CRISPR babies

[Anonymous No.10174662]

Picture this
>It's 2035
>Gene editting has almost been perfected
>People can effectively design their babies
>Can choose traits like intelligence, looks etc

Would it be morally irreprehensible to have babies the natural way given that the alternative is 1000x better?

[Anonymous No.10174669]

If I’m one of the last ugly, dumb people on earth I’m visiting Avicii

[Anonymous No.10174725]

>>10174662
Why do people always insist on those three features? Honestly, I personally would imagine a future where there is far more variety to the human gene! Just think about it, what about blue eccentric happy disorganized people with two antennae in their heads and square eyes? I want that kind of future! :D

[Anonymous No.10174738]

>>10174725
You sound like you post on Orion's Arm.

[Anonymous No.10174767]

>>10174662
I would still hope there are some people who don't design there babies, so if something goes wrong we have backups.

[Anonymous No.10174774]

>>10174662
if he's 8ft she must be 4?? she's wearing heels

[Anonymous No.10174790]

>>10174662
No, people should repordice however they want, though those with the ability will go for crispr babies unless they have spiritual or feelings reasons, and that's ok.

[Anonymous No.10174831]

>>10174767

Christians will probably find a way to be offended by it and will ban it in their communities.

[Anonymous No.10174852]

Genetics have nothing to do with intelligence or the perception of "good looks".

Thea idea of genetically modifying children aside from being monstrously immoral and unethical is also doomed to failure.

[Anonymous No.10174856]

>>10174662
we would never make people 8ft tall, it's a waste
I dont get how a board of supposed STEM people dont realize that the optimization is towards the lower bound in terms of size
everyone will be like 4 and a half feet tall, 5ft most. Man and woman. If anything, women will be larger than men on average as fecundity is directly related to size/height whereas men do not need to be large at all.
But either way, lmao at thinking big people have any place in the future. sorry to rain on your parade though.

[Anonymous No.10174908]

>>10174662
>one chance at life
>born after gene edited babies

[Anonymous No.10174910]

>>10174856
>optimization
>for sex traits
say hello to peacocks for me

[Anonymous No.10174914]

>>10174910
peacocks get steamrolled all the time
something like 65% of males are killed during mating season because they're so easy to spot and they can't fight for shit.
Not optimized at all. you want a look at true optimization in sex traits, look at angler fish. Something like that is the direction humans will go, although less pronounced.
A state that attempts to increase aesthetics at the expense of utility will not be able to compete with those that go for utility. Maximized intelligence. Minimized mass. Higher military output. Higher economic output. Higher scientific output. minimized resource usage for maximum resource efficiency.
There is no place in the future for these obsolete aesthetics that I see people on this board post about all the time.

[Anonymous No.10174945]

>>10174856
>>10174910
>>10174914
Optimization for sex traits will be entirely pointless when artificial wombs make reproducing with women obsolete.

[Anonymous No.10174952]

>>10174945
>>10174914
the relationship between a man and woman will not be obsolete so long as we have sex drives and an urge to bridge the gap of seperation of our ego to the world around us.


your ideal of sex traits being obsolete in the future is a illusion and a way to cope with your current situation

[Anonymous No.10174955]

>>10174914
The seething manlet typing this post.

[Anonymous No.10174966]

>>10174945
why would you do that and bottleneck reproduction
>>10174952
Sex drives can be manipulated as well.
Explain why any state would render itself non competitive in this fashion.
>>10174955
I'm far too large to be considered optimized (a little under 6' and like 190 pounds)
Think about this logically. I thought you people were supposed to be in STEM. I guess I was wrong.

[Anonymous No.10174973]

>>10174966
> and an urge to bridge the gap of seperation of our ego to the world around us.

unless you can replicated the dynamics of a man-woman you will not be able to make them obsolete

[Anonymous No.10174975]

>>10174973
>Sex drives can be manipulated as well.
Not to mention it's mostly socially constructed. Your problem isn't actually a problem.

[Anonymous No.10174977]

>>10174852
>Genetics have nothing to do with intelligence
So do you think that chimps, for instance, are just as innately intelligent as humans? And if chimps started being raised as humans, you would suddenly start having scientists, philosophers, doctors, lawyers, etc. who are chimps?
>or the perception of "good looks".
If this were true, physical appearance would be essentially random. If genes had nothing to do with looks, children would probably have zero physical resemblance to their parents.
>Thea idea of genetically modifying children aside from being monstrously immoral and unethical is also doomed to failure.
It's doomed to failure in humans, even though it's been done successfully on crops, livestock, pets, and various other animals?

[Anonymous No.10174978]

>>10174975
>Not to mention it's mostly socially constructed. Your problem isn't actually a problem.
t. psychology and philosophy brainlet

[Anonymous No.10174980]

>>10174975
a proof of your idiocy is that of suicide rates of japan and the ideal having mindless sex has never fulfilled anybody of substance, thus its a desire which goes deeper than "sex drive"

[Anonymous No.10174984]

>2050
>Be one of the kids whose parents didn't want to gene edit their kids
>Everyone is 6'5 chad with 200 IQ, meanwhile you're 5'8.
>Tours over boyo

[Anonymous No.10174997]

>>10174978
t. neuroscience, psychology and computer science brainlet
All evidence agrees with me.
>>10174980
Japans problems are completely cultural.
>>10174984
5'8" is far too large to be considered optimized, let alone 6'5"

[Anonymous No.10175005]

>>10174852
is this a real post or sarcasm? It's hard to tell because sometimes people on /sci/ are legitimately retarded but either way this post is comical

[Anonymous No.10175025]

>>10174662
>Would it be morally irreprehensible to have babies the natural way given that the alternative is 1000x better?
Yes. Gene tech should only have the child's benefit as its criteria. Best genetically possible health and intelligence for the child as those are the objective values. Everything else changes in time, beauty is in the eye of the beholder but intelligence and health is not.

[Anonymous No.10175029]

>>10174997
>this manlet still whining about optimization
Manlets, when will they ever learn? Nobody cares about some worthless health benefits that will already be covered by other modifications. Being taller just LOOKS BETTER and is more desired universally. Every parent, when being asked how tall they want their child to be, will prefer tall rather than short.

Like, lets say there was some gene that had some minor health benefit, but it made you have ugly green splotches all over your skin and a gross growth come out of your forehead. Nobody would want that shit, it makes you look like a disgusting freak. Being a manlet is the same thing. Nobody cares if there's some tiny benefit if the price is being a manlet.

[Anonymous No.10175050]

>>10175029
Its not minor, It's significant. For the same amount of resources you could sustain a much larger population while having superior military, economic, and scientific output. No intelligent person or state would want to render their nation non-competitive. Or if you really would, you're irrelevant, and your opinion doesn't matter.
Also, it doesn't "Just look better" that's completely socially constructed. If you are actually a STEM dude you'd understand function over form every time. There is no benefit for what you want.
This is evolution.

[Anonymous No.10175051]

>gene editing perfected
>literally limited possibilities to change our very physiology
>sci's fantasy doesn't go beyond "tall smart chad"
pathetic incels

[Anonymous No.10175052]

>>10175051
These guys really are pathetic.
They aren't even right.
In the end it doesn't even matter because reality is what it is and they can't fight against true optimization.

[Anonymous No.10175055]

>>10175050
Do you think hating art and aesthetics is a sign of intelligence? Do you think a truly wise and utopian society, everybody would live in plain grey cubes and eat nutritionally balanced bland sustenance cubes for every meal? When humanity trades beauty for efficiency, you have a dystopia.

I'm sure our 500 IQ genetic gods will be able to cope just fine making scientific advances while eating as much vat-grown synthetic cow meat as they want.

[Anonymous No.10175059]

>>10175055
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022110395140?journalCode=jcca&

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/06/25/rsbl.2009.0342.short

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474915/

attraction to size is socially constructed/cultural. The society of minimized people would find that to be attractive while also having superior military, economic, and scientific output.
I don't think hating art and aestethics is a sign of intelligence. My claim is size is neither aesthetic nor is it efficient and as such it will be rendered obsolete and removed from states that care about remaining competitive.
The future "ubermensch" is a gnome, not a giant.

[Anonymous No.10175061]

>>10175051
Are you implying that there are parents who WOULDN'T want their child to be a tall smart chad?

Keep in mind that baby designs aren't going to made by some computer optimization spreadsheet for pumping out the best wageslave. They're going to be designed by their parents, with traits their parents want.

[Anonymous No.10175063]

>>10175059
I agree that height attraction is socially created, however, you are missing one key point. The people who will decide what the future children look like are alive now, and have the current social conditioning. They will not create children based on what ancient chinese would want. They will not design children based on what 200 AD native americans would want. They will design based on what society right now wants.

[Anonymous No.10175064]

I know this is racist and I don't care but caucasian facial bone structure is objectively the best bone structure and the only one that makes it even possible for a person to be facially attractive. I hope the chinks recognize that. Keep the slant eyes and black hair if you really want, that doesn't even bother me, but please get rid of the pan faces and flat noses that arr rook same.
/racist rant

[Anonymous No.10175065]

>>10175061
>>10175063
why would any state allow its citizens to be inefficient, and render itself less competitive?
Parents will get limited choice over the traits. Unless the society cares libertarianism over utilitarianism so much that it doesn't care about its future.
I can see something like the West doing what you're talking about, and then losing to the East which would focusing on function.
I do not want that for my people or their future.

[Anonymous No.10175068]

>>10174662
Also, if every person has the intelligence of Einstein the human race will almost certainly never cease to be. There is no moral reason NOT to do it.

[Anonymous No.10175073]

>>10175064
They'll definitely delete the double eye lid as soon as possible, it's one of the most common cosmetic surgeries in the world.

[Anonymous No.10175076]

>>10175059
He's got a point. Their is a reason why human height has had a stabilizing selection versus seletive selection. Tall people got BTFO and their tall genes ended with them. Selecting for tallness is just as arbitrary as selecting for pretty feathers in peacocks.
>>10175061
>tall smart chad
Dumb white cracker societies that choose form in the sense of tall people will get BTFO by societies that choose function in more efficient shorter people. These tall fucks are so inefficient they have to eat so much more resources. Greedy mofos. Tall people are not environmentally sustainable. Plus all the waste in medical resources because of back problems and other height related diseases. Selfish white crackers are going to get BTFO.

[Anonymous No.10175080]

>>10175076
>>10175065
t. manlets
You guys are just 5'10 midgets that are projecting, right?

Rather than feeling bitter about your condition, you should just be happy that soon, no children will have to suffer like you have when they're all born as real 6 foot men

[Anonymous No.10175083]

>>10174662

Do you think it would be possible to use this technology to get rid of niggers? Like create a virus which sterilises them or something?

[Anonymous No.10175085]

>>10175083
We don't need to get rid of niggers if we just use genetic engineering to remove all the qualities that make niggers undesirable.
Niggers are violent? Make them less violent. Niggers are dumb? Everybody is a super genius now.
There, problem solved.

[Anonymous No.10175086]

>>10175080
If you don't study science or math don't post here.

[Anonymous No.10175089]

>>10175085

Hmmmm I see your point. If we could fix niggers there wouldn’t be a problem anymore.

[Anonymous No.10175092]

>>10175086
I notice that you still haven't posted your height. Very interesting.

[Anonymous No.10175094]

>>10174856
Exactly, optimum human height is around 5 feet. No downsides. Many upsides. Especially as we will be living longer.

[Anonymous No.10175097]

>>10175080
And your cracker society of 6 foot lanklets will get BTFO by a society of 3 foot dwarves. A spaceship built for awkward 8 foot lanklets will get BTFO by the more efficient, compact, and higher manned dwarf spaceship. You'll have a situation where 8 foot lanklets battle against antmen (like in the movie) with augmented strength and speed suits and will get BTFO because they can't even see them in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10175098]

>have an old white trash lady coworker
>one of her white trash daughters got pregnant half a year ago
>at age 18 with no education or job
>by a truck driver
>coworker tells us about how they had gone to the hospital because the baby was too still
>doctors asked them to stop smoking
>ask coworker if they had been smoking while she has been pregnant
>well yeah, but now we're not smoking anymore - indoors
>my soul when
Baby growing tanks and background checks if you want to be a parent when?

[Anonymous No.10175099]

>>10175092
I already posted my height and weight >>10174966

Again, it makes no difference. I'm also not a 200IQ super genius but I'm not talking about not making everyone super geniuses. That's an actual beneficial trait. Large size is a negative trait. Optimization to the lower bound is beneficial.
Why would you care either way? Your aesthetic can go both ways, but function can only go one way. So you choose the function that is more efficient, and then model the form after it.

[Anonymous No.10175101]

>>10175080
You are confusing sexual selection with environmental fitness.
Sexual selection is driven by the irrational impulses of society.
Environmental fitness is what you would want to aim for if you want a true super being.

[Anonymous No.10175111]

>>10175098
Brave New World wasn't supposed to be a documentary

[Anonymous No.10175115]

>tfw was born a few decades before genetic engineering
>tfw when you're going to witness it but won't be a part of it
That's not fair bros.

[Anonymous No.10175116]

what are long range promotors, enchacers, modifyers, silencers, single nucleotide polymorphisms.

Genetics is complex and would take more than 20 years to get right.

[Anonymous No.10175123]

>>10174662
Under the current meta, perhaps. However, if you can edit life itself, you can literally create mermaids by editing in gills.
Thus land people will have a disadvantage in water.

Every advantage you give them can be a disadvantage somewhere where the environment is wrong or different.
Thus, the solution is to max min all their stats.

[Anonymous No.10175138]

>>10174662
relatively: beauty and fitness are in the eyes of the beholder
objectively: according to God; no
according to the state; yes

its goona happen anyways. the rich and powerful must ensure a strong legacy.
or they will get a nation, or personal army full of young and strong soldiers.

while we have mapped the genome, we are still far off from determining all the fuctions that genes hold. but since there seems to be a silver lining on certain genetic defects and certain evoluationary advantages READ: sickle cell and malaria resistance; i think it'll be more of a balancing act than maximizing traits.
like sure we can make your boy intelligent,but how much vulnerability to panic do you want your kid to have too?

[Anonymous No.10175142]

>>10174662
>Can choose traits like intelligence, looks etc
>intelligence
If parents think they can just alter genes to make their kid smart, they're going to be in for a big surprise when they realize their own parenting style and the kid's environment have a lot more to do with it than just changing their DNA.

[Anonymous No.10175158]

>>10174662
>2035

lol kid you know how people thought we'd have flying cars by the year 2000? and you think we'll just be able to choose "intelligence" like it's no different from picking blonde hair. And you want to debate the moral consequences of this kind of decision.

is there even a single person here who has a biology degree

[Anonymous No.10175233]

>>10174662
GM catgirl slaves

[Anonymous No.10175237]

>>10174767
Out here in Amish, smoking big doinks in Amish

[Anonymous No.10175253]

>>10175059
Something being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't have material impact or that you can just wish it away or that it's invalid, just look at money; arguably, any form of classifcation like biological taxonomy is socially constructed as even if you have a collection of traits how those traits are clustered and bordered are constructed yet we don't reject it because for the most part it's useful. Your gnomelet child might physically be healthier, but living a few years longer won't mean much if they're socially ostracized, the fact is being tall is desireable and saying it's a construct is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10175261]

>>10174662
No its immoral to not give your child the best way possible.

[Anonymous No.10175264]

>>10175101
Sexual selection is a way to optimize for environmental fitness. The human environment is a social one, thus people are optimized for social desired traits like height and those who are selected for such as height, there is nothing irrational about this. Being a manlet is only if you're planning to be a solitary feral out in the wild digging burrows and hunting oppossums.

[Anonymous No.10175270]

>>10174662
>conspicuously keep making the exact same thread with the same wording and abuse of emotionally charged imagery
>oh yeah guys we’ll have perfect gene exiting on less than 20 years
>haha wouldn’t you be like a smelly peasant retard sinner if you didn’t take out a second mortgage ASAP to make your kids better ZOG goblins?
>you do care about your kids and not being a smelly peasant normal human right anon
I can’t quite figure it out, we used to have a word for this before electionfags existed, it escapes me now.

[Anonymous No.10175273]

>>10175158
Polygenetic traits might not be fully controllable, but key genes in them can, i.e. mice were grown with human like myelin sheath and they were more intelligent. Improving things like sheath quality could certainly increase human intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10175279]

>>10175273
give source or fake and gay

[Anonymous No.10175283]

>>10175264
8 feet is ridiculous anon, at that height all sorts of stuff goes wrong with your abdomen.

[Anonymous No.10175297]

>>10174662
it does not follow that gene editting will necessarily enable selection of physical traits. We are still quite far from being able to figure out which genes control for phenotype. We can't even figure out how the beak shapes of Darwin's finches are encoded genetically.

[Anonymous No.10175309]

>>10175279
https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(13)00007-6

it was actually astrocytes, not myelin injected into the mice. Still smarter though

[Anonymous No.10175310]

>>10175273
found it

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/48/16153

It doesn’t really seem to indicate this would boost human intelligence other than fixing cog deficits from demyelination. Very interesting but more an advance in anti-neurodegenerative medicine and less an advance in cog performance enhancement. Would need to see substative proof of at least boosting primate intelligence and then some application for improved glial cells in humans along the lines of these murine and primate trials.

[Anonymous No.10175316]

>>10174966
>why would you do that
To avoid having to deal with women and the agony of childbirth
>and bottleneck reproduction
Why would artificial wombs create a genetic bottleneck?

[Anonymous No.10175322]

>>10175123
Gills on a mammal is not viable, water has very little dissolved oxygen in it compared to what you need. You would need a very low metabolism for it to work. Better to have expanded lung capacity and better oxygen storage in blood cells.

[Anonymous No.10175326]

>>10174738
if there's one thing OA gets right, it's that human civilization will only become more varied and fractured as time goes on

[Anonymous No.10175329]

>>10174662
>Picture this
>It's 2275
>Everyone died from cancer and the human race is extinct

[Anonymous No.10175603]

>>10174662
Really, people talk about ethical review and legislation and all things like that for year, but then now we just need one professor and all the system in place are failed. Not even a rogue professor but a professor that is affiliated with a university conducting the event at a proper hospital and also keep contact with western world professors. Yet the world still doesn't know until allegedly the baby get born. What is going to stop some actually rogue scientist from serving those with ill intent?

[Anonymous No.10175613]

>>10175603
I absolutely guarantee that no matter what the consensus of moralists around the world is, all the worlds major super powers will be secretly researching and practicing human genetic modification. China is absolutely going to keep doing it and Russia and the US aren't just going to let them have this tech for themselves.

At least if it's out in the open us normies can at least know about the results and economic forces will eventually make it affordable for us instead of just being used to make super soldiers

[Anonymous No.10175640]

>>10175613
>At least if it's out in the open us normies can at least know about the results
How can you tell. Even this particular case might not get follow through because of complexity surrounding the situation.

Actually, I suspect the ethical review isn't even that big of a reason here, if the scientist is actually one of China's target in their "thousand people program" to lure into China to help the Chinese technological development then China have every reason to suppress every news about the incident to prevent anything like that reaching Trump's ear as it would also count as intellectual theft one of the core concern in the trade war. Chinese government have already told its media the program cannot be reported anymore, however the news write themselves
Just imagine what Trump is gonna think/say if he saw this on fox tv right before he head to meet Xi

[Anonymous No.10175705]

>>10174831
On the contrary

I think Christians will endorse it in a few years time like they endorse medicine now and modern tech

Only a matter of time before the first/second genetically made Jesus

[Anonymous No.10175715]

Meat bags will still be inferior to full body replacement cyborgs with AI augmented brains.

[Anonymous No.10175841]

>>10175123
you have no idea how biology works do you?

[Anonymous No.10175846]

>>10175715
Maybe. Maybe not

[Anonymous No.10176055]

Regardless of all this Manlettaca talk, what do you all think of the crispy kids Lala and Nunu, and whether they should be allowed to reproduce?

[Anonymous No.10177073]

>>10176055
Sure. But we really need to take a look at the medical papers though.

[Anonymous No.10177076]

>Increase melanosome production

first thing id do to my kid

[Anonymous No.10177078]

>>10175329
Such genetic mmodificatin would probably decrease the rate of cancer.

[Anonymous No.10177094]

>>10175253
You are severely misunderstanding what I was saying.
The entire nation will be gnomes and there will be no large men. The nations of gnomes will completely out compete and dominate the ones with giants and the states will not allow their people to make their children large.

[Anonymous No.10177286]

>>10175264
>Sexual selection is a way to optimize for environmental fitness
An imperfect way. It can be cheated, faked and deceived. Women evolved to have larger butts, not because fat butts have any evolutionary advantage, but because it tricks the male into thinking she has wider hips than she actually does, which is the environmental fitness he was actually looking for. Similarly, men prefer women with less body hair and crotch hair because those women are generally younger. To counteract that, mature women simply had to shave.

So enhancing these superficial traits just because modern people find them attractive will not give us any long-term evolutionary advantages.

[Anonymous No.10177425]

>>10174908
yeah thats tough one to swallow

[Anonymous No.10177430]

>>10174908
>born after gene editing
>parents were drunk when they designed you and made you 5'6"

[Anonymous No.10177442]

>>10174662
>engineers
>genius level intellect
this is bait right

[Anonymous No.10177445]

>>10174662
>Would it be morally irreprehensible to have babies the natural way given that the alternative is 1000x better?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10177448]

>>10174856
>SEETHING MANLET

[Anonymous No.10177451]

>>10177430
>parents forget to un-check "Gyno" box before completing their order

[Anonymous No.10177453]

>>10174662
>super powers will be real

[Anonymous No.10177459]

>>10174662
Ah i've seen Gattaca too, good movie.

[Anonymous No.10177471]

>>10174725
How do you plan on banging the chicks then?

I reckon that blue chicks with antennae would look awful as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10177480]

>>10177448
sorry dude but optimization doesn't care about your memes
Large people have no place in the future. I'm not optimized myself but I don't take offense to it. I don't get why some people itt are getting offended by it.

[Anonymous No.10177490]

how do i get a job in china researching crispr do i need a biology Phd

[Anonymous No.10177570]

>>10177453
>Super Powers

[Anonymous No.10177922]

Who /horatio/ here

[Anonymous No.10177943]

>>10174966
>will not be obsolete so long as we have sex drives
It took me about 2 years to start masturbating to Trap assholes, it wouldn't take me long to start fucking them.

[Anonymous No.10177950]

>>10175076
It isnt 100BC. It doesnt matter if Roman manlets BTFO giant gauls.

[Anonymous No.10177995]

>>10174966
Taller people are more successful. Height and aesthetics clearly impact human psychology and happiness. By your assessment our biological imperative should be to create something like cubicle humans with genius intellects, that are placed into 5'x5', or smaller, chambers, hooked to reward center stimulation devices (or genetically manipulate the limbic system to maximize productivity), like some sort of hedonistic borg society.

I'll stick to my comfy villages, super-cities, and aesthetically pleasing super humans personally.

[Anonymous No.10177999]

>>10177995
>Taller people are more successful. Height and aesthetics clearly impact human psychology and happiness
Only in societies where height is socialized to be a beauty norm. Just like certain hair colors or skin colors. These are not evidence of innateness, if you study STEM you should know what constitutes actual evidence of causation vs just correlation.
Also you're not countering my argument about the objective benefits. My people will also have comfy villages, super cities, and aesthetically pleasing super humans. I'll just have more of them, for cheaper, and in all ways out-compete yours.
This is evolution.

[Anonymous No.10178652]

SUPERIOR GENETICS!

[Anonymous No.10178680]

>>10177995
Height is just a meme. It is currently a status marker because in the past rich people were taller.

[Anonymous No.10178706]

>>10174908
>>born after gene edited babies

Your Robo-Wife does not care what you look like.

[Anonymous No.10179000]

>>10174669
You'll get a lot of perfect designer chicks wanting to do you just for the kinkiness fucking a rare, exotic slob. You've got a bright future anon!

[Anonymous No.10179062]

>>10178706
Delete this image anon, I'm already suffering

[Anonymous No.10179066]

>>10175115
Maybe we can figure something out with consciousness or souls next

[Anonymous No.10179074]

>>10175261
But when everybody (or at least a significant amount of people) does it won't they all be the same?
People thought the internet would create an age of humans who would surpass their predecessors due to the free information.
But we all became more retarded.

[Anonymous No.10179100]

>>10178706
The sad part is, we dont need robo wifes for this to happen. They exist in the real world. But are so fucking rare after the (((sexual revolution))). Fuck kikes and fuck you.

[Anonymous No.10180422]

>>10177471
What kind of shit taste do you have?!

[Anonymous No.10180442]

>>10174662
How affordable is the technology? Will health insurance cover it?

[Anonymous No.10180500]

>>10177078
They said the same thing about vitamin C too.

[Anonymous No.10180555]

[Anonymous No.10180556]

>>10180442
t.selfish brainlet

[Anonymous No.10180566]

>>10180442
>How affordable is the technology?
Not that much, a middle-class westerner could affort it.
>Will health insurance cover it?
Only if you can convince politics to do so.

[Anonymous No.10180574]

>>10174662
>Would it be morally irreprehensible to have babies the natural way given that the alternative is 1000x better?

Yes. Anything else is just empty pseudomoralistic BS. I would be fucking pissed off if I knew my parents could genetically perfect me and choose not to do it.

[Anonymous No.10180919]

I've said this before and I will again
If the first majorly crispr'd generation comes of age when we're all elderly, they will euthanize us.

[Anonymous No.10180931]

>>10174662
Why would it be reprehensible. Attaining better genetics is the singular goal of all life on Earth.

[Anonymous No.10180937]

>>10180555
how are people ignoring these trips

[Anonymous No.10180967]

>>10180931
I'm on your side but what are better genetics?

[Anonymous No.10180973]

>>10180967
Bigger, more aesthetic cocks.

[Anonymous No.10180974]

>>10180919
Why should they kill their own parents? People who were genetically modificated for increased health and intelligence don't differ fundamentally from those who weren't modified.

[Anonymous No.10180977]

>>10180973
Even for the girls?

[Anonymous No.10181033]

>>10174852
>>10174977
I remember asking my micro professor about intelligence. He said that genetics do play a role in someone's intelligence but not nearly as much as one would think. Humans in regards to genetic intellect are incredibly similar so one's intelligence is far far more dependent on, "nurture" rather than, "nature."

[Anonymous No.10181040]

>>10181033
yeah thats why niggers have an average iq of 100, fucking retards spreading nurture over nature arent naturally smart enough to know how stupid they sound

[Anonymous No.10181050]

>>10181040
Well no. Consider the environment most of those inner city people grow up with. They aren't fed properly at a young age and most aren't raised in an environment that values education and thought. Genetics does have a role, but I'd argue its 10-20% nature and rest being nurture.

[Anonymous No.10181070]

>>10181050
Not a /pol/tard btw. My position is that intelligence is genetic to a large degree.

[Anonymous No.10181112]

>>10181050
Nature makes around 70-80% who we are.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf

[Anonymous No.10181115]

changing a few couple of genes in some specific pattern sounds way too easy of a solution specially if we're taking about biology.
I surely won't be living by the time designer babies will be a thing but I don't see a bright future for said technologies for the general public or even the elite, any form of eugenics being actively applied will be frown upon no matter class, religion or race.

[Anonymous No.10181149]

If it's not affordable it's essentially paid evolution. And evolution has always been selective to a degree.

[Anonymous No.10181596]

>>10174662
>> morally IR-reprehensible
more than bad grammar?

[Anonymous No.10182254]

>>10174725
You want us to turn into andorians?

[Anonymous No.10182271]

>>10174662
Perfecting gene editing isn't easy. Think about animals, there is a reason we don't have live stock that is immune to all diseases and grows perfect meat super fast. Hell, we don't even know how to do it with plants really well, and plants gene editing is a magnitude easier than animal's.

[Anonymous No.10182273]

>>10174662
Being 8 feet tall would lead to a pretty short life. I DO think it would be wrong to make someone so much taller or so much shorter than average height like that.

[Anonymous No.10182311]

>>10174984
It's the same thing today with the rift between Europeans/Asians and Africans. People are different. Populations are different.

The difference is that technology allows us to bridge the divide and take control of of our differences and our fates.

Yet people are seriously arguing that inequality is better left to chance and historio-geographic happenstance, rather than to human ingenuity and good will; that any future where we try to reign in our flaws and improve our health and abilities will inevitably become dystopian, or even is innately undesirable. These pessimistic luddites are the scum of the Earth, doing real harm and stealing our future.

[Anonymous No.10182317]

>>10174662
If it's easily available and confirmed to be 1000x better, then yes

[Anonymous No.10183044]

>>10174725
Because CRISPR is about what genetic makeup your children will have and, were you sane, you would never saddle them with future problems. Better then to go for safer and clearly beneficial traits.

[Anonymous No.10183051]

>Gene editing has been perfected
>2035


Lol, shows the arrogance of man. 20,000 genes, the deletion/editing of one could end up with unintended results that may not even be apparent until years down the line.

[Anonymous No.10183058]

>>10174997
>All evidence agrees with me.
First off you never mentioned any.
Secondly you never explained how things would work out in pre-history when it was more about nature and very little about culture.

[Anonymous No.10183070]

Can someone tell me what's currently holding back biotech and edited babies? Is it the cost? Is it the computational power? Like do we need more data?

I'm currently trying to figure out what to major in and I've been wondering if it would be better to do something like major in bioinformatics

[Anonymous No.10183073]

>>10183070
if you can’t figure this out inuitively you shouldn’t pursue a degree in a STEMfield. Ask broad question of yourself: what could go wrong, what would be difficult to manipulate, what don’t we know, what would be difficult to know, what might we overlook and where can we begin to reveal some of what we’ve been missing.

[Anonymous No.10183074]

>>10175083
Yes. Genetic warfare has been studied for decades. It is more low key than nuclear weapons and has far greater damage potential.

>>10175085
We? Most likely it would have to be voluntary.

>>10175097
If you are 2 m tall you will have difficulties fitting into a battle tank or a fighter aircraft.

>>10175329
That makes the wild assumption that cancer has not been defeated in 250 years.

>>10175613
>all the worlds major super powers will be secretly researching and practicing human genetic modification
Most likely many nations have already started.

[Anonymous No.10183078]

>>10174662
>morally irreprehensible
You lost me here

[Anonymous No.10183080]

>>10183058
When we analyze hunter gatherer societies (and other more advanced but non-western societies) there is no male taller norm and women do not care about height at all
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022110395140?journalCode=jcca&

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474915/

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/06/25/rsbl.2009.0342.short

http://www.lse.ac.uk/socialPolicy/Researchcentresandgroups/BSPS/pdfs/Sear_poster_2005.pdf

These societies are hunter gatherer and as such are evidence of how things worked during that period in human history, and have tens of of thousands of members, far more than necessary to draw statistical conclusion - height is a socialized beauty norm.
From there, all the other things I outlined (objective superiority in military capability, economic output, scientific output, and quantity of population for the same amount of resources) points to the obvious conclusion:
There is no place for large people in the future. Or more accurately, nations/states that makes people big will lose to those that make people small. I talk about making women bigger only because fecundity is directly related to female size, shorter women have more risk and as such they should be placed in the range where they don't have these risks but are still optimized to the lower bound.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8098291
https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2393-13-33
So we will create a society of small men and women, where the women are bigger relative to the men, but both are as small as possible.
I do not understand how a board full of supposed scientists and mathematicians do not understand everything I've written about so far. Why do you guys care at all? Are you really that irrationally angry that the Gnome Master Race is the future?

[Anonymous No.10183081]

>>10174725
Some one never heard of Argyria

[Anonymous No.10183084]

>>10174852
>monstrously immoral and unethical
Are you trying to be cute?

[Anonymous No.10183087]

>>10183070
Off-target mutations and editing large segments of the genome are the main challenges with CRISPR. So far it's only reliable for single nucleotide edits. Another issue is a lack of knowledge of how genes influence phenotype. The first problem with CRISPR is mostly an issue with molecular biology. The second issue has multiple approaches, but is currently being addressed with GWAS and big data, i.e. bionformatics. However these will only ever identify correlations and we need to verify that the SNPs identified are causal, their specific mechanism of action, and how they interact with other SNPs. This again is a molecular biology challenge and to me seems immensely challenging. Basically, bioinformatics will help us "find the needle in the haystack" so to speak, but we need to figure out how the needle actually works before we do anything.

[Anonymous No.10183096]

>>10179000
Not true.
Met a dating consultant. She declared me a no chancer. Not wanted on her register, would be like those unshiftable wrecks junking up the lot of a second hand car sale.
Only chance is a Thai woman with poor eyesight.

[Anonymous No.10183121]

>>10175068
The West is doing everything it can to cater to its weakest members(and imported members) in a broken morality. Anything viewed as being superior is "problematic" due to the hierarchies of power. The religious are opposition to scientific advancement as well because of biblical passages like "blessed are the meek, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Crispr is the the moral thing to do, but convincing a fractured society to pursue it will be tough. China doesn't give a fuck and will surpass the West.

Consider this, the US got stomped in the Olympics and made performance enhancing drugs in sports illegal.

[Anonymous No.10183458]

>>10183087
im pretty sure if we start pressing all the buttons the picture will reveal itself in no time.

[Anonymous No.10183614]

>>10183121
>China doesn't give a fuck and will surpass the West.
Except they put a halt to the research too. What gives?

[Anonymous No.10184111]

>>10174662
Imagine having the world’s sexiest baby!

[Anonymous No.10184846]

>>10174966
>a little under 6'
>under 6'
OH NO NO NO
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.10185478]

>>10183080
>I do not understand how a board full of supposed scientists and mathematicians
oh my sweet summer child
>do not understand everything I've written about so far
We understand it's just you insist on ignoring the obvious reality that calorie consumption is not a limiting factor for a society advanced enough to practice widespread genetic alteration nor is caloric efficeincy or population size ever going to give one nation any meaningful advantage over another in the modern world.
Like others have told you the current year is not 200 A.D.
Look at the United States -> literally paying people not to farm, overconsuming calories, low population density -> global hegemon.
Obviously geographical and intellectual resources matter far more than caloric and this will only become more apparent in the furture as humans are replaced in war and industry by automation.
The most successful nation will be the one with the best automation and that will be designed by the best brains and a bigger brain, which needs a bigger body to support it, will always be able to do more than a smaller one.
See pic related for the ideal make body. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
>Why do you guys care at all? Are you really that irrationally angry
Why do (YOU) care at all? Are you really that irrationally angry about being 5'10" king of manlets?

[Anonymous No.10185591]

>>10185478
>We understand it's just you insist on ignoring the obvious reality that calorie consumption is not a limiting factor for a society advanced enough to practice widespread genetic alteration nor is caloric efficiency or population size ever going to give one nation any meaningful advantage over another in the modern world.
Except that it would be the second most relevant change you can make other than just increasing average intelligence. An increase of intelligence mixed with minimizing size will be the two most important modifications that we can make to the human race.
>Why do (YOU) care at all? Are you really that irrationally angry about being 5'10" king of manlets?
No, because it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. The reality is as I've said and all you can say is "b-but people don't want that!" as a counter. It's irrelevant.
Large size is not optimal in any environment, it being the modern era doesn't matter because we're comparing the size relative to other sizes. Two super geniuses for the price of one WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER no matter what, in any environment, even if you include automation or any other tech, even if you can still support the one large one. That's the point.
No state is going to sacrifice quality and quantity of their citizenry just because women might get mad at the prospect of being the larger sex. It's irrelevant compared to the benefits gained.

[Anonymous No.10185841]

>>10175080
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=las98kr4H18
so optimal and aesthetic. Such a "real man".

[Anonymous No.10186003]

>>10180977
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10186083]

>>10174662
>drunk dads make you look like a randomly generated midget oblivion character
Being born before designer babies might be a blessing.

[Anonymous No.10186125]

>>10177471
You need to read more fanfics and remember that the Shape Of Water is a thing. Like a lot of women have weird kinks and probably would go for that shit.

I think this is probably untenable as an idea for a lot of guys because they've been rejected by women in the past, and with this in mind it can amount to "I would rather fuck a blue eccentric happy disorganized person with two antennae in their head and square eyes than you" or something like that.

[Anonymous No.10186316]

>>10174662
No, unless you’re stupid or fat. Both are correlated anyway.

[Anonymous No.10186324]

>>10175029
You clearly have no background in biology and don’t deserve a right to speak. It’s possible to make a effective trait through gmos already. Chinese gene edited babies, we cloned a goat, cured Silvia of that weird immunodisorder (ethics caught up and stopped them from continuing). I’m living in the age of retardants that think they’re helping the world by being dogs.

[Anonymous No.10186406]

>>10174662
Does anyone remember reading studies that show gene editing only holds for a few generations? Even in Gen 1 there is a massive loss of the edited genes. I'm on the bus and to last to search for them. It was something about fruit flys.
Is above is true, gene editing in humans seems only a short term meme technology.

[Anonymous No.10186414]

>>10186406
That's why you edit every embyro.

[Anonymous No.10186553]

>>10186414
I remember the study now. Essentially the fruit flys DNA referred back to a pre modified state each generation (including gen 0). Deleted dna was restored and included ones dropped.
Editing every embryo will not even garentee your first batch will all have the edit.

[Anonymous No.10186566]

>>10186553
Post the study then. Doesn't really make sense seeing as we've already directly edited crops already with no reversion to the original genotype.

[Anonymous No.10186787]

>>10174662
Watch the movie, "Gattaca" (1997).

>>10177459
Muh nigga.

[Anonymous No.10187004]

>>10179074
>But when everybody (or at least a significant amount of people) does it won't they all be the same?
the point is absolute goodness, not goodness relative to others
>People thought the internet would create an age of humans who would surpass their predecessors due to the free information.
>But we all became more retarded.
no we didn't, that's a reactionary stance with no backing that only gains traction among alt-right virgins

[Anonymous No.10187480]

>>10185591
>Large size is not optimal in any environment
Evolution disagrees.
Bigger brains are better and one nation can have as many monster-brained giants as another can have pea-brained midgets because humans are not made of rare elements. You can have as many as you want of any shape or size.
The deciding factor is who has the best technological resources and those will be acquired by the biggest brains who can compute and create on a level mini-brains can never aspire.

[Anonymous No.10187500]

>>10181070
Reported family income btw. My hypothesis is that black people like to flex. Notice that it my hypothesis is more likely than the "black people are dumb" hypothesis because mine doesn't have literal mountains of evidence refuting it

[Anonymous No.10188088]

>>10187480
You won't need larger brains with strong AI, smoothbrain.

[Anonymous No.10188163]

>>10183051
This. Also almost all personality traits (IQ, conscientiousness, the "gay" gene) are extremely heterogeneous.
They will probably have postnatal enhancements that directly affect the phenotype before they figure out how to edit all the genes that code for it.
What this will potentially be used for is congenital diseases that can be traced back to one gene, i.e. Cystic Fibrosis.

[Anonymous No.10188166]

>>10188163
>(((the white masterrace)))
>1 in 20 is a carrier for cystic fibrosis

[Anonymous No.10188357]

>>10188088
Did someone invent a way to get strong A.I. sweetie :>

Genetic engineering is already here and imaginary transistor-based intelligences cannot compare to the creativity and consciousness that already exist in the flesh that we merely have to enhance, soon biology will pave the way to a future of transendent thoughts the like of which your minibrain cannot conceive and a mega-brained humanity will spread it's seed of life across the very stars.

[Anonymous No.10190188]

>>10187480
why would they have smaller brains?

[Anonymous No.10190206]

>>10188166
you should see the kind of genetic diseases africans are prone to, its pretty fucking funny. not as bad as semites but its kind of obvious why they are on average ugly and slow witted.

[Anonymous No.10190446]

>>10188357
Why
None of it matters unless we create no conservative force or extra universal travel

[Anonymous No.10190500]

>>10175715
not in my timeline

[Anonymous No.10190528]

>>10174662
Not, it's just Amoral. Simply not taking action is not an action, in spite of what over-moralizers would say. Obviously your kid might resent you later in life when they can't make the cut for the football team, science team, art team, or any kind of competitive social activity because genetically modified kids outstrip them in some set of traits.
>>10174908
You could still get virus targeted gene therapies to change some of your traits, give you better and more efficient memory, put on some extra muscle. Obviously we adults will not be as genetically modifiable as still developing embryos or even children, but that doesn't mean we can't be modified at all.

[Anonymous No.10190871]

>>10188357
>muh Golden Path
t. Leto Atreides

[Anonymous No.10190884]

>>10183096
Yes it is. If everyone is a perfect overman, then having sex with you would be very disgusting and kinky. Further, your rawness may be attractive in the same way people like animals. Or in the same way Anglo men bred Native Americans, Africans, and other abos. Which they surely would've perceived more as animals than women.

[Anonymous No.10190897]

>>10174831
Liberalism and science comes from Christian culture and traditions, so I don't think so. Heretical American Christians that are outliers even in their own country, notwithstanding. You will find more opposition where the state and religious authorities are not separate, such as Japan (Buddhist authority is deeply intertwined with Japanese politics and very powerful) or any majority Muslim country.

[Anonymous No.10191987]

>>10190897
Natural philosophy predates Christianity. What is considered science, as in experimentation verifying hypothesis, was first done by Muslims (an early example is the Book of Optics where the competing hypothesis of Ancient Greeks were verified through experimentation). Christian thinkers from the 12th century have admitted to it as such. It took retarded revisionist like yourself to say otherwise.
>Heretical American Christians that are outliers even in their own country, notwithstanding
British Christian oppose genetic engineering of humans and so do most European Christians. It's banned throughout Europe.

Japan banned it because of Western influence.
>any majority Muslim country.
Iranians would probably support it like they supported cloning.

[Anonymous No.10192058]

It is morally not only justified but necessary to murder anyone who is involved in gene editing and wage war on a country that wants to start gene editing.

[Anonymous No.10192062]

>>10174662
picture THIS

[Anonymous No.10192067]

>>10192062

[Anonymous No.10192141]

>>10192062
>>10192067
where r u getting these?

[Anonymous No.10192179]

>>10192141
I spawned them in my bio-lab
you didn't think only the Chinese had access to CRISPR right?

[Anonymous No.10192234]

>>10191987
>was first done by Muslims
Not really, it was Thales of Milet who developed the system of explaining the world and the universe by theories and hypotheses.
Modern science, which is based upon the scientific method emerged in the academic institutions of europe during the 16th century.

[Anonymous No.10192251]

>>10192058
substantiate your claims
under what moral framework is it an imperative/obligation to murder gene editers?

[Anonymous No.10192716]

>>10181040
>iq
Already debunked.

iq is not science, anon. iq is pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.10192888]

How will we define "human" after we have gene edited babies?

[Anonymous No.10192974]

>>10190188
Relatively smaller, unless you plan on living in zero gravity the largest brains need will need the largest bodies to support them >>10190446
see pic related.
>>10190446
Why not? Did you have something better to do until the end of all things?

[Anonymous No.10193002]

>>10174856
Absolutely this. Far fewer health problems, use fewer resources, easier to fit more people in efficient urban housing... this is the right way to go.

[Anonymous No.10193018]

>>10174662
you would certainly doing your offspring a disservice by making them compete with seeded champions in every facet of their existence. just pick winning traits and then splash in a little of you and your significant other.

[Anonymous No.10193019]

We need to fix IVF before thinking about any of that.

[Anonymous No.10193052]

>>10174662
>>It's 2035
>>Gene editting has almost been perfected
That's a rather optimistic. We're just on the ground floor of this and working out a lot of the kinks as the technology becomes more sophisticated is almost guaranteed at some point.
People were gushing over Neural networks for the past few years, but most of the research into them has mostly gone back to governments as private companies aren't as enthusiastic about the technology when there's little in the way of low hanging fruit, and progress is gradual rather than revolutionary.

>>10174908
Gene therapy still works in adults, its just that the techniques have to be different. Its already being used to cure some cases of lukemia

[Anonymous No.10193078]

>/sci/, Metaphysics and Ethical whataboutism
I fucking hate this board, You have to go to /diy/ to get any pragmatic science related discussion in between the bolsa penises, soldering their genitals and burying themselves alive

[Anonymous No.10193090]

>>10193078
blame the nufags from social media and nu-/pol/ spillover

[Anonymous No.10193120]

>>10174856
>>10175094
Well be living longer due to genetic engineering anyway so height isn't a concern going into the future, and neither is living space when arcologies on planets and rotating habitats become a thing.

> women will be larger than men on average as fecundity is directly related to size/height
I do have to admit that is kinda hot because i do like tall women

[Anonymous No.10193128]

>>10174662
Watch Gattaca, you'll get an idea of what it would be like
>2035
>choosing traits freely WITHOUT ANY SIDE EFFECT
Kind of soon for a huge advancement in my opinion, but even if we manage to hit the goal at that time, you'll have to convince everyone that gene editing isn't unethical at all

[Anonymous No.10193171]

>>10175111
I'd unironically prefer to live in Brave New World.
I have no idea what point it was trying to make.

[Anonymous No.10193562]

>>10190500
Litreally made by a synthetic

[Anonymous No.10193588]

>>10181050
Modern geneticists strongly disagree with you. I’ve heard that genes make up anywhere between 50-80% of your intelligence “capacity,” and this is recent research.

[Anonymous No.10193594]

>>10174662
No let people do what they want, morality is a spook

[Anonymous No.10193599]

>>10190528
>Obviously we adults will not be as genetically modifiable as still developing embryos or even children, but that doesn't mean we can't be modified at all.
Just wait until they figure out how to regress a person to a teenage state using these techniques - imagine being able to restart puberty and modify yourself all over again.

[Anonymous No.10193672]

>>10174662
>8ft
Why would we want to give ourselves circulation and back problems?

[Anonymous No.10193694]

>>10174984
>chad with 200 IQ
that would mean 200 IQ would be the new 100 IQ kek. why is /sci/ full of retards? this thread is cancer.

[Anonymous No.10193836]

>>10174662
news flash it will be so tightly controlled and expensive only rich people can afford the necessary permits.

>>10174908
at least you arent born when they make the first fuck ups with 3 arms for a penis or something fucked up

>>10175111
not brave new world
we are going to be in blade runner
dumbed downed super loyal slaves for the 200iq+ elites to play with when they are bored from VR'ing all day while destroying whats left of countries.
imagine gene science so good, you make a cara delivinge looking chick thats totally subserveant like a dog is always horny. however thats likely 300 years away.

[Anonymous No.10193839]

>>10174662
will we ever get so good at genes editing
we can create any creature by "programming" all attributes we want like programming machine code and have the computer build out the gene sequences

[Anonymous No.10194276]

I like to think in my lifetime gene fuckery will really start to help people. Don't know about improving people though, still seems far away. And 2035 is WAAAAAAAY to short.

[Anonymous No.10194299]

How am I supposed to compete with all the future crispr babies that have 12 inch dicks? We’re all thinking it but nobody has said it yet

[Anonymous No.10194567]

>>10194299
other gene therapy technologies, using CRISPR on embryos isn't the only method
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/modified-t-cells-attack-leukemia-become-first-gene-therapy-approved-united-states