[Spoiler - UH] utube snippet

The Bardesano Genome is NOT named for Isabel, It is named for a predecessor. The Detweiler Genome is not named for Albrecht either. Not only that but Rufino specifies that Marinescu has no history in her genome, in other words, not a Bardesano.

Then you talk about pre and post Houdini like environment effects genetic behavior? Which is it? Genetic Psychopathy or Environmental Psychopathy?

They can be comparable without being related. People can have similar behaviors without being related.

BrightSoul wrote:The Bardesano Genome is NOT named for Isabel, It is named for a predecessor. The Detweiler Genome is not named for Albrecht either. Not only that but Rufino specifies that Marinescu has no history in her genome, in other words, not a Bardesano.

Then you talk about pre and post Houdini like environment effects genetic behavior? Which is it? Genetic Psychopathy or Environmental Psychopathy?

They can be comparable without being related. People can have similar behaviors without being related.

Such a neat bit of logic there, except for it renders an entire paragraph of Cherneychev's into a squirming non sequiturous rumble of mumbo jumbo. I don't think the author threw that in because he was bored or needed filler.

Environment can trigger genetic behavior.

Sure they can. Except that Malignants are predisposed to have similar behaviors. It's kinda like their mantra.

.

Almost forgot. For the record, I doubt that either genome had a human nomenclature. I would bet that The Bardasano genome had a configuration something like WB-X23589734-2. WB = Witch's Brew.

Then human nature put a more human label on it for convenience. Bardasano enjoyed the honor, I presume, because she was the miscreant malignant whose psychopathic switch untimely activated, thus bringing it to light. Which I imagine played no small part in her enjoying aftermarket tuning.

Or, it could be that it was named after her because she was the first malignant of her line to show improvement to the remediation. After all, her two predecessors were culled, being politically correct. Murder is such a malignant word, Malignantly.

.

cthia wrote:Almost forgot. For the record, I doubt that either genome had a human nomenclature. I would bet that The Bardasano genome had a configuration something like WB-X23589734-2. WB = Witch's Boil.

Then human nature put a more human label on it for convenience. Bardasano enjoyed the honor, I presume, because she was the miscreant malignant whose psychopathic switch untimely activated, thus bringing it to light. Which I imagine played no small part in her enjoying aftermarket tuning.

Or, it could be that it was named after her because she was the first malignant of her line to show improvement to the remediation. After all, her two predecessors were culled, being politically correct. Murder is such a malignant word, Malignantly.

Or maybe it's referred to that way in the story because it's her family name, and naming it something else would have needed another major infordump to explain it. Not even RFC does ten page infodumps simply because he can.

JohnRoth wrote:

cthia wrote:Almost forgot. For the record, I doubt that either genome had a human nomenclature. I would bet that The Bardasano genome had a configuration something like WB-X23589734-2. WB = Witch's Boil.

Then human nature put a more human label on it for convenience. Bardasano enjoyed the honor, I presume, because she was the miscreant malignant whose psychopathic switch untimely activated, thus bringing it to light. Which I imagine played no small part in her enjoying aftermarket tuning.

Or, it could be that it was named after her because she was the first malignant of her line to show improvement to the remediation. After all, her two predecessors were culled, being politically correct. Murder is such a malignant word, Malignantly.

Or maybe it's referred to that way in the story because it's her family name, and naming it something else would have needed another major infordump to explain it. Not even RFC does ten page infodumps simply because he can.

That is certainly something to think about and it offers an interesting angle. A fresh pair of eyes is always good.

I will save my vote because it suggests that the Bardasano genome is shared by just one family. Many families are the products of each assembly line. It would also lead to the question of the familial location of the two predecessors culled before her within the Bardasano line. Surely Bardasono's family aren't the only ones exhibiting a short in the switch.

cthia wrote:

JohnRoth wrote: Almost forgot. For the record, I doubt that either genome had a human nomenclature. I would bet that The Bardasano genome had a configuration something like WB-X23589734-2. WB = Witch's Boil.

Then human nature put a more human label on it for convenience. Bardasano enjoyed the honor, I presume, because she was the miscreant malignant whose psychopathic switch untimely activated, thus bringing it to light. Which I imagine played no small part in her enjoying aftermarket tuning.

Or, it could be that it was named after her because she was the first malignant of her line to show improvement to the remediation. After all, her two predecessors were culled, being politically correct. Murder is such a malignant word, Malignantly.

Or maybe it's referred to that way in the story because it's her family name, and naming it something else would have needed another major infordump to explain it. Not even RFC does ten page infodumps simply because he can.

We have to remember that RFC is writing a novel...we spend a lot of time discussing minor points.

There are a lot of different mixes and they do probably have complex numbers attached. It seemed to me that the Bardasano family line was sort of like Mozart: great talent, great instability.

MAlign probably worked to remove the latter and keep the former. The problem always is that a talented villain can do a real lot of damage.

cthia wrote:

JohnRoth wrote: Almost forgot. For the record, I doubt that either genome had a human nomenclature. I would bet that The Bardasano genome had a configuration something like WB-X23589734-2. WB = Witch's Boil.

Then human nature put a more human label on it for convenience. Bardasano enjoyed the honor, I presume, because she was the miscreant malignant whose psychopathic switch untimely activated, thus bringing it to light. Which I imagine played no small part in her enjoying aftermarket tuning.

Or, it could be that it was named after her because she was the first malignant of her line to show improvement to the remediation. After all, her two predecessors were culled, being politically correct. Murder is such a malignant word, Malignantly.

Or maybe it's referred to that way in the story because it's her family name, and naming it something else would have needed another major infordump to explain it. Not even RFC does ten page infodumps simply because he can.

We have to remember that RFC is writing a novel...we spend a lot of time discussing minor points.

There are a lot of different mixes and they do probably have complex numbers attached. It seemed to me that the Bardasano family line was sort of like Mozart: great talent, great instability.

MAlign probably worked to remove the latter and keep the former. The problem always is that a talented villain can do a real lot of damage.

This is how I imagine that the process might work. Note that there is NO textual evidence for anything that I am about to write.

Somewhere in the genetic labs there is a repository for the Bardasano genome, which contains multiple iterations: each iteration has a sequence number and is related to the previous iteration by having made a genetic edit to change or improve some feature. When the newest iteration was created, cells from it were duplicated and used to create test tube babies; which served as instances of the current iteration
Next comes the slow part (but this is a multi-century conspiracy) of watching these individual children grow up (each with a unique first name and the last name of Bardasano).
After the caring for and the testing of the current generation, the Planning Board has to come to a decision based on the overall profile of the crop. Is there an improvement over the previous generation? If so, then there is a new standard for the Bardasano genome and copies of the lab material are saved in the repository and backup sites. If not, are there both positive and negative changes? If there are positive changes and the negative changes are minor, then the current generation is allowed to continue (and the genetic material is saved in the repository and backup sites) and more editing is needed to see if the next iteration can correct the negative aspects. But if there are no positive changes or the negative changes are major, then the current iteration and all its instances are culled. Further if the failing iteration was itself an attempt to fix a problem, then the Board will have to consider whether to cull the prior iteration and any of its surviving instances.
The driving force behind making a genetic change in the first place is that some genetic change was tried in a different genome and it made a significant improvement; so now planners watch to see if similar success can be had in the Bardasano genome and others. Perhaps the improvements from the Alpha line are later migrated to the Beta line and so on.

People will have decide whether this process is a possibility within the logic of the books; but it provides suggestions as to how the board can say a current genome has tendencies without requiring that a specific individual resulting from the genome necessarily expresses those tendencies.

EDIT: In thinking more about this, it would be cleaner if, instead of gooey stuff in either cold storage or a nutrient fluid, the genome were kept as a code in a computer. The genetic editing would be done by changing data to result in a tentative next iteration. The computer would model the results to give a probable view of substantiation and based on accepting that the computer would do the details of meiosis and fusion to build the candidates for the instances, using a computer driven cell builder.
Then there are not just clones to test for reaction to the environment, but non-identical siblings to additionally test for differential traits. So there could be the case that some of the instances were exceptional compared to the others and the creation data could be examined to find out why.

cthia wrote:Then human nature put a more human label on it for convenience. Bardasano enjoyed the honor, I presume, because she was the miscreant malignant whose psychopathic switch untimely activated, thus bringing it to light. Which I imagine played no small part in her enjoying aftermarket tuning.

Or, it could be that it was named after her because she was the first malignant of her line to show improvement to the remediation. After all, her two predecessors were culled, being politically correct. Murder is such a malignant word, Malignantly.
.

To repeat: Isabel is not psychopathic; her predecessors were eliminated for excessively ruthless ambition, while she shows tempered intelligent ambition. And she is not the namer of the genome, as she has those miscreant ancestors. So there is no psychopathic switch that you love to write about.

Further you seem to be one of the few people to read Chernyshev's musing in the way you do; to the rest of us the following makes no sense.

cthia wrote:Such a neat bit of logic there, except for it renders an entire paragraph of Cherneychev's into a squirming non sequiturous rumble of mumbo jumbo. I don't think the author threw that in because he was bored or needed filler.

cthia wrote:I will save my vote because it suggests that the Bardasano genome is shared by just one family. Many families are the products of each assembly line. It would also lead to the question of the familial location of the two predecessors culled before her within the Bardasano line.

This leads to a very interesting question for which I do not believe we have an answer.
To what extent is natural reproduction functioning within the Onion versus laboratory creation of children?

If any of the Detweilers have a child with their wife through natural methods, that child is not strictly part of the Detweiler genome (the same as the suggested Detweiler + Bardasano cross). So if a particular natural child came to the attention of the planning board for exceptional traits and they decided to start a new line of genomic investigation using that DNA, what name would they put to it (using hyphenated parent names could quickly become unwieldy)?
In Larry Niven's Ring World series, human overcrowding on Earth has resulted in laws limiting child birth: any person can have a child, but only an exceptional person is permitted a second child (like a Genius grant). Further anyone can sign up for a lottery and upon winning is permitted an additional child.
I expect that prospective parents are encouraged to take whatever the board has on offer and there are rules set up for the cases where they prefer to make their own.