Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-13-2018, 01:14 PM   #1
Alonsua
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Default Biotech and human reproduction

Can a normal human being reproduce with a genetically modified one if it has undergone Species Modification?

Last edited by Alonsua; 07-13-2018 at 01:24 PM.
Alonsua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 04:41 PM   #2
mlangsdorf
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: Biotech

Canonically, genetic upgrades are capable of breeding with base-line humans and each other (Genetic Upgrades on Biotech, p 66 and Genetic Mixing on Biotech p 68). Homo Superior Parahumans cannot (Biotech p 67). It looks like the dividing line between a Genetic Upgrade template and a Homo Superior Parahuman is the presence of a species modification.

So no, having a species modification genetic upgrade prevents you from breeding with baseline humans.

See the Alternate Game Production biomod (Biotech p 184) for a way around this prohibition.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com
mlangsdorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 06:00 PM   #3
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Biotech and human reproduction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonsua View Post
Can a normal human being reproduce with a genetically modified one if it has undergone Species Modification?
Biotech seems to use sloppy terminology.

The conventional definition of species is 'the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring', so if 'species modification' means 'becomes a new species', the answer is clearly no. However, that's not actually the way Biotech defines species modification, though it seems to be assumed.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 08:09 PM   #4
rkbrown419
 
rkbrown419's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Orem, Utah, USA
Default Re: Biotech and human reproduction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Biotech seems to use sloppy terminology.

The conventional definition of species is 'the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring', so if 'species modification' means 'becomes a new species', the answer is clearly no. However, that's not actually the way Biotech defines species modification, though it seems to be assumed.
If you know biology well enough you realize it's the definition of species itself that's sloppy. If we were to encounter something like a great dane and a chihuahua in the wild we would assume they were separate species. We classify both as breeds of canis familiaris because we know how they were bred.
In a wild environment members of group A might interbreed with group B and members of Group B might interbreed with group C but A and C won't interbreed at all. So are A,B and C all part of one species? The answer can depend on which biologist you ask and what standards he used to make the classification.
With a Bachelors in Biology and over a decade working in genetics I've learned that what they teach as hard and fast rules in the introductory classes are a lot messier in the real world.

As to the original question, it depends on how much modification was done and how. Howard Taylor's Schlock Mercenary includes Purps who have genes for purple photosynthetic skin that were added by giving them a new pair of chromosomes. Baselines and Purps can't interbreed because the extra chromosome messes up fetal development. If your modified human is like Taylor's Purps interbreeding will be impossible or produce infertile offspring (like mules and for the same reason). If the modifications were made to the existing chromosomes it might depend on how much they were modified and which genes were changed. Considering that humans and chimpanzees have around 99% of the same DNA you could say the answer is whatever suits your game and have some justification it real science.
rkbrown419 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 08:33 PM   #5
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Biotech and human reproduction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Biotech seems to use sloppy terminology.

The conventional definition of species is 'the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring', so if 'species modification' means 'becomes a new species', the answer is clearly no. However, that's not actually the way Biotech defines species modification, though it seems to be assumed.
BioTech is pretty clear what it means by species modification - genetic engineering that requires introducing new traits (from other genomes, or artificially created) to a species genome. That certainly seems like a logical definition, when speaking in terms of gengineering. Perhaps "genome modification" would have been a better term? For a modification that creates a new species, "speciation modification" might be appropriate.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 08:37 PM   #6
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Biotech and human reproduction

Quote:
Originally Posted by rkbrown419 View Post
If you know biology well enough you realize it's the definition of species itself that's sloppy. If we were to encounter something like a great dane and a chihuahua in the wild we would assume they were separate species. We classify both as breeds of canis familiaris because we know how they were bred.
And if you get plants in on the act, the definitions get even fuzzier. Durum wheat is a hybrid of two wild grasses that aren't even in the same genus. It's even polyploid, meaning it has a full set of chromosomes from both parent species. Bread wheat adds yet another full set of chromosomes from a third species of wild grass. The sex life of plants can get weird.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 09:40 PM   #7
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Biotech and human reproduction

Quote:
Originally Posted by rkbrown419 View Post
If you know biology well enough you realize it's the definition of species itself that's sloppy.
I'm aware of that as well, but the biotech definition barely relates to species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
BioTech is pretty clear what it means by species modification - genetic engineering that requires introducing new traits (from other genomes, or artificially created) to a species genome.
Yes, but that happens all the time without creating a new species -- it describe any unique mutation.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 12:58 AM   #8
scc
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Default Re: Biotech

Species modification in Bio-Tech defines modifications that the authors believe would cause the new species to no longer be fertile with the old.
scc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 01:25 AM   #9
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Biotech

Quote:
Originally Posted by scc View Post
Species modification in Bio-Tech defines modifications that the authors believe would cause the new species to no longer be fertile with the old.
This is a reasonable interpretation but never stated.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 01:34 AM   #10
Flyndaran
Untagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
Default Re: Biotech and human reproduction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Biotech seems to use sloppy terminology.

The conventional definition of species is 'the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring', so if 'species modification' means 'becomes a new species', the answer is clearly no. However, that's not actually the way Biotech defines species modification, though it seems to be assumed.
So conventionally, leopards, lions, tigers, and jaguars are all the same species? I somehow doubt that most people believe that.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check.
Flyndaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.