/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes. The city would be possible.

Gene splicing would be just that, splicing genes to make them do what you want.

/sci/ here will tell you that all of those things are impossible.

Truthfully, we do not currently have the technology to accomplish any of this but it all may certainly be possible.

>Would it be possible to build a city like Rapture under the sea?

Yes.

Would it be possible to build a city like Rapture under the sea?

NO WAY LOL.

WHALES WOULD EAT IT.

>>1541913
To elaborate: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=Wou
ld+it+be+possible+to+build+a+city+like+Rapture+under+the+sea%3F

>>1541911
>>1541913

Awesome. So why hasn't it been done yet? I mean, water makes up most of the surface of the globe, and populations are growing at a shocking rate, so it would be the next logical step.

And what are the realistic possibilities that gene splicing presents?

We have submarines, just park a submarine at the bottom of the sea and call it a city.

As for plasmids, we're kind of working on it, we call it gene therapy. We strip out some of the genetic payload of a virus, and insert the "good" genes we want (that, say, cure what ever disease) and infect the patient with the virus. The virus multiplies in the patients body, injecting its engineered dna sequence into our cells, which start transcribing it into proteins, yadda. Or something like that.

tl;dr yes

>>1541944
There was the exact same question on a french forum if you read French: http://forums.futura-sciences.com/physique/361572-conception-technique-dune-cite-marineoeoeoerevons-
ensemble.html

It's perfectly possible with today's means.

>>1541944
Because it would cost more than it would ever be worth.

We don't need cities under the sea.

When I am a crazy billionaire I promise you I will build rapture.

How to deal with the pressure?

>>1541970
I WANT ONE!

>>1541944
What, are you retarded? It's financially unfeasible. It's much more financially sound to crowd people into cities on land than to attempt to build domes under the water.
That's like asking "Why haven't we colonized the Moon?" Because it has no PURPOSE.

it is generally very expensive to conduct operations at the bottom of the ocean. i suppose it depends on how deep you are. but the pressures are extreme, the chemicals present in sea water tend to be harsh on materials. i believe it is more cost effective to go out into space where the pressures are not as variable, there is more room for habitation, and less corrosive conditions to wear away at your facilities.

>>1541979
Glass can stand the pressure and corrosion.

Continuing to build cities on the surface taller and taller is more economic than underwater.

Even ones on the ocean would be better than under the ocean.

But, it is definitely doable, just expensive beyond all hell.

As for gene manipulation, it's basically only doable on fetuses. You have to replace every cell with the new, altered cells. Someday in the distant future this might change, maybe.

<feotus

biotech major here

OP, i don't know how to tell you this, but...is quite complicated, because the splicing depends on WHAT you're splicing. Since in Bioshock the change is reversible, i would say it's protein, but until you give me a more solid explanation, i can't tell you shit about it. Splicing can be done to mature organisms too, but its way more chaotic. I've only done it in bacteria and yeasts.

CAPTCHA: transparency masons, lol

>>1541984
I for one think that we should have a permanent colony on the moon, for SCIENCE!, but that's just me. And most of /sci/.

.>>1542055
Most of /sci/? You're late bro.

/sci/ used to be a place for people who were the opposite of
>>1541911
>>1541984
and >>1541970
but not anymore.

>>1542055
second. plus it's a good launch pad for further exploration.

.>>1542055
Most of /sci/? You're late bro.

/sci/ used to be a place for people who were the opposite of
>>1541964
>>1541984
and >>1541970
but not anymore.

.>>1542055
Most of /sci/? You're late bro.

/sci/ used to be a place for people who were the opposite of
>>1541970
>>1541984
and >>1541970
but not anymore.

>>1542094
/sci/ used to be for people with no realistic thinking whatsoever?

>>1542107
/sci/ used to be for people that would love science for the sake of science. A base on the moon would help with that, and, hell, so would a colony deep underwater. A city would be useless, yes, but a colony of researchers would be fantastic for biology. They would also be subject to one of several dozen different underwater-research-lab-horror-movie scenarios, though.

Captcha: eureka doubt

>>1542145
I would love to be in that underwater base to study the fishes and such. That would be awesome.

>>1542145
I didn't say not to establish a base for research. I said both a colony on the moon and underwater would be financially unfeasible and pointless. Colonizing an area is supposed to serve some purpose. You don't need a city to study space or fish.

>>1541984
>"Why haven't we colonized the Moon?" Because it has no PURPOSE."

i agree with most of your post except this. this is utter bullshit. A small colony on the moon could reap HUGE benefits.

First of all, solar cells, especially the newer type that work extremely well at higher temperatures and are nearly twice as efficient as current solar cells, will be able to produce huge amounts of energy from the Sun that would otherwise be filtered out through the Earths atmosphere. This energy can be beamed to Earth for use powering homes, cities, etc.

Secondly, why do you think the Hubble Space Telescope orbits so far away from Earth compared to other satellites? Beyond the obvious of keeping the satellite safe from debris, its because the Earth's atmosphere clouds the lens. On the moon, there is no atmosphere to cloud the lens. We could have dozens, possibly hundreds of Hubble Space Telescopes all situated on a much more stable platform.

That isn't even scratching the surface of the economic incentive however. The moon presents an incalculably HUGE material cache. Mining on the moon would be ridiculously easy compared to mining an asteroid or comet. The minerals and mined materials could easily be taken to Earth as the Moon's weaker gravity allows ships to take off with significantly less thrust. While it would be expensive to maintain an Earth-Moon transit, the mineral products would more than cover the costs.

>>1542169 You don't need a city to study space

The dark spots of the Moon are the best places to build a telescope with a precision hundreds of times better than Hubble. No light pollution from Earth, no atmosphere, all the materials to build a big array of telescopes are there. Just saying..

>>1542192
*dark poles

>>1542192
>>1542183
Again, you don't need a CITY to build/upkeep some solar panels or a telescope unless you have a LOT of solar panels and they require people to actually live on the Moon.

possible: yes
probable: no

>>1542183

>solar cells

I think you mean lunar cells since they would be on the moon >_>

>>1542233

go back to /b/

>>1542222
I specifically said "A small colony on the moon"

L2read

>>1542233
raging retard detected

>>1542241
Then you and I are talking about different things.

>>1542260
Not necessarily. You seem to think that any form of human habitation on the moon or at the bottom of the ocean is financially unfeasible and irresponsible. I say it is not. The reason I believe you think this is that you have not clarified accepting the idea of a research colony while still rejecting the idea of an actual civilian colony. Because of this lack of definition and elaboration, I can only conclude that you oppose all forms of habitation on said foreign environments, which promptly legitimizes my disagreement and vocal concern over your ideas.

Not with so many transparent walls, at least with current tech. And like that plumber type said, it'd leak like a bitch, though it did that in the game too.

You'd at least need some pretty fucking impressive new production facilities for making massive parts out of glass, or plastic, or some advanced composite.

Some of the structures could of course be made out of self-healing composites in hard-to-reach and the more critical places.

Power distribution could be a fucking nightmare, especially with condensed moisture dripping off the deep-chilled walls.

Then there's the problem that I don't think anyone has actually done much research into human long-term dwelling in extreme pressurized environments.

>captcha: Giggling Jekyll
seems appropriate

>>1542233
6/10

>>1542282
As of now:

It's possible, but not financially feasible with enough financial return from the investment.

It could be possible one day. Not today.

I'm sure it would be possible now, but back when this game takes place in the 1950's I don't think so... In fact the city was built in the 30's and 40's...but the game takes place in the 50's. So, back then I'd say no, I really don't see how they'd have the tech. man power, to do so, epsecially hot of the heals of WWII...

>>1542260
Other anon. Here is what I put, with emphasis on certain parts:

>/sci/ used to be for people that would love science for the sake of science. A BASE on the moon would help with that, and, hell, so would a COLONY deep underwater. A city would be useless, yes, but a COLONY of researchers would be fantastic for biology.

Which you then put "a city is useless." None of us have ever said nor implied (besides OP) that a city would be good, but we all support colonies on the Moon or underwater.

>>1542287
have not looked into this possibility at all, but you might be able to generate a good amount of power from thermohaline circulation. depends on where you situate your facility. you could also alternatively try setting it in the middle of the sargasso sea or some other area that experiences a good amount of downwelling to drive turbines. turbidity currents are another possible means.

>>1542308
whoops, you said distribution, not generation. stupid beer.

>>1542289
>but not financially feasible with enough financial return from the investment.

you could argue that this invalidates the pruposes behind centers of education for troubled youth (of whom less than 15% of graduates actually become members of the middle- or upper-middle class), health centers for mentally disabled (who provide nothing whatsoever to society besides humbling tragedy), asylums (why would you need to contain the insane when it's easier to kill them), unemployment benefits and welfare (which many argue do nothing but hurt the national debt), and virtually every "pleasure purchase" anyone has ever made.

Not to mention the giant purple elephant in the room here: NASA!

bump

>>1542308
>>1542312
>stupid beer
Do NOT mock the Beer!
I will call upon the spirits of ancient sumerian brewers to put a hex on you if you do that again.

While the idea of a base with transparent walls built in the sargasso appeals to me, the thought of the constantly plugged powerplant intakes alone makes me want to hurl.

Also:
>ALWAYS a debate about financial feasibility of EVERYTHING
FFS