# How's the scientific process on real life anthropomorphic beings coming?



## Rigby (May 6, 2013)

When I was a kid I would've sworn that I could make myself into a Pokemon via surgery by now and the fact that I'm just a dude that likes raccoons instead of a dude who is a raccoon is heartbreaking.

So, any news on the subject? Any plastic surgeons testing surgery to give people animal noses or something? Anything? Could I at least give myself a raccoon tail if I was rich enough?


----------



## Ricky (May 6, 2013)

Yes. Go to China and donate all your organs. They will pay you well for it.

Then take the money and go to Mexico. You need to ask for a guy named Paco.

He knows all about that stuff and will replace them with animal organs.


----------



## benignBiotic (May 6, 2013)

Aside from getting lots of surgeries and grafts I think you're out of luck. 

Even if this were an option I wouldn't want it. It would look gross and unnatural.


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> Aside from getting lots of surgeries and grafts I think you're out of luck.
> 
> Even if this were an option I wouldn't want it. It would look gross and unnatural.


Don't forget the body's rejection of new tissue and other implants.


----------



## benignBiotic (May 6, 2013)

Machine said:


> Don't forget the body's rejection of new tissue and other implants.


Yeah. Problematic doesn't begin to describe the prospect.

You'd be better off searching for a magic wand to change yourself.


----------



## Heliophobic (May 6, 2013)

There are exactly 1,012 threads asking the same thing. I suggest you read them so we don't have to rev this shit up again.

Some things were never meant to be, and should stay that way.


----------



## Ricky (May 6, 2013)

Machine said:


> Don't forget the body's rejection of new tissue and other implants.



Or the fact that they don't exist, along with the technology to implement it.

Slight technicalities Paco can certainly overcome. *nods*


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Or the fact that they don't exist, along with the technology to implement it.


A few spools of thread, a sewing needle, heavy alcohol, and some animal flesh never hurt anybody. :V


----------



## Judge Spear (May 6, 2013)

What is this, Batman Beyond?


----------



## Ricky (May 6, 2013)

Machine said:


> A few spools of thread, a sewing needle, and some heavy alcohol never hurt anybody. :V



Or you could just use a bunch of that iron-on fabric material :roll:


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 6, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Or you could just use a bunch of that iron-on fabric material :roll:



_Ouch._


----------



## PastryOfApathy (May 6, 2013)

Why would you even want a tail? That shit sounds horribly unpractical, and immensely inconvenient.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 6, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Why would you even want a tail? That shit sounds horribly unpractical, and immensely inconvenient.



Unless it's like a prehensile monkey tail, that could be useful sometimes. But other than that there's the issue of sitting on it or shutting it in car doors.


----------



## Mentova (May 6, 2013)

It won't happen, ever. :V


----------



## Hydra (May 6, 2013)

Truly programmable biology is a long way off. Trying to see the future is (usually) futile and at best good for a laugh at some far future date (just read any of the "What the world will be like in 2000!" articles that were written in 1900) but based on past research and development trends with electricity and chemistry I'd say around 2100.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 6, 2013)

Guys, science isnt the way forward, the correct paradigm to follow is biological alchemy, turn yourself into a chimera V:


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Or you could just use a bunch of that iron-on fabric material :roll:


I think I'd rather die, man.


----------



## Ricky (May 6, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Unless it's like a prehensile monkey tail, that could be useful sometimes. But other than that there's the issue of sitting on it or shutting it in car doors.



What if it's detachable, like in that King Missile song?


----------



## Saga (May 6, 2013)

Tattoo your entire body with raccoon details.
Staple fake tail to that space above your poophole.
Walk around naked.
?????
Profit


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 6, 2013)

Ricky said:


> What if it's detachable, like in that King Missile song?



Maybe.

But then it means that I'd have some kind of socket for it left over in my ass area.

I've have a second asshole. A cyborg asshole.


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

Ricky said:


> What if it's detachable, like in that King Missile song?


Use it as a whip for kinky sex games.


----------



## Fox_720B (May 6, 2013)

I think that genetic modifications may be possible In the future, but we are nowhere near that point yet. Besides, medical science is focusing more on growing human organs and other body parts from stem cells in order to reduce instances of transplant rejection, or to restore spinal column function to paraplegics and the like. Cosmetic genetic modification to produce an anthro-style look is decades away at minimum. So for now you'll really have to settle for fursuiting.


----------



## Ricky (May 6, 2013)

Saga said:


> Tattoo your entire body with raccoon details.



I'm in the process of doing that with tiger stripes *nods*

My murrsona isn't even a tiger. I just think they look badass B)


----------



## Fallowfox (May 6, 2013)

Today you can get transplants for small pieces of tissue, such as patches of your bowels, from pigs. However I doubt that is what you wanted to hear. 

Science can't turn you into a man-raccoon, so I guess costumes would have to do.


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

Lol, furries thinking they can get a procedure like this and come out A-OK.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 6, 2013)

Machine said:


> Lol, furries thinking they can get a procedure like this and come out A-OK.



You'll see when I'm a beautiful six foot squirrel.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 6, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> You'll see when I'm a beautiful six foot squirrel.



God imagine the ostracization that comes with being a squirrel man


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> You'll see when I'm a beautiful six foot squirrel.


Oh man, a giant squirrel.

I'd be thinking I was hallucinating.




Gibby said:


> God imagine the ostracization that comes with being a squirrel man


inb4 IRL FURSECUTION.


----------



## Hydra (May 6, 2013)

a


----------



## septango (May 6, 2013)

Ive been working on a super-imersive fursuit, if that makes you feel better


----------



## Fallowfox (May 6, 2013)

Gibby said:


> God imagine the ostracization that comes with being a squirrel man



It's nuts I tell you.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 6, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> It's nuts I tell you.


----------



## Rigby (May 6, 2013)

Saliva said:


> There are exactly 1,012 threads asking the same thing. I suggest you read them so we don't have to rev this shit up again.
> 
> Some things were never meant to be, and should stay that way.



Those were made in the past though, not now. Unless I'm time traveling back in time permanently, I don't think those threads would be of any help.

Time travel isn't even real, don't you even read Einstein's thesis papers?


----------



## Fox_720B (May 6, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Those were made in the past though, not now. Unless I'm time traveling back in time permanently, I don't think those threads would be of any help.
> 
> Time travel isn't even real, don't you even read Einstein's thesis papers?




Well, I think he meant for you to use the search function, not time travel, for what it's worth.


----------



## Rigby (May 6, 2013)

Fox_720B said:


> Well, I think he meant for you to use the search function, not time travel, for what it's worth.



I know, leave me alone.


----------



## Kahoku (May 6, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> What is this, Batman Beyond?



Splice me baby.


----------



## Heliophobic (May 6, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Those were made in the past though, not now. Unless I'm time traveling back in time permanently, I don't think those threads would be of any help.
> 
> Time travel isn't even real, don't you even read Einstein's thesis papers?



So you're implying that within a span of, say, a year (which, I assume, multiple threads of the same exact topic have been made since then), we could have already developed the technology to successfully turn a human being into a perfect "real life anthro"?

Even if we could actually do this, why would the fuck would you want to destroy your body by getting such a procedure? You'd become an abomination. And I'm not even going to *begin* to explain to you how badly the media will explode over this.


----------



## Rigby (May 6, 2013)

Saliva said:


> So you're implying that within a span of, say, a year (which, I assume, multiple threads of the same exact topic have been made since then), we could have already developed the technology to successfully turn a human being into a perfect "real life anthro"?



Don't discount the German medical system so readily, they can pull off some incredible shit (I think it's related to devil worshiping cults in the German forests, but I can't say I have hard evidence yet)


----------



## benignBiotic (May 6, 2013)

Saliva said:


> Even if we could actually do this, why would the fuck would you want to destroy your body by getting such a procedure? *You'd become an abomination*. And I'm not even going to begin to explain to you how badly the media will explode over this.


Precisely. Even if it could be done I wouldn't bastardize my body by doing it.

I would only want to become an anthro through magic-genie-fairy tale BS.


----------



## Ricky (May 6, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Don't discount the German medical system so readily, they can pull off some incredible shit (I think it's related to devil worshiping cults in the German forests, but I can't say I have hard evidence yet)



What about _The Human Centipede_? :lol:


----------



## Machine (May 6, 2013)

Ricky said:


> What about _The Human Centipede_? :lol:


What, that wasn't incredible?

If sewing people together, ass-to-mouth style, isn't science, then consider me a fundamentalist Christian.


----------



## Jaseface (May 6, 2013)

For the OP there was this one guy in the states that got extensive cosmetic surgery to look like a cat he even had fake wiskers implanted but as of now science doesn't have a way to do what your talking about.  We are at the point where you can have the markings tattooed onto your skin fake wiskers much like a dermal piercing and some implants but it is basically all fake.  Maybe one day science will find a way to alter dna to make you grow fur and a real tail but I'm pretty sure that it would be the lowest thing on the list that scientist would end up doing.  As said some posts above me the focus is more on life saving medical science instead of cosmetic modification.


----------



## septango (May 6, 2013)

really the cosmedic stuff probably would surface at the same time that medical human coding does


----------



## TigerBeacon (May 7, 2013)

You guys know about the Tiger Guy and the Lizard man from Ripley's. The Tiger Guy passed away I believe, but he was an example of extensive body modification that may or may not be what you're looking for, but is pretty close to it.

Aside from that, I think you're being silly again. Stop it.


----------



## TreacleFox (May 7, 2013)

Many organizations are working at creating a way to make organs for transplants in labs. A by-product of this is they could probably make cosmetic stuff too after the technology is working.


----------



## Xolani (May 7, 2013)

Anyone who's done a 101 in bioethics will know why this will never happen.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 7, 2013)

I have the strangest feeling...OP is not serious.


----------



## LizardKing (May 7, 2013)

You might be interested in laughing at this thread.


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

LizardKing said:


> You might be interested in laughing at this thread.


Ffffffffurries...


----------



## Rigby (May 7, 2013)

Jaseface said:


> For the OP there was this one guy in the states that got extensive cosmetic surgery to look like a cat he even had fake wiskers implanted but as of now science doesn't have a way to do what your talking about.  We are at the point where you can have the markings tattooed onto your skin fake wiskers much like a dermal piercing and some implants but it is basically all fake.  Maybe one day science will find a way to alter dna to make you grow fur and a real tail but I'm pretty sure that it would be the lowest thing on the list that scientist would end up doing.  As said some posts above me the focus is more on life saving medical science instead of cosmetic modification.



alter DNA? wtf are you talking about? I specifically said plastic surgery, that has nothing to do with DNA


----------



## septango (May 7, 2013)

Xolani said:


> Anyone who's done a 101 in bioethics will know why this will never happen.


is it really unethical if there is a large consumer base WANTING it?


----------



## PastryOfApathy (May 7, 2013)

septango said:


> is it really unethical if there is a large consumer base WANTING it?



Considering those people are presumably mental patients, kinda.


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2013)

septango said:


> is it really unethical if there is a large consumer base WANTING it?



[yt]s1ptezV-7eM[/yt]


----------



## PastryOfApathy (May 7, 2013)

LizardKing said:


> You might be interested in laughing at this thread.



This must be archived for future generations. This is a national treasure.


----------



## Rigby (May 7, 2013)

Ricky said:


> [yt]s1ptezV-7eM[/yt]



i didnt know you could do that on tv


----------



## Andy Dingo Wolf (May 7, 2013)

Of course they could always give it to us to thin out the gene pool...


----------



## Fallowfox (May 7, 2013)

TreacleFox said:


> Many organizations are working at creating a way to make organs for transplants in labs. A by-product of this is they could probably make cosmetic stuff too after the technology is working.



Cosmetic glow-in-the-dark kidneys.

Also, Rigby. In regards to this whole topic something tells me costumes are cheaper, more comfortable, less uncanny valley and that you can change back, so if you want to be a big cuddly raccoon, surgery is a redundant path of inquiry.


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Cosmetic glow-in-the-dark kidneys.



Now, that would just be creepy.

Especially when the lights go out >.>


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Now, that would just be creepy.
> 
> Especially when the lights go out >.>


Bioluminescent genitalia.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 7, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Now, that would just be creepy.
> 
> Especially when the lights go out >.>



It would make surgery a lot easier if damaged parts of the kidney flouresced under ultra violet light.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 7, 2013)

Machine said:


> Bioluminescent genitalia.



Suck and glow.


----------



## Outcast (May 7, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Suck and glow.



What dreams are made of.


----------



## Ozriel (May 7, 2013)

Machine said:


> Bioluminescent genitalia.



It'll be much better than "fleshlights".


----------



## Rigby (May 7, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Also, Rigby. In regards to this whole topic something tells me costumes are cheaper, more comfortable, less uncanny valley and that you can change back, so if you want to be a big cuddly raccoon, surgery is a redundant path of inquiry.



Costumes? What do you mean? Like, a costume that's a huge raccoon and I wear it and it's like _*I*_ am a raccoon?? Does this really exist?

Basically, a giant, stuffed raccoon, stuffed, with me?


----------



## Fox_720B (May 7, 2013)

I've just done a little bit of research on human-animal hybrids, and came up with some pretty interesting finds:

Firstly, look at this slide show:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/human-animal-hybrid-chimera-splice-slide-show.htm

Apparently people are indeed freaking out about this...ranging from proposing laws against human-animal hybrids all the way up to predicting the end of the world in Planet of the Apes-style fashion:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...d-humans-produced-secretively-past-years.html

The end is nigh!

http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...ing-created-by-scientists-all-over-the-planet


Frankly...I think people are freaking out a little too much about it. They freaked out over stem cell research too, and yet medical miracles are coming about as a result of that research. I see this the same way. If they can advance medical science and cure diseases, I'm not against it. The only part that makes me cringe is the termination of an animal life in the process. But in situations where the animal doesn't have to die, I support it.


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2013)

There's a difference between cell research and creating an entire organism.

(mainly, the latter hasn't been done and probably never will)


----------



## septango (May 7, 2013)

Ricky said:


> There's a difference between cell research and creating an entire organism.
> 
> (mainly, the latter hasn't been done and probably never will)



you cant say something will never happen, becuse it probably will


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2013)

septango said:


> you cant say something will never happen, becuse it probably will



I was adding an implied "in my lifetime" because I don't really care about things that happen when I'm dead.

There are too many variables and interconnected systems for me to think this will ever be possible...

At least any time remotely soon.


----------



## Rigby (May 7, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I was adding an implied "in my lifetime" because I don't really care about things that happen when I'm dead.



Une phrase pleine de sagesse.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

Fox_720B said:


> I've just done a little bit of research on human-animal hybrids, and came up with some pretty interesting finds:
> 
> Firstly, look at this slide show:
> 
> ...



The last source had me screaming "WHAAAT" at the words. Honestly for the most part the retorts for research is either "Its unnatural!" or "We may make something which will destroy us all!" or "We wont be human anymore!", all really mundane, stupid argument in my eyes. Nothing we do is natural anymore, we are not stupid enough to make something so destructive and not have counterbalance at it, and in many ways no longer being human will be a plus, since we could finally be free of this endless stupidity while still being capable of emotion, which is what seems to be the key thing which people say makes us human.


----------



## Rigby (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> The last source had me screaming "WHAAAT" at the words. Honestly for the most part the retorts for research is either "Its unnatural!" or "We may make something which will destroy us all!" or "We wont be human anymore!", all really mundane, stupid argument in my eyes. Nothing we do is natural anymore, we are not stupid enough to make something so destructive and not have counterbalance at it, and in many ways no longer being human will be a plus, since we could finally be free of this endless stupidity while still being capable of emotion, which is what seems to be the key thing which people say makes us human.



The meaning of life the entire time was to create the technology to create human-animal hybrids for people to fulfill their ultimate fantasies?


----------



## Hydra (May 7, 2013)

a


----------



## Heliophobic (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> and in many ways no longer being human will be a plus, since we could finally be free of this endless stupidity while still being capable of emotion, which is what seems to be the key thing which people say makes us human.



Could you please explain to me how turning into part-animal monstrosities would "free us from stupidity"? I'm not sure I understand.


----------



## Xolani (May 7, 2013)

septango said:


> is it really unethical if there is a large consumer base WANTING it?



Just because people want something doesn't mean it's ethical.

There are broader ethical implications in the field of biotechnology which mean that human genetic modification will probably always be restricted to genetic patterns which already exist within the human genome, and not other species.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 7, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Costumes? What do you mean? Like, a costume that's a huge raccoon and I wear it and it's like _*I*_ am a raccoon?? Does this really exist?
> 
> Basically, a giant, stuffed raccoon, stuffed, with me?



I know, I didn't believe it either when I heard about it.



Xolani said:


> Just because people want something doesn't mean it's ethical.
> 
> There are broader ethical implications in the field of biotechnology  which mean that human genetic modification will probably always be  restricted to genetic patterns which already exist within the human  genome, and not other species.



I'm sure this is wrong, as to my knowledge the gene being used in a UK heart treatment pilot, which is administered via retrovirus, is synthetic. 

I might be wrong, and the gene could be a copy of a naturally occuring human gene.


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> The last source had me screaming "WHAAAT" at the words. Honestly for the most part the retorts for research is either "Its unnatural!" or "We may make something which will destroy us all!" or "We wont be human anymore!", all really mundane, stupid argument in my eyes. Nothing we do is natural anymore, we are not stupid enough to make something so destructive and not have counterbalance at it, and in many ways no longer being human will be a plus, since we could finally be free of this endless stupidity while still being capable of emotion, which is what seems to be the key thing which people say makes us human.


Ha ha ha ha.

No.

We're still going to be humans, just humans with dead animal parts grafted to our skin. You know, if this "scientific advance" ever actually pulled through.

It won't change anything for the better, because a species cannot be changed. Ever. Humans will be as they are and always were.

Warmongering idiots who have to look to invisible sky men for security.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

Not talking about making people ablt to be furries here, but genetic manipulation in general. On the short term the medical advances can be hugely beneficial to us, but as time goes on we may be able to perfect genetics to allows us to reach our full potential.

Of course, there are flaws to this view still, such as who would get the genetic treatment, how would it be distributed, who will want it, etc. If it arrives at a time where capitalism is still a thing odds are we will see the elite get the gains while everyone else has to suffer. That is where the flaws lie, but thats a hurdle we should  deal with closer to the time, especially since we have more gains than losses coming out of genetic research like this.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 7, 2013)

If our genome is to be changed, would be reaching our potential, or creating a different species to reach its own potential?


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Not talking about making people ablt to be furries here, but genetic manipulation in general. On the short term the medical advances can be hugely beneficial to us, but as time goes on we may be able to perfect genetics to allows us to reach our full potential.


If full potential has to be reached through years of tiresome research and ridiculous amounts of funding for something that people are going to reject, it probably isn't worth it.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

Personally dont care, if a group of humans mutated naturally and became better beings, one could argue that they are still huans but the next stage in human evolution. I dont really care what we call whatever we are in the future, since if its origins remained in us they would still be the next stage of our development.


----------



## Rigby (May 7, 2013)

Another question, I didn't want to make a second thread, so here it is: If this is possible, then could they, in theory, create a surgery to change someone's ethnicity? Like, could I go to Dr. Esteban and ask him to make me French and wake up BAM an hour later all French, or maybe I'll be Puerto Rican, or Hawaiian, or Jamaican? Is this possible?


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

Machine said:


> If full potential has to be reached through years of tiresome research and ridiculous amounts of funding for something that people are going to reject, it probably isn't worth it.



That is true, but then there are still benefits to doing the research. At this stage we can still benefit without altering our own DNA, so why stop just because of a few fears?


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 7, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Another question, I didn't want to make a second thread, so here it is: If this is possible, then could they, in theory, create a surgery to change someone's ethnicity? Like, could I go to Dr. Esteban and ask him to make me French and wake up BAM an hour later all French, or maybe I'll be Puerto Rican, or Hawaiian, or Jamaican? Is this possible?



In terms of apparences, look up Micheal Jackson.

In terms of literally changing your ethnicity, for the most part thats only a cultural construct. There is not much different between a Frenchman and an Englishman except for perhaps limited anatomical differences such as facial shape. So maybe you can change your anatomy, but thats only appearence, not ethnicity.


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> In terms of apparences, look up Micheal Jackson.


As my sister is a massive Michael Jackson fan, she stated that Jackson had a condition known as Vitiligo, albeit a very minute form, and went to bleach the rest of his skin to "even it out."


----------



## Rigby (May 7, 2013)

if i die before this becomes a legitimate thing, I will be SO pissed off


----------



## Heliophobic (May 7, 2013)

Rigby said:


> if i die before this becomes a legitimate thing, I will be SO pissed off



If I were still conscious after death I'd be pretty pissed off too.



Grimfang999 said:


> If it arrives at a time where capitalism is still a thing odds are we will see the elite get the gains while everyone else has to suffer.



Check your purrivilege, furfag scum.


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

Saliva said:


> If I were still conscious after death I'd be pretty pissed off too.


I'd wake up and be like, "I'M A MONSTERRRRRRR KILL MEEEEEEEEEE."

Then I'd throw myself out of the window and land on the head doctor's car.


----------



## Heliophobic (May 7, 2013)

Machine said:


> I'd wake up and be like, "I'M A MONSTERRRRRRR KILL MEEEEEEEEEE."
> 
> Then I'd throw myself out of the window and land on the head doctor's car.



I think I'd just put on a bedsheet and continue on with my job.

Saliva who is a ghost who is also a furfag.


----------



## septango (May 7, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> If our genome is to be changed, would be reaching our potential, or creating a different species to reach its own potential?



thats just what evolution does anyway buddy, and with modern conveinences probably not for the better


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

Saliva said:


> I think I'd just put on a bedsheet and continue on with my job.
> 
> Saliva who is a ghost who is also a furfag.


Don't forget to put a pair of fox ears and a tail on the sheet.


----------



## Xolani (May 7, 2013)

Rigby said:


> if i die before this becomes a legitimate thing, I will be SO pissed off



Good news: You can't be pissed off when you're dead.

I suppose rigor mortis can pull your mouth into a frown though. But decomposition will take care of that problem. Skulls have neutral expressions after all.


----------



## Machine (May 7, 2013)

Xolani said:


> Skulls have neutral expressions after all.


Nuh-uh! They look like they're smiling!


----------



## Fox_720B (May 8, 2013)

Machine said:


> If full potential has to be reached through years of tiresome research and ridiculous amounts of funding for something that people are going to reject, it probably isn't worth it.



You'd think that, but even things that the populace, or politics in general, reject, can still have benefits. When science advances in one form, and that form is rejected, the knowledge gained can still be put to other uses. If we reject the idea of splicing genes to solve Parkinsons after already researching and experimenting on doing just that, we take our upgraded knowledge of what it TAKES to solve Parkinsons and look for an alternative method of achieving the same results.

For example: Embryonic stem cell research was largely rejected by the populace as immoral. So scientists went looking for other types of stem cells that could be used to achieve similar results to embryonic cells. Turns out, adult skin cells could be used for most of the same purposes embryonic cells were to be used for...thus getting around the controversial issue at its root. Of course, some people still think of embryos when they hear "stem cell research", and are still against it...and some consider it an abomination to even grow a human liver or heart...but if they take a sample of skin cells from YOUR arm, and use that to grow a new liver for you, with your genetic code, so that it won't be rejected by your body, I hardly consider that immoral. 

Science must advance, even in the face of gross exaggeration and fear-mongering about "slippery slopes".



Machine said:


> It won't change anything for the better, because a species cannot be changed. Ever. Humans will be as they are and always were.



No. Evolution can most certainly be forced. See: Dog breeds.


----------



## Rilvor (May 8, 2013)

Fox_720B said:


> No. Evolution can most certainly be forced. See: Dog breeds.



Indeed, and sometimes those changes are actually hideous deformities that people think are great but really aren't. See: Chihuahua

Edit: Cyberware was here, real life anthros is a loser.


----------



## Ames (May 8, 2013)

oh god this fucking thread

[yt]oC-acZP0FbA[/yt]


----------



## Matt Conner (May 8, 2013)

As appealing as it sounds in your head, would ya really want to be an anthropomorphic animal? It can't be done with DNA, at least not to you, because you're already a fully grown organism. They'd have to perform countless surgeries to alter a person's appearance so drastically, and cosmetic surgery of any kind rarely comes out looking natural or even all that appealing. (think Michael Jackson). Plus, it'd be terribly expensive, especially since no sane doctor would be willing to perform such an impractical operation. Even if it was cheap and easy and it looked natural, you'd still have all kinds of other crap to deal with, such as getting chased and beaten by overzealous townspeople, slipping on wooden floors, and not being able to wear any of your favorite cloths or shoes.

Alright, this is getting a little silly, but I think you get my point. TL;DR, it's much better to just keep it all in your imagination where it belongs~


----------



## Machine (May 8, 2013)

A lot of "unique" breeds, like bracicephalic dogs (pugs), also have terrible genetic traits.

Every breed of dog has at least one they're known for, as listed by the American Kennel Club.

For instance, bracicephalic dogs may have difficulty breathing because of their head's shape. This threat goes up tenfold if the dog is drinking water.

I fail to see a positive outcome of "genetic coding," other than trying to kill cancer with it because that's what really matters in the end.


----------



## Ricky (May 8, 2013)

Machine said:


> A lot of "unique" breeds, like bracicephalic dogs (pugs), also have terrible genetic traits.



Also, weiner dogs and distended stomach.

Dogs ARE NOT supposed to look like that.

What the hell were the people breeding them thinking?

I guess people like having a hot dog for a pet, or a dog that looks like its face went through a trash compactor in the case of pugs.


----------



## Machine (May 8, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Also, weiner dogs and distended stomach.
> 
> Dogs ARE NOT supposed to look like that.
> 
> ...


Or a dog with a feather duster for a body, if we're talking about pomeranians.

Some dogs are specifically bred with traits that could help them in hunting sports. I think basset hounds were used to chase foxes out from underbrush.


----------



## Fallowfox (May 8, 2013)

septango said:


> thats just what evolution does anyway buddy, and with modern conveinences probably not for the better



It's the same as the 'is a ship the same ship if I replace all the beams?' I suppose.


----------



## Attaman (May 8, 2013)

To make a long story short:
1) There is no scientific reason to practice this endeavor other than "SCIENCE!" or a rich scientist deciding to fund research of their fetishes something hard. No incentive, gain, practicality, or so-on. At _best_ you can argue it allows for us to have more information in regard to playing chop-shop with human bodies, but that's it. Any possible "advantage" (herp-derp STRENGTH OF BURRS, NOSE OF A WULF, EYES OF A BURD!) of such work? Unless we're living in some shitty comic-book universe, _totally_ not necessary to make someone into an anthropomorphic animal first. Assuming we even both with fleshybits and don't go the route of cybernetics (which, while still a fair bit off, at least have some research being put into them as a mean of replacing damaged or lost limbs / organs).

2) Even if there is research put into it and the process does exist, it'll always be a process that's extremely resource, cost, and time-extensive (if speaking about changing pre-existing people), and _hilariously_ morally dubious otherwise (speaking of fetal modifications). Why do I say this? In the latter case, it's akin to changing your child's sex, race, and a whole bunch of other stuff on an absolute whim at _best_, and at worst is outright making a mockery of what may be their wishes. Imagine for example if your mother decided "You know what would be bitching? If my child were an anthropomorphic toaster-fly." You would not be amused when you learned that such doesn't occur naturally, and your parents were dicks. And in the former? You're _totally reconstructing the vast majority of your body_. Skeletal structure, epidermis, hormones, muscles, nervous system... a lot of this needs major work at best, complete rebuilding from the ground up at worst. And once this process is done? Congrats, you now have _years_ of physical therapy to look forward to. 

And this is talking about the final, mastered variety (yes, that'd still need therapy: Rebuilding legs, your spine, and your skull tends to leave you vulnerable for a bit). Before it's mastered? Have fun with needing to report to a professional constantly so as to make sure your body isn't rejecting anything, that there's no complications involving the grafts / hormones / implants, that your skeletal structure isn't about to fall apart where it was changed... Long story short you'd be investing millions of USD-equivalent and - considering how long sex transitions can take and that this will be worse - probably _decades_ of your life to the process. So yeah, you can be that anthro you always dreamed of... if rich, rich and young, and you don't mind the process completing as fairly far into your life (likely half of your life behind you).

3) When it finally comes out, and you get to rub in people's faces "Fursecution!"? Not going to happen. Why? Because of the above. If you're rich as fuck and can afford this process, as well as have a slew of professionals trained in it? You're _probably_ not going to see anything particularly worse than the (admittedly bad) treatment of transexuals in the US now. And if it's actually affordable, or done via a process that doesn't take away much of your life (like most people here hope it'll be)? Congrats, if it's something that is medically as simple as a modern nose-job, it'll also _probably be as societally tolerated as a nose-job_. You don't reach a stage in cosmetic surgery where it costs only a few (tens of) thousands of dollars and a couple weeks / months with people threatening to murder you if you complete the process.


----------



## Grimfang999 (May 8, 2013)

Im onl going to reply to your first point, there are advantages. The scientific research being done is being used to cure disease and find ways of producing body parts for transplants. There are some really massive benefits. Using it to make yourself a furry though? Yeah probably wont happen, and genetic perfection could cause massive divides in society unless it is provided to everyone who wanted it, but capitalism wouldnt allow that.


----------



## Rigby (May 8, 2013)

Attaman said:


> WORDS



your post is pretty much useless since literally nobody (except Chuckles McFuckface who responded before me) said any of those things or disagreed with you at all. We're talking about a consenting adult receiving plastic ssurgery so they could have the physical (not genetic) characteristics of an animal. Not a child, not so they could have superpowers, not anything to do with fursecution or anything you mention.


----------



## Xolani (May 8, 2013)

Rigby said:


> your post is pretty much useless since literally nobody (except Chuckles McFuckface who responded before me) *said anything of things* or disagreed.



What does that phrase even mean?


----------



## Rigby (May 8, 2013)

Xolani said:


> What does that phrase even mean?



It means I need to proofread better.


----------



## Ricky (May 8, 2013)

Machine said:


> Or a dog with a feather duster for a body, if we're talking about pomeranians.



It would make sense if you were to stick a broomstick up its ass.

Then at least it would serve a purpose.

Nobody ever does that, though :roll:



Rigby said:


> your post is pretty much useless since literally nobody (except Chuckles McFuckface who responded before me) said any of those things or disagreed with you at all.



He was giving a scientific critique of science _that doesn't even exist yet_.

Talk about jumping the gun...


----------



## Zabrina (May 8, 2013)

-White girl voice.- This reminds me of the hunger games.


----------



## Dokid (May 8, 2013)

Jaseface said:


> For the OP there was this one guy in the states that got extensive cosmetic surgery to look like a cat he even had fake wiskers implanted but as of now science doesn't have a way to do what your talking about.  We are at the point where you can have the markings tattooed onto your skin fake wiskers much like a dermal piercing and some implants but it is basically all fake.  Maybe one day science will find a way to alter dna to make you grow fur and a real tail but I'm pretty sure that it would be the lowest thing on the list that scientist would end up doing.  As said some posts above me the focus is more on life saving medical science instead of cosmetic modification.



The guy also killed himself recent(sorta) and he worked from home and had to get surgeries done out the USA.


----------



## Attaman (May 8, 2013)

Grimfang999 said:


> Im onl going to reply to your first point, there are advantages.


 And absolutely zero involve you having literal bear-arms for greater strength, or cat ears for improved hearing. Which was my point: You can get some benefits from "related" research, but none of it will have the desired results oh-so-many furries want (See: Furry master-race). 


Rigby said:


> We're talking about a consenting adult receiving plastic ssurgery so they could have the physical (not genetic) characteristics of an animal.


 Which, uh, kinda plays entirely into #2 and #3.


----------



## Rigby (May 9, 2013)

Attaman said:


> Which, uh, kinda plays entirely into #2 and #3.



Well, if you're an idiot and have no concept of logic, then you're right, those are points! But let's start with number two that basically said "it'd be expensive." Who cares? I've got the money, let me do it. It's "immoral"? I was born immoral, hasn't stopped me yet.

Point two gets just stupid. Affecting your child's DNA? What? How does plastic surgery do that exactly? Let me break it to you: it doesn't do that at all. Doing that to children or infants? No one even mentioned that at all. Straw. Man. Besides that, just a bunch of personal problems. I doubt the eccentric rich dude who has himself turned into a wolf cares how much physical therapy there is if he can live out his fantasy. And if he comes to regret, his fucking fault; we don't make tattoos illegal because someone might regret it.

And point three I already covered, both here and in my first response to you. I was doing you a favor by not pointing out how awful your reading comprehension was on a point by point basis because it makes no sense. You're the first person to mention 80% of these things, they have nothing to do with the discussion (what does turning a baby into a cat have to do with a consenting adult intentionally electing to have this procedure? nothing? kinda insane to even bring it up at all then). Dude, just stop, really, you are playing with forces beyond your kin.


----------



## Attaman (May 9, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Well, if you're an idiot and have no concept of logic, then you're right, those are points! But let's start with number two that basically said "it'd be expensive."


 So you admit to not having read it at all, and are just going to respond to what you think / hope I said instead of what I actually said?



Rigby said:


> Point two gets just stupid. Affecting your child's DNA? What? How does plastic surgery do that exactly?


 You have the reading comprehension of a goldfish. Seek professional help.



Rigby said:


> And if he comes to regret, his fucking fault; we don't make tattoos illegal because someone might regret it.


 I take the above back. Goldfish have greater reading comprehension than you. Don't ever sign any papers without letting someone else read over them for you.



Rigby said:


> Dude, just stop, really, you are playing with forces beyond your kin.


 I'll use an example to try getting the idea in your head easier: Smashing a vase with a hammer to remake into a different vase is a bitch to do. And unless you've got an expert, you'll probably be stuck with a broken vase and lots of glue.


----------



## Rilvor (May 9, 2013)

Did rigby just compare the ideas of gene therapy or plastic surgery to getting a tattoo? Hahaha


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 9, 2013)

Well, it is Rigby. Everything flys in his lil trash brain...


----------



## Ricky (May 9, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Did rigby just compare the ideas of gene therapy or plastic surgery to getting a tattoo? Hahaha



No, not gene therapy:



Rigby said:


> We're talking about a consenting adult receiving  plastic ssurgery so they could have the physical (not genetic)  characteristics of an animal. Not a child, not so they could have  superpowers, not anything to do with fursecution or anything you  mention.



And not "comparing ideas;" he was referring to an adult regretting an informed decision they make.

I agree. Who fucking cares.

It's almost like you skimmed through everything, saw the words "genetic," "plastic surgery" and "tattoo," then hit the reply button


----------



## Judge Spear (May 9, 2013)

Wow, way to get pissy when confronted with a valid thought out post, Rigby.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (May 9, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Wow, way to get pissy when confronted with a valid thought out post, Rigby.



Do you seriously expect rational thought from someone who makes a hobby out of shitting their pants?


----------



## Judge Spear (May 9, 2013)

PastryOfApathy said:


> Do you seriously expect rational thought from someone who makes a hobby out of shitting their pants?



I expect _and_ demand it from everyone at all times.


----------



## CatterHatter (May 9, 2013)

Alright. So...
[insert witty statement to make myself look smart and funny here]
[insert various insults toward OP and/or others here]
[insert ethics issues or various "what I know of science" BS here]
[insert saying stuff for the lulz, shits and giggles, yadda yadda here]
[insert further tangents involving ranting about subjects unrelated and being a piss-poor conversationalist here]

Anyway, now that we got that outta the way: Hey, I'm going to be a total douchebag and humor the OP with something along the lines of what he asked for! I am so badass it scares me. So hear me out.
Sometimes, oh call it a flight of fancy because that's actually exactly what it is, I wonder about the whole grafting thing and even decided to look around the internet like any self-serving US American idiot completely wrong barely-knows-anything-about-science bastard would do. I totally don't think about ethics or playing God being beneath me. 
I wanted to figure out what, if anything, was out there about the subject. Not much apparently. Only thing I found really was this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/11/health.lifeandhealth

Yes, I know it is old, but just read it. Now Dr. Joseph Rosen likes to stretch the imagination and think of what could be. He even applied that to thinking of adding new body parts including wings and tails. From what the article said he would work with people like Enigma, lizard man, cat man, whatever as guinea pigs because they sign up for that shit. For lazy people who hate to read: the article goes on to talk about ethics, how society would react, and general comments from experts about Dr. Rosen's ideas. But from what I found, Rosen abandoned this train of thought in favor of aiding injured war vets with complete reconstructive surgery:
check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csDNz1Tfd6g

So yeah, what he's doing with his talent is way more important and beneficial to the human race than rich idiots getting crazy plastic surgery just because they are that intent on messin' with what God gave 'em and have the money to throw around. But see, would good Dr. Joseph Rosen be retarded for going back to his original ideas and implementing projects along with the obviously beneficial things he's done so far? I don't think so. Inventions and breakthroughs happen because people dream up the unthinkable and actually do it. The thing I like most about him though is that he works with so many different fields trying to accumulate it all and further what IS possible and making new advancements every day. So no matter what he does that's respectable in its own right.

Hey guys? I love you guys. I like jokes and digression as much as the next person, but geez. A little sincerity never killed anyone. Or did it? I dunno.


----------



## Ricky (May 9, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Wow, way to get pissy when confronted with a valid thought out post, Rigby.



It was completely irrelevant. Not to mention he was giving a medical critique on science and procedures that don't even exist yet.

"...it's akin to changing your child's sex race and a whole bunch of other stuff.' Wat. Are you people even following the discussion, because I've read it a few times and I still don't know what the hell he's talking about :roll:


----------



## Attaman (May 9, 2013)

Ricky said:


> It was completely irrelevant. Not to mention he was giving a medical critique on science and procedures that don't even exist yet.


 You're _totally reconstructing someone's skeletal structure and nervous system_. I'm _very_ hard pressed to think of a situation wherein horrendously fucking with someone's skull and spine is anything other than "Prepare for a lot of procedures and a lot of therapy."



Ricky said:


> "...it's akin to changing your child's sex race and a whole bunch of other stuff.' Wat. Are you people even following the discussion, because I've read it a few times and I still don't know what the hell he's talking about :roll:


 Alright, I'll make it simple for you too: You have a child in a womb. They're just sitting there. Suddenly someone decides "Fuck it, I want them to come out looking like a blue-skinned Voldemort. Blueman style.", drowns 'em in chemicals, a few months later the lil' abomination enters the world and has to deal with Blue Fishface for the rest of their life. I hope you can see why this might be problematic and might cause issues with them, their self-identity, and so-on while growing up.


----------



## Rilvor (May 9, 2013)

Ricky said:


> It was completely irrelevant.


About as irrelevant and idiotic as using tattoo regret as an analogy for plastic surgery/gene therapy regret haha.

Attaman's argument is in fact very relevant, this entire thread is about plastic surgery and gene therapy since what people are hoping for entirely relies on those methods. Science isn't going to shoot you with an Anthro Beam anytime soon. That only happens in cartoons. The original conversation _was_ about adults, but it isn't unfair to drag children/infants into the argument either.


----------



## septango (May 9, 2013)

ok, I'm DEFINATLY working this argument into a story's themes somehow


----------



## Sithon (May 9, 2013)

There is a little problem called DNA.

You could be like Dennis Avner or Erik Sprague, though.


----------



## Ricky (May 9, 2013)

Attaman said:


> You're _totally reconstructing someone's skeletal structure and nervous system_. I'm _very_  hard pressed to think of a situation wherein horrendously fucking with  someone's skull and spine is anything other than "Prepare for a lot of  procedures and a lot of therapy."



You are speculating. Who is to say it wouldn't be more superficial than that?

The answer is "nobody," because none of this stuff even exists.

It's silly to be speculating on the risks of something that doesn't even exist.



Attaman said:


> Alright, I'll make it simple for you too: You  have a child in a womb. They're just sitting there. Suddenly someone  decides "Fuck it, I want them to come out looking like a blue-skinned  Voldemort. Blueman style.", drowns 'em in chemicals, a few months later  the lil' abomination enters the world and has to deal with Blue Fishface  for the rest of their life. I hope you can see why this might be  problematic and might cause issues with them, their self-identity, and  so-on while growing up.



Who was talking about kids? Like, at all? As far as I can tell, the conversation was always about consenting adults. Yeah, no shit if someone's parents decided they should be a fish before they are born there would be some ethical concerns. Nobody was talking about that.



Rilvor said:


> About  as irrelevant and idiotic as using tattoo regret as an analogy for  plastic surgery/gene therapy regret haha.



For the fourth time, it was specifically stated he was talking about plastic surgery.



Rilvor said:


> The original conversation _was_ about adults, but it isn't unfair to drag children/infants into the argument either.



What the fuck? Yes it is. It's completely irrelevant and also stupid to create a point out of thin air and start arguing against it, when it had NOTHING to do with the discussion in the first place. That's not even straw man territory anymore; I'm not sure what the fuck you would call that.

Wow.


----------



## Rilvor (May 9, 2013)

Ricky said:


> You are speculating. Who is to say it wouldn't be more superficial than that?
> 
> The answer is "nobody," because none of this stuff even exists.
> 
> It's silly to be speculating on the risks of something that doesn't even exist.


Who is to say it isn't going to require it? You? Please inform us Ricky of your ideas of how it would work. Calling the speculations silly when the idea in question itself is silly and useless? No shit. What's your next grand reveal?





> Who was talking about kids? Like, at all? As far as I can tell, the conversation was always about consenting adults. Yeah, no shit if someone's parents decided they should be a fish before they are born there would be some ethical concerns. Nobody was talking about that.


Attaman pretty much brought the concern up. I don't think he was arguing that if an adult wants to horribly mutilate themselves they shouldn't, he was arguing that no scientist worth their salt will waste their time with something that is ultimately worthless like this. It seemed to me he implied any improvements this kind of science could hope to achieve would be far outclassed by machinery, which already has actual research into it. Because, you know, it's not an ultimately useless pipe dream.




> For the fourth time, it was specifically stated he was talking about plastic surgery.


Somehow you failed to read that I mentioned plastic surgery twice. Kudos to you! I suppose you went ahead and just read "gene therapy" so you could find something to bitch about?




> What the fuck? Yes it is. It's completely irrelevant and also stupid to create a point out of thin air and start arguing against it, when it had NOTHING to do with the discussion in the first place. That's not even straw man territory anymore; I'm not sure what the fuck you would call that.
> 
> Wow.


You don't want to talk about it, so it's irrelevant? Any scientific research that involves modifying the human body is open to the possibility of people applying it to children if you ask me.

Oh, but I forgot. This is a silly discussion, so we can't go into "what if" discussions. Not while there's a forum duel going on!

Edit: Honestly, if you read his post he gave thoughts against it for pre-existing people AND (This is the important part) fetal modification. While the latter isn't part of the original discussion (But the argument is clearly more important than talking about that too) he still addressed the former. It looks to me like you're latching onto the latter as an excuse to not give him a reasonable discussion on the former.


----------



## Ricky (May 9, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Who is to say it isn't going to require it?



That's not what I said, at all. Open your eyes =P

I said it was speculative nonsense, WHICH IT IS, and now you are asking me to speculate from the other direction?

No thanks. I'm sticking to my point. Speculating on the way things will work THAT DON'T EVEN EXIST is stupid.



Rilvor said:


> Please inform us Ricky of your ideas of how it would work.



It won't.

End of story.



Rilvor said:


> Attaman pretty much brought the concern up. I don't think he was arguing that if an adult wants to horribly mutilate themselves they shouldn't, he was arguing that no scientist worth their salt will waste their time with something that is ultimately worthless like this. It seemed to me he implied any improvements this kind of science could hope to achieve would be far outclassed by machinery, which already has actual research into it. Because, you know, it's not an ultimately useless pipe dream.



He was arguing moral implications. Here is the quote, for posterity's sake:



			
				Attaman said:
			
		

> Even if there is research put into it and the process does exist, it'll  always be a process that's extremely resource, cost, and time-extensive  (if speaking about changing pre-existing people), and _hilariously_  morally dubious otherwise (speaking of fetal modifications). Why do I  say this? In the latter case, it's akin to changing your child's sex,  race, and a whole bunch of other stuff on an absolute whim at _best_,  and at worst is outright making a mockery of what may be their wishes.  Imagine for example if your mother decided "You know what would be  bitching? If my child were an anthropomorphic toaster-fly."



Again, it was completely irrelevant.

That's like getting in a debate about pot legalization and arguing infants will get hurt if their parents spoon feed them THC.

*- IRRELEVANT -*​ 


Rilvor said:


> Somehow you failed to read that I mentioned plastic surgery twice. Kudos to you! I suppose you went ahead and just read "gene therapy" so you could find something to bitch about?



Somehow you failed to read anything I fucking wrote.

For the FIFTH time now (and no, I'm not even joking) -

_*NOBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT GENE THERAPY*_

That was my only point. Why do you keep bringing up 'gene therapy' if nobody is talking about it? People specifically made that a point, including the person that made the thread. FIVE FUCKING TIMES, NOW!!! Open your eyes.

Here, let me show you what is going on:

You: blah blah X and Y
Me: We aren't talking about X we are only talking about Y
You: HAH, I SAID Y YOU MUST NOT BE READING ALL THE THINGS

... Are you serious?

That's not even gene therapy, by the way. It's not therapy.



Rilvor said:


> You don't want to talk about it, so it's irrelevant? Any scientific research that involves modifying the human body is open to the possibility of people applying it to children if you ask me.
> 
> Oh, but I forgot. This is a silly discussion, so we can't go into "what if" discussions. Not while there's a forum duel going on!



Well, _you certainly can_ bring up irrelevant points that are completely orthogonal to anything that is being discussed.

You can even use it to try and argue a point, like we saw above.

It's a shitty argument though, and is completely unproductive in that respect.

What is the sky falls? What if we come up with every unrealistic scenario possible and turn them all into straw men?


----------



## The young man in the cafe (May 9, 2013)

*leans in out of the shadows like a future old man in the tavern should and begins speaking in a creepy voice* If science should fail you then why not magic? The casual wolf furry may not realize this but Arcadia, The land  of King Lycaon himself, is a real place, a regional unit of Greece in the modern day. In Arcadia there is a mountain called the Lykaion, supposedly where Lycaon was raised as a child. on the southern peak of the mountion there is a shrine to a wolfish aspect of Zeus. if you complete the rites of that shrine then you will become a werewolf. Of course there is the matter of the materials for the ritual...


----------



## Machine (May 9, 2013)

The young man in the cafe said:


> *leans in out of the shadows like a future old man in the tavern should and begins speaking in a creepy voice* If science should fail you then why not magic? The casual wolf furry may not realize this but Arcadia, The land  of King Lycaon himself, is a real place, a regional unit of Greece in the modern day. In Arcadia there is a mountain called the Lykaion, supposedly where Lycaon was raised as a child. on the southern peak of the mountion there is a shrine to a wolfish aspect of Zeus. if you complete the rites of that shrine then you will become a werewolf. Of course there is the matter of the materials for the ritual...


Get out.

No roleplaying.


----------



## CatterHatter (May 10, 2013)

Ah, well, I put my relevant plug in. Guess there's no impeding digression. Here's to "progress?"
Ricky's such a trooper though. Gotta give him cred for sticktoitiveness.
@Attaman  and Rilvor. No offense, seriously, but you're full of hot air trying to  make a point that has nothing to do with the original post or line of  thought it began with. Don't care if you thought things out. Don't care  if you're a genius and have all the answers. You might be. I'm not going  to argue with your possible over 9000 I.Q. 
To put it simply, a  *valid* discussion involves staying on topic not gyrating out into left  field (and in this case outer space filled with deformed fetuses)  because you feel it necessary. If it is so important, then make your own  topic about all the scientific, genetic, and ethical ramifications that  you come up with involving self-mutilation to become a furry on a dumb furry forum. Taking  yourself too seriously? Guilty. Insulting others to further ridiculous  theoretical banter? Guilty.

Please, be predictable and further  defend your stances by insulting me for speaking up or Ricky for calling  BS. Go ahead. I expect these things. Please. I'm asking you to hurt me. I  enjoy it. Just don't expect responses. Sometimes I like to just sit  back, watch the dicks, and take it. I'm just that much of a fag.


----------



## Attaman (May 10, 2013)

CatterHatter said:


> Please, be predictable and further  defend your stances by insulting me for speaking up or Ricky for calling  BS. Go ahead. I expect these things. Please. I'm asking you to hurt me. I  enjoy it. Just don't expect responses. Sometimes I like to just sit  back, watch the dicks, and take it. I'm just that much of a fag.


Or I can just copy-paste my original post and remove the parts you and Ricky and everyone else seem to have so much problems with. 




Attaman said:


> To make a long story short:
> 1) There is no scientific reason to practice this endeavor other than "SCIENCE!" or a rich scientist deciding to fund research of their fetishes something hard. No incentive, gain, practicality, or so-on. At _best_ you can argue it allows for us to have more information in regard to playing chop-shop with human bodies, but that's it. Any possible "advantage" (herp-derp STRENGTH OF BURRS, NOSE OF A WULF, EYES OF A BURD!) of such work? Unless we're living in some shitty comic-book universe, _totally_ not necessary to make someone into an anthropomorphic animal first. Assuming we even both with fleshybits and don't go the route of cybernetics (which, while still a fair bit off, at least have some research being put into them as a mean of replacing damaged or lost limbs / organs).
> 
> 2) Even if there is research put into it and the process does exist, it'll always be a process that's extremely resource, cost, and time-extensive. Why do I say this? And in the former? You're _totally reconstructing the vast majority of your body_. Skeletal structure, epidermis, hormones, muscles, nervous system... a lot of this needs major work at best, complete rebuilding from the ground up at worst. And once this process is done? Congrats, you now have _years_ of physical therapy to look forward to.
> ...



Gee, where did I see a post like that before?



Matt Conner said:


> As appealing as it sounds in your head, would ya really want to be an anthropomorphic animal? It can't be done with DNA, at least not to you, because you're already a fully grown organism. They'd have to perform countless surgeries to alter a person's appearance so drastically, and cosmetic surgery of any kind rarely comes out looking natural or even all that appealing. (think Michael Jackson). Plus, it'd be terribly expensive, especially since no sane doctor would be willing to perform such an impractical operation. Even if it was cheap and easy and it looked natural, you'd still have all kinds of other crap to deal with, such as getting chased and beaten by overzealous townspeople, slipping on wooden floors, and not being able to wear any of your favorite cloths or shoes.
> 
> Alright, this is getting a little silly, but I think you get my point. TL;DR, it's much better to just keep it all in your imagination where it belongs~


----------



## Rilvor (May 10, 2013)

Ricky said:


> It won't.
> 
> End of story.


Good enough for me. I apologize for getting a bit more worked up than I would have liked.

In response to CatterHatter, no I was pretty much done. No tirades were required.


----------



## CynicalCirno (May 10, 2013)

There are leads on muscle and skin tissue production.
Scientists are currently working on creating bones from scratch.
The target is creating natural human prosthesis, losing the potential in mechanical prosthesis, but making spare limbs much more friendly, in the way that more people are willing to equip them and not feel like sub-humans.

The issue with artificial tissue as said in thread is rejection by the body.That's one issue.
 In order to turn tissue into animal tissue, you'd have to research and modify both kinds of cells, and match a certain atomic structure for it to stay in place. This is going to cost a lot of money and time and no company is willing to fund such a project(second issue), seeing that very few people request/need such cells. 
A third issue named in the thread is bioethics.

My conclusion: If you ever want to become an animal, just put all of your money in the recently started Human Brain Project, in hopes of reaching easy ways to modify memories and brain behavior, which won't actually turn you into a hyper-sensitive animal, but will probably make you happy.
Perhaps it's also possible to move your brain into an animal body, which is a much more viable process, at least considering the disadvantages of rebuilding your body. It isn't anthropomorphic, but it will also make you happy.


----------



## CatterHatter (May 10, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Good enough for me. I apologize for getting a bit more worked up than I would have liked.
> 
> In response to CatterHatter, no I was pretty much done. No tirades were required.



I have to say: Aww, you are a cool guy Rilvor. Way to simplify everything that had been accumulating.

Attaman however... regurgitation? >> Really? Out of all the things that would actually irk me... wow. You took what little fun there was left to be had and crushed it in your text walls. You *failed* to give the original poster what was asked for. There is no real argument against your reasoning, but of your context.
Rigby asked for news. You gave him ramifications and why not to do it as well as rational thought processes; tacking on your own issues. See why it doesn't matter? Shame on you for wasting your time typing shit out breath.
You added all these things in yourself; vastly complicating a hypothetical whimsy asking for unusual news in medical breakthroughs and if it could be used to make rich people have animal parts slapped onto their bodies such as a raccoon tail or animal nose. Anything else you say is jackassery and had already been a long time ago so I'm done. I would have preferred insults.

@Rigby (if you're still around) - Hey. I really have not found anything else but I'll let you know if I do. I think it is interesting that Dr. Rosen thought it possible even back in 2002 if he was given just 5 years to work on such a project. I am curious how he'd even go about this brain-mapping thing mentioned so that not just the new limb being installed but that your neurology would support it and allow it function. If it really did not matter to you at all, thanks for wasting my time too!


----------



## The young man in the cafe (May 10, 2013)

Machine said:


> Get out.
> 
> No roleplaying.



I'll admit I was adding a bit of flair to what I said but the part of Arcadia being a real place is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia and so is the mountain with the alter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lykaion. It's  amazing what you learn when you are an obsessive history major.


----------



## Machine (May 10, 2013)

The young man in the cafe said:


> I'll admit I was adding a bit of flair to what I said but the part of Arcadia being a real place is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia and so is the mountain with the alter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lykaion. It's  amazing what you learn when you are an obsessive history major.


I'm familiar with the story.

That's what King Lycaon got for testing the almighty Zeus. :V


----------



## Judge Spear (May 10, 2013)

I don't know what's going on anymore...
I'd post a picture of a gecko with sweet tarts on it's head, but I'd be banned.


----------



## The young man in the cafe (May 10, 2013)

Wouldn't be awesome to get a bunch of furries to have a party in Arcadia? I imagine the archaeologists working on the alter might be annoyed, but given that Arcadia was home Pan, and his saytrs and Lycaon it seems that furries have a lot to do there...  Also the Greeks believed that most Arcadians were werewolves, not just Lycaon and his sons. in fact in 400 B.C an Arcadian boxer named Damarchus won a victory in the Olympics and was said to have spent nine years in his wolf form.


----------



## Ricky (May 10, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> I don't know what's going on anymore...
> I'd post a picture of a gecko with sweet tarts on it's head, but I'd be banned.











The young man in the cafe said:


> Wouldn't be awesome to get a bunch of furries to have a party in Arcadia? I imagine the archaeologists working on the alter might be annoyed, but given that Arcadia was home Pan, and his saytrs and Lycaon it seems that furries have a lot to do there...



Furries and satyrs have a lot in common ;3

Furries like to dress up as animals and are always thinking about sex.

Satyrs are part goat and were depicted as... ithyphallic in just about every piece art.

One can only assume they were always thinking about sex XD


----------



## Mullerornis (May 11, 2013)

I'd like to have my arms converted into wings. They'd make me utterly useless in society, but at least I'd fly.


----------



## DrDingo (May 11, 2013)

Tails help balance, don't they? They could make people more agile and spacially aware. I wouldn't want one, though. For social, practical, and financial reasons.
@Mullerornis Why not just attach wings to your arms like an archeoptryx or have them coming out of your back instead?


----------



## Rigby (May 11, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> Tails help balance, don't they? They could make people more agile and spacially aware. I wouldn't want one, though. For social, practical, and financial reasons.



Exactly. It'd take time to get used to having a tail, but it'd be useful. When you get over the unusual nature of a human with a tail, I think it'd be more aesthetically pleasing too. The re would be issues with practicality (the way humans sit wouldn't work well with a tail).

inb4someone posts about cutting into wombs and giving unborn fetuses tails and the moral ramifications of it


----------



## Attaman (May 11, 2013)

CatterHatter said:


> You *failed* to give the original poster what was asked for. There is no real argument against your reasoning, but of your context.
> Rigby asked for news.


 What they want to see news for (such as what DrDingo suggests below) will never happen, not unless it's an accidental side-effect of other research. Why? _Because it serves no function besides fulfilling Furry fantasies, and there's much more important matters to research_. It's impossible to give news directly relating to what OP has asked for.

The closest to what Rigby desires, at least in the at all immediate and foreseeable future, that has been in the news recently is stuff like so. As you can see, it's pretty much nothing like what they actually desire (aesthetically appealing prosthetics versus cosmetic surgery), but it's the best bet for people who want to look like a rabid honeybadger in the foreseeable future. Mind, in that case it'd hopefully be more a case of "you are able to replace fleshy meatware with superior hardware" and less "Someone tries to make their loss less a loss."



DrDingo said:


> Tails help balance, don't they?


 For things that were evolved to use them and have the proper frame, yes. Simply throwing something like a dog's tail on a human would probably cause more harm than good due to their skeleton being thrown completely out of whack. Similarly it should be noted that _if_ someone managed to extend a human spine and make it into a functional tail, it would look completely different from about 80-90% of most anthro art if only for anatomical reasons. Look at how your pet [insert animal]'s tail extends from their spine, and compare it to most anthro art. While in some cases it's close (especially with things like cats), for the most part the tail would wind up being far too close to perpendicular in those artistic images to function in any way that is more helpful than hurtful (in some cases literally: Spinal columns generally shouldn't bend that way). 



CatterHatter said:


> They could make people more agile and spacially aware.


 Issue being that if you have the medical technology to do this, you likely have other, more cost effective / less drastic methods of similarly increasing spacial awareness. I'm not addressing agility because, well, it generally wouldn't help that much. It isn't going to increase reaction times, it isn't going to make your limbs any more dextrous, it isn't going to make your legs run any faster, etcetera.



CatterHatter said:


> @Mullerornis Why not just attach wings to your arms like an archeoptryx or have them coming out of your back instead?


 Issue being that wings attached to arms (versus being the arms) are extremely unlikely to be anything other than cosmetic, and having them come from your back is essentially trying to change your skeletal structure from four limbs to six (see: Going to be very labor intensive), plus the fact that human bodies are a bit heavy for even wings of that size so you'd likely only be able to glide at best. Considering we already have private jetpacks on sale, that's arguably going to be your best bet if you want to fly sans planes or gliders or the like in the immediate future.


----------



## RadioCatastrophe (May 11, 2013)

Rigby said:


> Exactly. It'd take time to get used to having a tail, but it'd be useful. When you get over the unusual nature of a human with a tail, I think it'd be more aesthetically pleasing too. The re would be issues with practicality (the way humans sit wouldn't work well with a tail).
> 
> inb4someone posts about cutting into wombs and giving unborn fetuses tails and the moral ramifications of it



I dunno, it'd depend on the size and length of the tail - for example a bears tail is just a nub of fur, bone, and other stuffs right? It'd be like sitting on a door knob, which I'm sure some folks in this community have already done so already.


----------



## Mullerornis (May 11, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> @Mullerornis Why not just attach wings to your arms like an archeoptryx or have them coming out of your back instead?



1- Useless

2- Musculature and human skeletal structure would prevent that. Even then, the tetrapod nervous sytem can't handle six limbs


----------



## Rigby (May 12, 2013)

RadioCatastrophe said:


> I dunno, it'd depend on the size and length of the tail - for example a bears tail is just a nub of fur, bone, and other stuffs right? It'd be like sitting on a door knob, which I'm sure some folks in this community have already done so already.



You're trying to make like a buttsex joke, right? Sitting on a doorknob and doing it back there are not alike, at all.

Besides, nub tails would be a waste of time and money. Paying just so you have a like sticking out back there? No, let's just a nice big tail covered in fur, that'd be much more aesthetically pleasing (which is pretty much the whole appeal for me, aesthetically pleasing physical features that are characteristic or animals, but not humans).


----------



## CatterHatter (May 12, 2013)

Hahaha. I gave relative news even though it was not much.
Thanks digressers and long-winded technical blowhards for making me regret reading this mess and taking time to add my own input. Which, honestly, is not easy to do. Congrats. I wash my hands of this topic. 
Ricky, you feel free to keep on troopin' and Rigby feel free to keep on poopin'.


----------



## The young man in the cafe (May 12, 2013)

Seeing as how the porn industry is the biggest civilian group funding AI research, I can see them funding real life furry genetic research.


----------

