6
$\begingroup$

In the world - and universe - of Pandemonium, humans have existed for thousands of years in parallel to humans on Earth, having crossed over during periodic collisions between Pandemonium's universe and our own.

In Pandemonium, humans have been genetically engineered for thousands of years. The first humans that were genetically engineered became separate species, but in the last couple of thousand years, the technology of genetic engineering has improved to the point where carriers are human and engineered genetic traits can be passed down by adding a special extra chromosome.

These extra chromosomes can be programmed to duplicate themselves if they are the only chromosome in the resultant fertilised ovum (thus passing themselves on to all offspring, even with an unengineered partner), or to delete themselves if they are the only one, if they find themselves in the presence of an incompatible chromosome, or if they find themselves in the presence of a 'delete' or the absence of a 'retain' molecule.

Genetic engineering of humans has progressed to the point in Pandemonium where in modern times, roughly 75% of the population carries genetically engineered traits. Most unengineered humans are concentrated in nations where genetic engineering is frowned upon, and in nations that support genetic engineering, around 90% of the population carries engineered traits.

Some of the engineered traits that are particularly common are radio horns (as in Why would radio-capable transhumans still vocalise to each-other?), gastric bypasses (as in Uses for a gastric bypass), variations in skin and hair colour that make colours such as red, green and blue possible, and artificial genes that make their carriers more attractive and less prone to conditions such as obesity or anorexia.

Many of these engineered traits were imposed upon the offspring of well-to-do people who wanted their descendants to have advantages that they themselves did not possess, and could not possess since these traits cannot be imposed except from conception.

On the world of Pandemonium, wars are about as common as they are in our own world, which is to say that minor wars occur somewhere in the world almost every year, but major wars are a once-in-a-generation thing. The mechanical technology of warfare is somewhat more primitive than on Earth, with muscle-powered weapons and animal-mounted cavalry being common, and rifled muzzle-loading guns being state of the art, though there are also soldiers trained as 'magicians', who can make use of magic engines (as in Practicality of engine-mediated magic).

So, to my question: In this world, would it make sense that governments (as opposed to private individuals or families) would mandate the genetic engineering of a caste of soldiers to make them better able to survive and prevail upon the battlefields of Pandemonium?

Answers should consider likely genetic modifications with battlefield utility, their utility and liability in society between wars, the potential for genetic espionage, and the implication that those with government-mandated war-genes would be expected to be soldiers, even if it was their ancestors who signed them up for the gene mods.

EDIT:

I'm concerned with governments that we would call liberal democracies. Yes, there would be dictatorships, and they'll do just whatever they want, but they don't concern me, just the liberal democracies.

As for levels of mobilisation, we could consider WWII levels to be the maximum for the aforementioned liberal democracies.

As for the sorts of mods possible... pretty much anything goes, as long as the end result is still sufficiently human to be functionally human and scientifically plausible... and justifiable to the populace.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ What types of governments and class structures do the polities in this world have? What level of mobilisation is typical for a population when a serious war does kick off? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 3:45
  • $\begingroup$ Does it make sense? Yes. Could they do it? Depends on the government. North Korea absolutely, western Europe more difficult. Would it work? Depends on what modifications are possible. Beyond the obvious "yes", it seems like those are questions for you to answer. $\endgroup$
    – user111403
    Commented Sep 3 at 4:17
  • $\begingroup$ If "there are wealthy and powerful individuals whose interests align with it" is taken for granted then "they control enough political power to make everybody else pay for it" is always plausible. The only variable that public support affects is how much they have to lie about it and bury it in thousand-page spending bills. $\endgroup$
    – g s
    Commented Sep 3 at 5:39
  • $\begingroup$ Can a genetically modified individual apply to have a different extra-chromosom transmitted to their offspring than their own? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 10:38
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisJurain Of course... if they can afford to have their offspring genetically engineered, or their spouse has one that they want their offspring to have. $\endgroup$
    – Monty Wild
    Commented Sep 3 at 14:32

7 Answers 7

17
$\begingroup$

"Supersoldiers" are overhyped. The usual package of a genetically engineered soldier, like super-strenght, stamina, speed and durability, are not even remotely as useful as fiction would have us believe: mundane equipment soldiers use more than makes up for it.

The actually most useful genetic mod that soldiers could undergo would be one that targets the motivation and decision making part of their brains. I would call it the Myrmidon Mod (after ants and Ancient soldiers), which would cover:

  • lowering outgroup empathy, while increasing ingroup empathy (The enemy is just animals, not like our glorious nation of brothers!)
  • strenghten pack instincts (my team-mates are my family)
  • increase dopamine and serotonin release from obeying orders (Whos a good soldier Boy? Atta boy, here's your dopamine hit!)
  • reduce fear and anxiety (what, you pukes wanna live forevah? Charge!!)

Atop of that, there are just mods that counter usual military problems:

  • melatonin switch. (the soldier can be awake and lucid for 50 hours straight with no loss of cognitive function, then instantly drop unconscious and have a good night's sleep when ordered).
  • focus mode (this mod mimics the action of methylafenidate salts by makig th soldier tightly focused and alert, Pilot/Sniper Mode )
  • ADHD mode (inversely, this mod mimics the positive traits of severe ADHD, giving the soldier high alertness towards new stimuli, greater need for mobility, and increased curiosity. Basically Scout/trailblazer mode ).
  • libido hack (horny soldiers are easily distracted. OTOH, sex is a good bonding process. Install a mod that makes the soldier completely asexual unless given a specific counteracting drug, at which point they go into absolute sex-fiend mode, right for the Monthly Battalion Orgy).

All those mods might seem mundane compared to the usual Supersoldier Package, but they are focused on mundane utility within the military structure. A soldier does not need to have echolocation, or super strength, or night vision. What a solider needs is something that would make them obedient, patient, well rested, and highly motivated. They need a way to quickly and strongly bond with their team, while remaining madly in love with their Country. Basically, they need to be like ants/bees/wasps.

The insidious part is... this would be very addictive. An ex-soldier who was a Myrmidon for a few years, will never be happy without the Ant Mod, and without the sense of purpose, camaraderie, and accomplishment the military provided. Sooner or later, the government would graciously agree to let veterans keep their Myrmidon Mod, just to prevent them from becoming suicidally depressed. Which would require giving them some job to do, turning former warrior ants into worker ants. Decade after decade, the number of Myrmidons in society would increase, because hey, everyone would love to be happy, and have a sense of belonging to something greater, and the government would have no choice but release the Myrmidon Mod for civilian use. The nation would turn into a perfect social-democratic utopia where everyone works for the Common Good, without such pointless distractions like free will or personal liberty.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ "A soldier does not need to have [...] night vision." While I agree that super strength would go out of fashion with the advent of powder weapons, I'd say that night vision is a real staple. Though when night goggles are already a thing (up to OP) you'd not waste ressources on doing it via genetic engineering. When night goggles are not yet invented, a night vision battalion could wreck havoc in a night attack. $\endgroup$
    – datacube
    Commented Sep 4 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ @datacube Depends on what the drawbacks of the genetic version are. As long as it doesn't cause problems with other parts of vision, it being self-manufacturing and automatically scaling with your army size will eventually pay off the initial development cost. And it wouldn't be hard to do since human retinas are already sensitive to infrared, it just gets screened out by the lens and cornea. So just move the filtering to the vestigial nictitating membrane and bring that back to full size. $\endgroup$
    – Perkins
    Commented Sep 4 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ Giving someone the ability to see with daytime-level clarity at night would FUCK UP their sleep cycle, you'd probably land the entire lot of them in an asylum as gibbering, horrifyingly sleep-deprived basket cases. $\endgroup$
    – FeRD
    Commented Sep 5 at 7:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd add mods lowering the required logistics footprint. E.g. uptake of calories from food, higher tolerance to low water situations / dirty water etc. $\endgroup$
    – Hobbamok
    Commented Sep 5 at 20:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Hobbamok, definitely. Though this kind of "survival mods" would likely be already prevalent in their society, as these would be the most obvious common sense mod choice for anyone save for the super rich. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 7:21
12
$\begingroup$

Probably few military-specific modifications

"Amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics". In a world where armies are muscle-propelled and most of their weapons are muscle-powered, the relevant logistics are related to feeding and medical "maintenance". Generals and their supply officers want soldiers who can extract energy efficiently from their food, can travel long distances while carrying heavy loads and are resistant to infection and disease (including tooth decay).

However, unless there are downsides to these attributes, most of the population would want this for their children regardless of whether they want them to go a-soldiering. (Some of the uber-wealthy might be less concerned about their children's digestive systems to allow for conspicuous consumption, but they definitely want them to remain healthy.) Therefore, except for the cultures with an aversion to genetic engineering, most people will have these attributes anyway.

Now we get to the "combat" modifications. The problem here is that most of these attributes will have trade-offs that make them undesirable except for the <1% of an infantry/cavalry soldier's life in which they are actually fighting. Fast-clotting blood may prevent a solider from bleeding out from wounds, but far more will die from circulatory issues before they ever reach a battlefield (not to mention little chance of surviving to collect a pension). Super-strength gives a bonus to drawing stronger bows and hitting people harder, but the extra muscle is a disadvantage in running/walking long distances due to worse heat dissipation and greater food consumption. Subdermal armour and/or carapaces are even worse than extra muscle for heat dissipation.

About the only augmentations that are both practical in the field and particularly more useful to soldiers than civillians are sensory. Low-light vision could be improved by increasing the proportion of rod cells in the eyes, but will decrease colour vision. Making ears more resistant to damage from loud noises would be an advantage in a battlefield where gunpowder is becoming important, but only if sensitivity is not reduced.

Frankly, if genetic engineering is available then it is better employed on non-human subjects to improve logistics and the overall economy. Create horses with digestive systems and gut biomes that can carry cavalry but only require grass and minimal grain and are resistant to disease. Create crops that are resistant to pests and diseases. Success in military operations is far more dependent on training, discipline and logistic support than "super soldiers".

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Not sure everyone would want necrophagian, scatophagian or ruminant children, the ultimate sophistication in foraging strategies. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ @FrançoisJurain true, not that I was aware of the first two terms prior to reading your comment! However, the world seems to have some weird tech level anomalies (genetic engineering on the one hand and flintlock rifles being cutting edge military tech on the other) so a less extreme but still strong digestive system is likely to be a hedge against starvation in bad years. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ My point is about most of the population would want this for their children regardless of whether they want them to go a-soldiering. It's easy to think of genetically engineered traits which, although definitely working toward healthier(?, more resilient anyway) mutants, definitely reduces their sex-appeal. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ Don't forget the logistics involved in training replacement soldiers though. That's often a pretty significant cost as well. Modifications to insert unquestioning obedience and completely unshakeable morale would be popular I'd think. The training time could be significantly reduced if they will cheerfully submit to grueling physical conditioning and shoot to kill on command without hesitation. (Historically, only about 30% of green troops would actually aim at a live enemy instead of over their heads.) As a bonus, "accidentally" let the obedience part slip out into the general population. $\endgroup$
    – Perkins
    Commented Sep 3 at 18:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Perkins contrary to popular depictions, you don't actually want unquestioning obedience and unshakeable morale - the best soldiers display initiative and seize opportunities not foreseen when they were given their orders and know when it's best to withdraw from a bad position rather than fight to destruction. (Speaking as an Australian ex-infantry NCO here.) "Unquestioning obedience" is also really dangerous from a government perspective, especially liberal democracy - who will a soldier end up loyal to in a coup attempt? That's assuming those are attributes that can be engineered... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 22:53
4
$\begingroup$

Assuming no inherent risks in the augmentation process it entirely depends on the degree of advantage that can be gained by the soldiers over and above their average opponent, or the degree of disadvantage they would be at if they aren't augmented and the opposition are, and the price of that edge. If you're talking about pouring millions of dollars per soldier into a 1% improvement in their abilities then it probably doesn't make sense, you'd almost certainly get more bang for your buck in equipment. On the other hand if you're spending thousands to gain 10 or 20% then you almost must do it.

If you're risking washing out (read maiming or worse in this context) otherwise healthy and productive members of your military then that's an added cost you have to factor in as well.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Public Liability laws

The other answers are good, but lets go with a bit of a more fun one. Soldiering is a dangerous business. With the exception of a full-scale war happening, more Soldiers die in Training than in Combat.

With an advanced (and highly litigious) society, lack of providing proper PPE and Safety equipment is a fertile ground for multi-Trillion dollar Lawsuits.

A Government that fails to retro-fit side-impact airbags in their Mail trucks, which show a reduction in injuries by 20% can be potentially liable for any injuries where the prescence of said Airbag could have reduced the injury, and on the hook for a massive payout.

Therefore - the Military has to have Genetic enhancements to reduce the risk from training accidents. Things like increased Bone strength/density, decreased muscle repair time etc.

Integration with existing Weapons Systems

Okay, spoiler alert - I am a Massive WH40K nerd - and the process to create an Astartes (Space Marine) involves lots of Gene nobbling, implants and yadda yadda yadda - some of which are necessary to interface with equipment (The black Carapace for use with Power Armour).

So taking this idea - we could have Gene mods that are designed to integrate with pieces of Military equipment - could be an Extra Digit on the wrist to help grip a weapon or some form of eyesight mod to integrate with a sensor system.

Or it could be to add receptors in the Soldiers muscles to make them receptive to some form of Combat drugs (you know the type - extra strength, extra speed etc.) Think a sort of lock and key type scenario.

Specific Mental Traits

As someone who likes all things Military - PTSD is a serious issue. In the US there is the 22 a day project - which takes its name that on average 22 service members and veterans commit suicide.

This Liberal Democracy cares about its soldiers and the horror that they have to bear witness to - and so has a number of Genetic Mods that help the following:

  • Processing of Traumatic imagery and events
  • Healing after TBIs
  • Decreased levels of Depression due to chemical imbalances

etc.

Why would they do this - well, to just pass basic Training - it costs somewhere between \$40-80,000. The cost to keep a soldier deployed is even higher - something in the region of \$1,000,000 per year - that is a lot of investment. A lot of experience and a lot of skill. The Government doesn't want to loose this to Suicide, so ensures that they are less likely to off-themselves.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The true militaristic goal is intelligence

Bit of a frame challenge here. The best soldier is one that doesn't even have to fire once.

James Bond, John wick, Ethan Hunt. All 'super soldiers' in thrir own right. Often portrayed as intelligent and capable, there is one teensy flaw. They get shot at. A lot.

It doesn't matter if you're the best in the world. If you get shot at, there is a chance you will be hit. That means however good they are, at one point your luck runs out. I really mean luck, as you can see these superhuman men run down straight corridors while experts shoor machine guns after them. They fail. A true super soldier will succeed without anyone knowing anything happened.

Intelligence

Intelligence can do a lot for you. You can see that besides logistics, intelligence is the most important asset of a military. Both in gathering it from the battlefield, as well as applying smart minds to it. This is however just a small part. Let us see an example if you take this to an extreme. Let us take USA as an example.

The USA has a problem. The population is more divided than ever, with even people arming themselves to kill the opposition. How could this have happened? Let us just take the premise that Russia has spread misinformation as a fact, influencing people. They do not need to send in armies. They do not need to fire a single shot. If they continue to take this to the extreme, the USA could tear itself apart. It would lose not just internally, but on the world stage it can be reduced to a shade of what it was. Russia would sit there laughing in the meantime.

If you apply such scenarios by super intelligent soldiers in your world, you can destroy your enemies without them knowing it. Have people work for your enemies, heloing them, trading with them, feeding you enough information to know where and how to strike. Erode the trust of the population in their politics, their police, their armies and their governmental bodies. Erode the trust of each other in the country. The war never erupted. The people have destroyed themselves before they could turn an eye to you. That would be the power of intelligent super soldiers. They do not need strength or vitality. They just need to think harder than the opponents, knowing where and how to apply an invisible amount of force which will turn a country to ash. A word in the ear of a trader. A slanderous poem with a catchy tune sung in a tavern. A policy that will force many poor people together, attracting rats and eventually the black plague. The invisible hand long gone when it is time to point fingers what went wrong.

That all to say yes, genetically engineered soldiers would be mandatory. You want to win a war before it even started. You want to prevent being reduced to ash by something you never knew was influencing your people.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not convinced that critical thinking (more important than general intelligence) can be engineered, but if they can then take the logic a step further. In the described world most of the governments are liberal democracies - I'm not convinced that there would be as many wars altogether. Looking at the last 50-70 years how many liberal democracies have fought each other? Smart enough populations could realise that "The only winning move is not to play" or, as you say, follow Sun Tzu's advice and win without fighting against less smart opponents. +1 anyway $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3 at 23:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KerrAvon2055, that really depends on the rest of your economy. Up until about the mid-1700s, winning a war had a greater return on investment than anything else available, and the return was still positive into the 1800s. World War I was basically the last gasp of "war for profit", and had a very negative return indeed. $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Commented Sep 4 at 3:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark true, and it's hard to compare with this world because the tech levels are so squirrelly - miltech is at flintlock rifle but genetic engineering is commonplace (and the associated social weirdness of liberal democracies being the standard govt type). Brett Devereaux wrote about the "war for profit" idea on acoup.blog - tipping point is that once most of the world is industrialised then wars are unprofitable because the value of a country is its industrial output, which gets smashed in a war of conquest. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 4 at 4:35
3
$\begingroup$

Military-targeted genetic engineering doesn't make a lot of sense when it is required that the mod be applied at the time of conception. Unless you can say for certain "this baby's gonna grow up to be a soldier", seems like an expensive gamble.

Maybe in some multi-generational horror setting where species survival is very well on the line. I.E. alien star empire vs human star empire, and the winner just isn't interested in having the other side be part of the same universe. In such a setting it may well be that both sides are sending significant fractions of their populations into the grinder.

Might be different if it's something that can be applied later, like some adult on-set retrovirus.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Governments are unlikely to get away with mandatory soldier mods... but I expect subsidies would be very popular. Include a few soldier genes in your new kid's design, and the government will pay for some of the cost of the mod. Such individuals are under no obligation to join the military (beyond some major war resulting in a draft), but now have a permanent career option available to them.

This works much better if epigenetic mods are possible; genes that won't trigger until a specific stimulus occurs. This allows for much significant and specialized modifications without causing social/health problems for the child, while also preventing civilians from using military level genes for criminal endeavors. Join [military branch], pass the psych exam, you get an injection that activates the appropriategenes. Get deployed, another injection to activate more. Retire? An injection will turn off the combat specific genes while leaving you the quality of life enhancements, but if you get dishonorably discharged you can kiss the entire package goodbye (probably both have a delay of a month or two to make it harder for enemies to weaponize these deactivators).

Better yet, you can bake in specializations and then only activate the relevant ones (resistance to G-force is irrelevant if you're not flying, you don't need enhanced digestion as a strategist, and immunity to fear is really bad in anyone making decisions).

This is kind of like the GI bill in IRL USA. Incentivise becoming a soldier, and people will sign right up. Not a perfect analogy, as it's the parents' decision, but you get the idea.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .