Sup Forums Let's talk about genetic engineering

Hello Sup Forums, I have a paper on the ethics of genetic engineering on my medical law class, and i am told to watch gattaca and read some stuff. But i would rather be redpilled about genetic engineering from you, my dear board

So Sup Forums should we as a society impose mandatory genetic engineering on humans and most importantly on human fetuses(aka before they are born and achieve human rights,therefore treat them more like objects than humans-order to deliver) for the betterment of our society strictly as a means to an end?

>discuss freely

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY
bluebrain.epfl.ch/page-52741-en.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There is nothing wrong with genetic engineering experimentation. All """ethical""" restrictions should be lifted.
There is nothing ethical about thwarting progress.

Tthe problem is, there should be some ethical control over every aspect of our lives, especially genetic engineering, because a lack of ethics control is a lack of societys control and therefore the ruin of the essense of what humanity is.

Mitochondrial manipulation technologies already exist.

You couldn't stop this if you wanted to.

>some ethical control
Maybe not in every aspect, Big Brother.
But yes there need to be some restrictions in the IMPLEMENTATION of this tech. However the current laws are too restrictive, and Im just talking about experimentation. Not commercial application.
Eventually designer babies will be a thing.
A very good thing.

well it could be stopped if we really wanted it or needed to

Most likely to happen in the future, but to a limited extent because of "muh religions" and "muh human rights".

Using socialised health care, provide pre implantation genetic diagnosis to everyone (genetic disease wiped out from all people in a few generations).

Then from there use CRISPR to provide minor improvements across the whole population.
Humanity becomes healthier and no two tier society is formed. No one is killed.

Easy.

Anyone who disagrees with this is a luddite.

If you had a worldwide coalition for it.

Realistically it would just move to another country that permits it. i.e. CHYNA

You should still watch gatacca it's a pretty fun movie.

>before they are born
>treat them like objects instead of human beings
According to the left, this is obvious.
The unborn have no rights.
Doing things that would harm a fetus or alter its potential is entirely up to the mother.
End of discussion.
And I won't tolerate any of your patriarchal bullshit.

That's very true, so in an essence it will be a new arms race towards a superior race, and if one country makes it mandatory(china russia) all others must follow and that pretty much is what gattaca is all about

oh i saw it yesterday it was a great movie

can you please leave politics out of this burger? i dont care about your pc bullshit we dont have that here.

There are certain genes I have that I would never willingly inflict upon another human being, so I know I won't have children unless I can selectively purge those things from their inheritance.

Will the superior race just be high IQ robots that feel an irresistable urge to work 16 hour days for low pay? That is what an economy demands.

Its not high IQ free thinkers who want a larger share of the pie. A billion selfish geniuses would destroy a country.

Cystic Fibrosis?

what? in a future like this working 16 hours is nothing, a superior human might need to sleep for mere minutes each night not hours so when you have a 23 hour day working 16 hours is normal, isnt it?

Not to mention that higher iq people find meaning on their work and like to challenge themselves, working isnt bad working creates character

Gattaca isn't a great film though

I see they wont need to change much in you to make you better for The Economy.

i was high and i liked it, it could use some improvments(like the ending) but it was very nice

No. Sub par complexion, digestion issues, depression, mood swings.

Intelligence is just pattern recognition. Stop being an idiot. It doesn't include being emotionally mature, at all sane, moral, hard working, having perfect skin or whatever the shit your dumb ass thinks it does.

my dear potato eater, we are the economy, we thrive when it thrives

intelligence my dear swedecuck is pattern recognition AND emotional maturity AND everything else

Good goy.

Id rather own you and the economy and change your genetics to make you a willing slave.

No. And before you get to embarrassing yourself further, it doesn't include knowledge either.

there is no saving for you, i am so sorry

cro magnon shows that European didn't i repeat didn't come from Africa.

>genetic disease wiped out from all people in a few generations

You know, the technology to remove a disease genetically is already there but it's illegal to cure it in a way that is hereditary, or so I've heard, I was discussing eugenics with my biology teacher.

It's not hard to guess why. If you have to cure every generation individually, you can make more money from the expensive treatments.

so for the betterment of makind we must eliminate capitalism?

>illingly inflict upon another human being, so I know I won't have children unless I can selectively purge those things from their inherit


damn, such as?

I think China will be the first country to commercialize the designer baby industry. They're not as concerned with the ethical aspects of it as we are.

we must not play god. anyways, why you want some gross clone baby that isnt even yours. next minute all jews will be missing there curls and nose, and you wont be able to identify them for the purge.

natural selection is important. we can just have ugly people having attractive children, they have to work reallllly hard then pull some smoking babe, then produce slightly less ugly children, until eventually you produce a child that looks like I do.

Its natures way of getting ugly people to kill themselves.

what ethical aspect concerns you more about genetic engineering?

the baby is yours, its just the best of you, its your own material you just not leave it at chance on what will be transfered. For the sake of you i really hope you have more beauty than you have brains.

Pre implantation generic diagnosis is already in use. We will see disease free children in the coming decades.

Me? None. I think that we should actively put all our resources to work to make it literally like the movie "Gattaca" as soon as possible.

OK can you genetically engineer some kangaroo human aboriginal hybrid so I can have sex with her

Probably been said before but:
The problem as I see it is it turns humans in to a product designed to fulfill a purpose.

I would be OK will GM humans if they improved upon the existing genetic design. Removing the chance of genetic disease, reducing chance of existing disease, improving IQ, etc.

If i were in charge, a lets be honest I should be, I would create a small number of superhuman's and release them in to the general public unaware. In a few generations those improved genes would inevitably improve the genetics of the species through normal procreation. Like a reverse eugenics.

I remember reading somewhere that most people, within the same geographic area, are related within only a few generations. I think my idea would work.

You shut your whore mouth

But wouldnt such a thing detach us from our ancestry faster than we have even been before? See what industrial revolution did, now if we were to become smarter faster stronger better we would experience an unpreceded leap towards the unknown, and that could destroy us so we need to research and guide the evolution based on the ethics of our society.
The question is. What those ethics that will guide our hand should be?

Sure, it could increase the average IQ by 2 points after 100 years maybe.

Absolutely.

And based on which criteria would you choose those select people, what about people that can afford this echancement but are not selected, can they buy it? If yes then why not make it available to the general public from the start, why create a subset of hyperhumans and let nature take its slow path, what i say is can we cut the middle man?

yeah nah but i got WE WAZ somewhere far back enough in line. i could produce some dark skinned melalonine thing with maroon eyes and a horse cock. genes of a god here mate.

but seriously its like bitches who get fake noses or tits. yeah before you do it you think your life will be better, but boom its just the same if not worse after getting it. now you have back issues and an unsymmetrical face.

you're manipulating a whole hose of shit that could fuck up, real bad real quick. you wanted some purist baby, BOOM the things now braindead cause you didnt splice it right n tight.

i would never do it. roll the dice you pussy cunt. how sad do you have to be to have that much desire for control over your children. ew.

You do know how IQ scores are created right? That 100 is just the average on a bell curve?

You do know that your IQ is a good 15 points higher than your grandfathers generation. IQ changes pretty quickly per generation. If you were to go back in time, just 200 years, you would consider people to be retarded.

And implement what? Automatation?

Are you the guy that punched a kangaroo?

How? By legalizing inter-racial marriage?

I do fight roo's but most just punch darts n cones and smash tinnies n hoes. some times i'll whip my horse cock out for a cheeky yada yada with a roo but only if its tails long enough ya know what i mean.

Although i was initially confused to a degree about the topic at hand. Are you proposing a privatization of genetic manipulation or a state wide public one.

doesn't chyna just leave the undesirable ones in buckets in the snow?

i think the argument would change drastically depending though.

Genetic engineering should be used to remove inheritable/genetic diseases, to improve the physical aspect of humans (immunity to toxins, higher ability to deal with G forces or weightlessness, strength, speed, etc), and maybe a few cosmetic things (implying 90% of darkies aren't gonna make themselves white). In fact, I would set up a system exactly like Gattaca -- taking the best genes of each parent. A more 'organic' way of improving the genetic stock with less risk then jumping into the deep end headfirst.

I would limit severely any mental changes. At this point we have a very limited understanding of how our mind and brain really work together, being such a chaotic/emergent system. A small change 'for the better' could lead to big problems in the future where we might have broken a key function in the brain and people start going insane at 25.

Besides, homogeneity in the way and the ability of how humans think would definitely be a limit (in my eyes) to how adaptable we are. New and different ideas have been driving humans for thousands of years. It doesn't make sense to limit the pool.

Tl;dr Humans should be improved geneticically but only in a general, not overly specific way in order to maintain genetic diversity. Specific changes will create caste systems and unrest.

niggers are a danger to humanity, yet they they keep them alive.

Ethics has on more than one occasion stood in the way of progress. We need to get the right scientists who are willing to push the boundaries.

China has the right idea. Ambition and will is going to get us somewhere.

>And based on which criteria would you choose those select people
You mean selected to be enhanced? You would need volunteer parents from all sections of society to give best dispersion, the larger the ratio of people the larger number of GM humans. It would be a good idea to find the best candidates based of their parents capacities.

> If yes then why not make it available to the general public from the start, why create a subset of hyperhumans and let nature take its slow path, what i say is can we cut the middle man?

No, because you cannot know what the long term effect of those changes will be. Not just physically but mentally and emotionally. It has to be highly controlled. The GM humans cannot be identified, they must live normal lives.

Theirs an awful lot of problems with letting the general public have access to GM. A specific trait may be desirable and entered in to the genome. When it could be that trait was being removed through evolution for what ever reason.

It's a much better idea to improve the species rather than create a product built for a purpose. That way you don't filter out possible necessities accidentally, as the needed traits will remain in the majority of the population and so will remain.

Why is eugenics frowned upon? Getting rid of the retards and cripples should be a good thing, right?

>A specific trait may be desirable and entered in to the genome. When it could be that trait was being removed through evolution for what ever reason.

But the baseline is with genetic engineering we are gods we control where we go not nature not chance, we will not care where nature wanted us to go, we are the nature now

What is this 'essence'? Sounds suspiciously like a 'soul'...

The answer is short and simple. YES.

Eugenics through a certain degree would be not only acceptable but benefitial in the long run (less inheritable diseases, less defects = less money lost). Don't let ethicshits say otherwise.

What is the point in manipulating mitochondrial DNA, tho? I thought that errors in there already ment death by default.

>But the baseline is with genetic engineering we are gods we control where we go not nature not chance, we will not care where nature wanted us to go, we are the nature now

Nature doesn't know where it wants to go either. That's why we have evolution. If all the food was on the top shelf at supermarkets we would all be 7ft tall. We are a product of the environment.

We have the knowledge to steer evolution in a direction we want to go, which is what I'm proposing. If it's the wrong way then nature will filter out our mistakes through generations.

Take a trait we know is positive, high IQ for example. Those people will have a better job, they won't go hungry, their money makes them desirable to women and so have a higher chance to procreate and pass that trait on. But! High IQ creates social issues, reducing the chance of procreation. Eventually, the negative traits will remove themselves via this method.

Right now, we are still a product of evolution, which doesn't care about income or job. The problem with this is we are no longer a part of nature, we change our environment to suit us. We need to change our evolutionary direction to accommodate for this change.

The human specie is about 100k years old tho

>tfw when you realise people capable of high quality discussion are still present in your country
i r8 8/8

I think we should all just get naked and have an orgy.
that way the strongest swimmers will survive and natural selection will trump all unnecessary debating about requirements of genetic alteration.

>lets all get naked

>lets fuck

>you can bring your roo if ya want

>yeah cunt tongue punch me fat box

>nibble me nipple dicks

(((They))) like it that way. Keeps the Aryans focused on bullshit the nig nogs do while (((they))) continue to undermine western civilization.

Why are people responding to this retard? Literally the first rule
>>Red pill me on x. Threads are not allowed

>i am told to watch gattaca and read some stuff
this is why I can't take people discussing ethics seriously. Whenever there is something about AI, genetic engineering, life extension and stuff there are always retarded redditors-like people that come forward and say
>yeah I read a [sci-fi novel, I saw a movie,etc.. ] about that and it was bad, so we should ban it lol

fuck you cunts, can't you think by yourselves instead of relying on fucking fiction

>politics board
>responding to politicized post with further politicized post
Just a little banter.

Human genetic engineering is a certainty.

>cyprus
>we are the economy

If you don't know the ultimate purpose of life then how would you know what could be considered progress? There could be a attributes that your not considering important that may be the key later on down the evolutionary path. Nature knows what it's doing better then us.

>Nature knows what it's doing better then us.
Go live in the forest then hippie.

Why would you want even more censorship? The effects of genetic eng are absolutely a political issue.

I am a fucking engineer you cheeky cunt. But hear me out. A thousand years ago you would have thought strength was everything. You may have considered intelligence to be inferior. And so breed a country of bruts. But next door they eventually worked out that if they shot you from a distance you strength would mean nothing. All your selective breeding would have destroyed you country.

Nature does not know outright what would work, it has to make a shitload of errors before it found the best attributes. How is it any different than what we would do, especially since we could more or less predict what could happen while nature cannot?

Nature would try all options indifferently. Where as a Human would only consider the obvious. For example some disable people are born with immunities and genetic advantages in certain areas that may not have been considered useful when designing the perfect human. What is progress?

youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

It's already here, and it's going to get cheaper, better, and more used. There's no stopping it.

As for the ethics, I don't know. But I think we should have gene banks with unaltered DNA so we at least have the possibility of fixing things after we inevitably fuck it up.

I find hard to believe that immunities and genetic advantages could be a consequence of an handicap unless some guys find a way to kill people with noises or lights, but I see your point.
Most problems could be solved with gene editing in adult life if such a thing become possible and efficient imo, you could always reverse an error unless it proves fatal of course.

>Nature would try all options indifferently
You need random mutations for that. And to apply it on a global scale would take millions of years. Any society that develops significantly better traits is going to leave others in the dust. The western world is too spoiled from being top dog for so long. What if the Chinese become ubermensch all of a sudden? Are you still gonna just sit idly by?

Also developing better traits doesn't mean you have to forego others. So progress can and is objective barring unforeseen medical complications. Who wouldn't like to be smarter or stronger with no downsides?

>What is the point in manipulating mitochondrial DNA, tho?
more efficient energy, duh. More mitos per cell, more durability, more energy for the host.

If I could be stronger and more intelligent with no downside would. But take the human brain. It was created over a million failures. Could humans have done the same thing from scratch? Are we really at the level where we can improve on nature's design?

>Could humans have done the same thing from scratch?
bluebrain.epfl.ch/page-52741-en.html
Not quite there yet. But considering it took nature literally billions of years I think it's safe to say we're developing much faster.

Yes, but does that genome regulate the duplications. And if it does, do you want your child to become oxidated and die faster?

Got me there user! Fine when you mates have finished their project I would feel much more confident. And don't misunderstand user. I am not ethically apposed. I'm just voicing my apprehension. Confrontation is required for growth.

a lot of technology, including eugenic genetics, should not be sold or shared with jews, blacks, sino-tibettans, pygmies, etc. Eugenic genetics for whites is good. Israel buying Scandinavian ovum/sperm for patching up their shitty race is morally wrong. Genetic miscegenation is politically incorrect. Clawing back our Europid technological and knowledge investiture from the out-groups is necessary, good and reduces white man's burden.