/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>6335060
>If we have the power to fix these problems
Unfortunately not friendo. I'm Molecular Biology grad and the possibility of safe and successful gene editing within next two decades is extremely low. We will reach the stars one day, yes, but not anytime soon.
This leaves us with the only existing gene sets/pool and your suggestion.
>Eugenics is a political term.
It is. And without a CocaCola or Ferrari tier marketing campaign, it will remain as one.

This one >>6335485
has one thing right for example, your cool new thingy needs to be profitable for the current wealth owners. Now for their profit to keep coming they need people buying shit they don't need. Making any group of people smarter is bad for global consumerism, thereby for their profits given that a slightly smarter society is less likely to spend frivolously.
Such phenomena will put you against IRL whales, and you will get counter marketed as literal Hitler.

>>6336362
There is also a problem with your presupposition. You are basically saying we do IVF with very hayai sequencing for general intelligence markers and then we select the one with the best markers.
> to create eggs from skin cells
iPSC is still juvenile, there is no way that shit falling into a market within a decade. Original stem cells and iPSC's still are found to be different in some genetic aspects which are not defined fairly well.
Now for IVF type of screening, you need to be aware of ECM effects. I don't know if you can comprehend but the link I will put below is one about it and its breathtaking. It basically says, and extremely low physical force application changes cell genetic machinery drastically within 15 seconds. Now imagine why IVF kids are much more likely to be retarded/prone to sickness.
>THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF CELLS
Literally a laughing stock.

So all in all, we are not there yet.

Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat4729