it can quickly begin turning a profit.

>>3647322

Can you explain to me why investing all of our R&D resources into sea exploration is better than investing in recent developments in genetics and nanotech?

It's intimately related to genetics. We've found a deep sea jellyfish that's biologically immortal. It's the only immortal organism known to exist that isn't microscopic. I don't mean the negligible sensescence lobsters show, I mean it actually de-ages to juvenile form and then begins aging normally, in cycles, with no sign of cellular degeneration. It has huge implications for immortality research and we could not have found it without oceanic exploration.

>Technological progress is a positive feedback loop, you invest in the technologies with the biggest economic benefits then use the profits to invest in more research, if we invest in white elephants like looking at some patch of the ocean floor and saying "ooh look at this strange fish" we achieve nothing, we're back where we started.

The ocean contains the mineral riches needed to pay for much of that research. It doesn't just merit the initial funding for the sake of science, but also because it can quickly begin turning a profit.

>>3493727

>Really?

Yup. Pic related. "But exploring the ocean is a waste of money", they said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4357829/Immortal-jellyfish-swarming-across-the-world.html

What is the scientific significance of Turritopsis nutricula?

Does its ability to revert to sexual immaturity multiple times (though not observed in the wild) hold potential for extending human life spans?

Any opinions?