Politicians are a good example for sure...but my theory is that even those (and if you look at all the fuck ups they produce in their speeches, i am most probably right) fail with truly be able to alter their natural speech patterns.

As to the written word, i guess it is possible. While i am sure that you'll fail from now and then even there, the fact that you can hold off on sending an email and look at it over and over again is surely upping your chance of "faking it".

Nice! Thanks for the heads-up, Wilshire.

A good lecture and a book (or script) for such a lecture are worth a lot...especially for students. To enter the field of physics (or math) on an university level is always a big hurdle to jump so a good book is a big help. Unfortunately there aren't that many good entry books.
Now, i am not sure this is a good entry work here... i haven't read it all (yet? ) ...but hey, it's for free so one can't complain, right?!

It seems you didn't really read my post, so i guess i do not need to feel offended by the emotional grunt comment (don't get me started on the "no real reason behind these thoughts" comment... perfect way to offend people, dude).

On the other hand, i find the lack of reflection in someone who is a biologist even more scary. You guys play around with stuff you have no idea about and call it necessary. Have you ever thought about that it is ok that we degenerate and die out? Ok, i admit, i do not find that thought particularly pleasing myself, but humans playing god even less so.
And with the uncountable ways that something like "playing around" with bakteria and viruses can go wrong, i don't think it is in any way safer to do genetic manipulation than not to do it. It's a simple case of "mathematics", in this case probability, that there will be huge fuck-ups if we start manipulating the basic modules of life.

So yeah, i really don't think i'm an emotional grunt.

And yes, i was indeed speaking (even if only very shortly) of genetic enhancements of humans...as it relates to the thread title. I even said that i'd prefer that to invasive technological enhancements (but still find it to not be a good idea).

Oh and as a last point - So i am speaking out of an uncertainty rather than knowledge? Yeah, as if you guys have any idea what you are doing. The gene code has only been decoded for some lifeforms and only for a short time, in science-terms and the scientists are not even close to truly understand everything they decoded...and let us not even talk about understanding the correlations between the single dna strings and how an alteration of one would impact another or the organism as a whole etc etc .

klarakos input sounds very similar to what Callan had to say. I'm not sure i agree. It reminds me a lot of the very focused indie gamedesing...and while that can be fun if you like the niche on which such games focus, i think they are too narrowly focused.
My idea for the TSA rpg is a rulesset that lets you play in the world of Earwa without being a too restricting corset. I am aware that this approach also has it's disadvantages but i am not seeing it as a "shotgun blast in the dark".

If klarakos wants to give his input in a more detailed fashion, i am sure we are all glad to take a look at it. I mean it's not as if i have the rpg already all worked out
But for now his (her?) post is more of a general vote for a rules-map-to-game-focus...which i do not disagree with per se but i'd need more specifics to be able to properly answer...or to be able to tell if he (she?) and i have the same vision for a TSA game.

What i definitely want: the game should be able to work for a wide variaty of game-set ups. Sure you need to tailor it a bit to your group...but i am of the opinion that you can not design the whole game to one group. I want the rules to be able to simulate all aspects of Earwa...and not just, for example, a Ainoni Noble-Caste political game (aka too narrow focus in my opinion).

A very scary thing, this transhumanism. Especially if you mean the part where we "enhance" ourselves with technology (aka implants and A.I. stuff, maybe even "transcending" our bodies for a kind of immortality... artificial bodies and stuff). The stuff with the A.I. who destroys humanity etc. or a need for a World Controller...scary stuff as well.
I hope that if we do get to the "let us enhance our species" we will go a non intrusive (as in implanting stuff and giving controll over to elektronical entities etc ) way. Not sure if gene-manipulation is such a good (and save) idea...it's probably not...but i still prefer that to making ourselves into kind of robots...ugh.

I only got to page 12 and gave up. If that counts as a paper... oh my. A lot of blah blah and talking-in-circles if you ask me.

Well there you go!
I guess this is the "problem" with this topic. The sciences are just at the very beginning of this and the problem will not be solved soon (i guess). And it is not as if this is a new phenomenon in science...some say "it's like this..." and then the next studies proclaim "No, it's like that..." . Most often the exact opposite of each other etc. pp. .

What do i want to say? Not much, actually  It's just that this is how it often goes in sciences....especially in new/young ones. But that also makes it so interesting to follow it and "be at the pulse of it", so to speak.
I really hope that science will show that we are more on this last post's side of the fence. But maybe that's just me

I agree with Somna.

What i want to throw into the discussion:

First of all, sorcerers are pretty rare. Maybe it is even called for to limit players to non-sorcerers (?) or if you do not want to strictly forbid it, make them roll for it? Something like "throw a d100 and on 01% you're a sorcerer".

Second of all i don't see the imbalance of Chorae as dramatic. Why? Because they are even rarer than schoolmen. Not everyone will have a Chorae handy and that is an unbelievable understatment And if you want to go up against the big players in the three seas...well then you better have a plan how you will deal with those Chorae-Warriors.

At least that's my stance on it.