sciencealert.com
Why are people so upset about this? Humans subconsiouly "design" their babies all the time. Females try to find guys who are good looking, smart and have the traits they want. What difference does it make if its done genetically in a lab.
If you could get rid of bad eyesight, autism, being short, ugly, etc from birth, why not do that?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
theanarchistlibrary.org
twitter.com
get rid of non whites!!!!!!!!!
only jews like soros who loves shitskins are upset.
Pretty sure it can't modify anyone's race. It can make you naturally more smart or immune to disease
bullshit it cant
The problem is that when you modify one gene for problem A, it happens to be the same gene that alters feature X, Z, AA, AB, and CQ.
>no proof
>no ethical approval
>own uni never heard of it before
Wake me up when it's half-believable.
>What difference does it make if its done genetically in a lab.
There used to be the view of genetics that you'd find separate genes for every trait, so modifying one to make you taller or smarter out whatever would be easy. Now they've moved to a massively polygenic view, which assumes that genes that affect one trait also affect many others. So modifying an IQ gene, you might end up causing schizophrenia or something. Impossible to know what will happen because there's so many genes of tiny effect.
Also cancer
It's an imperfect technology and no one really knows what messing with a shitload of alleles does.
Apparently if you mess with more than a certain number at once you just get nonviable mutants. Maybe there are more subtle things you can mess with that have more subtle consequences.
Perfection of this technology is going to require a lot of human experimentation. A lot of failed subjects.
iq of 500 with schizophrenia + aids, or a Jow Forums shitposter. which would you pick
non whites will be a relic of the past
>muh ethical approval
Sheeple are really naive.
>Why are people so upset about this?
Because the side effects are completely unknown and it affects a person's entire genetic line going forward.
No that's not the problem
because we cant have chinks running around with White features
because the chinks invented it first while the west was too busy coddling NIGGERS
China is making a clone army, this is just the first step
because the chinks will gene edit the bigger dick genes onto themselves
>chinks invented genetics
this
the ethical argument is that you're editing and removing genes that could potentially condemn the genome of these people, yet they are still people with human rights.
>China is making a clone army
they already have more than a billion people. If the conscripted 5% of their men they'd have like 40 million men in their military. That's more than the entire population of most european countries. What the fuck do they need clones for? It'd be cool as fuck but still
because the west is too busy babysitting its nigger populating and plotting how to get more Whites to racemix with shitskins while the chinks invest a gene editing machine on humans
Nice reading comprehension dumbass.
too busy being a nigger coddler to develope proper reading comprehensional skills
youtube.com
>Pretty sure it can't modify anyone's race
Huh? If you replace the parts of a nigger's DNA that makes him a nigger, you're left with a non-nigger.
It's smart of China to keep a low-key profile on this issue.
The Whitoids will cry a lot and in worst case scenario will adapt it somehow.
However when keeping it quiet China will surprise buttfuck you Whitoid shits.
It's true that, to date, none of these biological self-prop systems has come close to threatening the survival of any of the dominant global self-prop systems, but present-day biotechnology is still in its infancy in comparison with what we can expect for the coming decades. As human interventions in biology reach further and further, the risk of disastrous consequences continually rises, and as long as the technological equipment needed for such interventions exists, there are no practicable means of controlling this risk. Small groups of amateurs are already dabbling in genetic engineering. 42 These amateurs wouldn't have to create synthetic life or do anything highly sophisticated in order to bring on a disaster; merely changing a few genes in an existing organism could have catastrophic consequences. The chances of disaster in any one instance may be remote, but there are potentially thousands or millions of amateurs who could begin monkeying with the genes of microorganisms, and thousands or millions of minute risks can add up to a very substantial risk.
THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS
121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.
122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.
123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. [19]
124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial- technological system. [20]
That's exactly the reason why people are upset. Imagine a world full of Chads and Stacies.
theanarchistlibrary.org
Biotechnology May Be The Best Target For Political Attack.
Probably the most promising target for political attack is the biotechnology industry. Though revolutions are generally carried out by minorities, it is very useful to have some degree of support, sympathy, or at least acquiescence from the general population. To get that kind of support or acquiescence is one of the goals of political action. If you concentrated your political attack on, for example, the electric-power industry, it would be extremely difficult to get any support outside of a radical minority, because most people resist change to their way of living, especially any change that inconveniences them. For this reason, few would be willing to give up electricity.
But people do not yet feel themselves dependent on advanced biotechnology as they do on electricity. Eliminating biotechnology will not radically change their lives. On the contrary, it would be possible to show people that the continued development of biotechnology will transform their way of life and wipe out age-old human values. Thus, in challenging biotechnology, radicals should be able to mobilize in their own favor the natural human resistance to change.
>spend your career building vat-grown ubersoldat for your gommunist overlords
>get unpersoned for your troubles because you hurt the roundeyes feefees
China will continue to be the West's bitch until they fully embrace the truly nihilistic aspects of the human condition
-Chairman Shenji Yang, "Looking God In The Eye