/sci/ - Science & Math

ok

>>10323092

>>10323092
you won't be laughing when your parents trade you in for a kid that isn't a dumb shitposter

Gene editing isn't ethical faggot. You are meddling with the code of a baby that can't consent.

>>10323146
Then how is abortion ETHICAL

>>10323092
Ok Khan

>>10323162
It's ethical because you were taking it from the void against its own consent. So using abortion you send it back and return things to neutrality

>>10323165
All genetically engineered babies will return to the void eventually. Are you sure your just not afraid some black people will be made smarter then whites

>>10323175
>Are you sure your just not afraid some black people will be made smarter then whites

There is no reason to believe blacks are any dumber than whites.

>>10323181
Hmm... have you ever lived around them in a lower claret neighborhood

>>10323175
But once they're born it's closer to murder because they can be given away and shit.

>>10323196
Why not force people to care for their children on penalty of forced labor to pay for thier childs care if they dont

>>10323162
It isn't either.

>>10323165
lol do we call it „the void“ now, alright

>>10323092
Gene editing is perfectly fine and fits under the ethical code.
OP has an extra chromosome that's why he's shitposting

>>10323146
Parents having the legal and moral authority to make consent decisions for their children is a long established part of research ethics, try again.

>>10323146
Right, I'm sure your son born with MS is going to thank you for making the """ethical""" decision to let him be born with a horrific disorder that effectively ruins his life.

>>10323092
WHO THE FUCK CARES
lets do it anyways

>>10323092
I don't see what's wrong with gene editing. I mean I'd never go double denim but that fashion crime is their choice, leave them to it.

>>10323842
How is MS ruinging his life in that choice? If they hadn't let him live he'd have been born without it, is that what you're arguing?

>>10323905
If gene editing is readily available to all, that means that anyone born with any crippling illness, disease, or condition was knowingly brought into the world in that state. Their parents have to have made a conscious decision to bring them into this world instead of a healthy human.

>>10323921
But at that point it becomes a division of those who can and those who cannot, which just increases the divide of the sick also being poor and the rich also being healthy. Even if it might be "affordable" it could easily still be out of rich for many families that aren't well off.

>>10323092
but i want muh catgirls

>>10323146
Having a baby isn’t ethical, faggot. They can’t consent to being created DUUUUUR

>>10323927
“Readily available for all”

READ NIGGA. Gene editing should be covered under the state healthcare system.

>>10323092
Gene editing is ethical when it means the kid will be free of disease that natural selection hasn't gotten rid of yet.

>>10323975
Gene editing is ethical when it does anything non-harmful.

>religious people will lynch anyone who dares play with genetics
>meanwhile in reality

>"This couple want a deaf child. Should we try to stop them? "
>"Like any other three-year-old child, Molly has brought joy to her parents. Bright-eyed and cheerful, Molly is also deaf - and that is an issue which vexes her parents, though not for the obvious reasons. Paula Garfield, a theatre director, and her partner, Tomato Lichy, an artist and designer, are also deaf and had hoped to have a child who could not hear."
>"'We celebrated when we found out about Molly's deafness,' says Lichy. 'Being deaf is not about being disabled, or medically incomplete - it's about being part of a linguistic minority. We're proud, not of the medical aspect of deafness, but of the language we use and the community we live in.'"

>>10323927
your envy is showing

a good being available to only the privileged does not detract from its goodness

>>10324055
Yes it does. It makes it something bad.

>>10323146
You’re editing a bunch of cells, it isn’t a human remember? Otherwise abortion would be morally wrong

>>10323905
That would only be an even tradeoff if the risk of HIV infection before editing was equal to the increased risk of MS after editing

>>10323976
Gene editing is ethical when its used to sterilize disruptive populations

>>10324104
Back to /pol/.

>>10324064
You're wrong, regressive commie. Stop dragging humanity down to the lowest common level.

>>10323146
>supports gene editing the food he eats; claims it's no different than selective breeding.
>pro abortion

>it's absolutely abhorrent to allow gene editing, these aren't clumps of cells, they are people!
No matter how you fight this technology it's already a proven fact it's coming. CRISPR at home kits need to become affordable and easy to use. Luddites like you will ensure that only the rich can afford these boons of human enlightenment.

>>10323921
CRISPR is the mark of the beast.

>>10324174
You’re wrong, regressive capitalist. Stop denying essential healthcare to the masses.

>>10324183
God isn’t real. Go to /x/.

>>10324217
It watermarks your DNA, it leaves a signature.

>>10324230
Literally does not matter.

>>10324230
Okay then retroviruses in human DNA already did that

>>10323113
IMPORTANT

>>10323162
Because a branch of politicians say it's ok and that branch of politicians will vote for more public funding of science and will tell us that we have a high IQ.

>yfw /sci/ is slowly getting more and more redpilled

>>10323113

want

>>10323092
The big problem is, that is not your kid.
It's not your genes anymore, if you edited them.
Parents of gene edited babies have their line end with them, it's worse than being a cuck.

>>10324624
Hardly relevant if its detrimenal alleles you yourself would want to be rid of.

>>10323146
this
>>10323162
its not

>>10323146
A person doesn't consent to being born, either. And consent is a nonsensical concept before personhood anyway. It's called "age of consent" for a reason.

>>10324688
There is no “age of consent”. That’s a nonsense concept too.

>>10324728
Spotted the Democrat

>>10323146
There exists no non-religious reason why anything is ethically wrong. If there was then there would exist a reason not to do it that applies even to people who want to do it and who feel they benefit from it.

Moral value is a religious belief, it has never been scientifically measured. From a scientific perspective it doesn't exist. The idea that a baby has the same moral value as me is a Christian idea. Pre-Christian Europeans didn't think that anyone weaker than themselves had moral value. Look at the proud man of aristotle. When a higher and more virtuous man exert power on the weak then it is always justice.

>>10323092
>REGULATE GENE EDITING WITHOUT REGULATION EVERY NATION COULD BE INCENTIVIZED TO EDIT RECKLESSLY AND UNETHICALLY

>>10324728
Found the child predator

THE EMBRYO DID NOT CONSENT

NO BRITHS WITHOUT WRITTEN SIGNED CONSENT OF EMBRYO

CMON ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID

CONSENT OF EMBRYO TO BE BORN IS REQUIRED BEFORE GIVING BIRTH

>>10324806
>here is how we win this argument
>lets invent a consent requirement
>lets have said consent requirement ONLY apply to genetic modification.
>ignore such consent requirement when discussing abortion, womb conditions, if it wants to be born at all, or any number of other issues

WE HAVE IT BOYS

The embryo did not consent to genetic modification therefore it should be illegal

NO, you may not argue the logic, consistency, or anything else about this claim of consent requirement. We invented a magical carve out and it can't be questioned.

guys this bioethicist argument about consent is really convincing me

how do they consistently apply it to abortion? They are consistent right and not just cherry picking like low IQ monkey shitbrains right?

>>10323146
>>10323162

How is birth ethical?

>>10324854
SJWs apply it to abortion. Not us

>>10324854
>consistency=ethical

Who the fuck cares about embryos? Are these people retarded? We all have no recollection of existence before our mind was able to retain memories in the long term, our existence isn't even meaningful until almost 3 years. If someone had chose to abort me before I was born I wouldn't be upset about it because nothing gained nothing lost, I never was and never will be, but no one aborted me so now I am, and so are all of you and we just have to deal with it. Why would you not jump at the opportunity to allow someone to edit your existence INTO A BETTER VERSION OF ITSELF?

By impeding the progress of eugenics and gene editing WE ARE ROBBING FUTURE GENERATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL GREATNESS OF THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCE.

Imagine if retards could have the opportunity to think clearly. They would be crushed a la Flowers for Algernon. Imagine if you could have just been born a better person. Imagine again if you could have been born a better person but then you learned your parents thought that was unethical and let you live a miserable mediocre life instead. Imagine waking up knowing you are unable to comprehend the world as well as you potentially could, all because OTHER PEOPLE thought this wasn't right for YOU? Some of you assholes want to talk about consent, CONSENT TRANSCENDS THE ARGUMENT because it excludes the possibility that a person WOULD WANT what we are offering.

LIFE IS NOT SACRED, WE WILL MAKE IT SACRED. Think about death. We will all die anyway. It follows then that murder is not the worst thing you can do to a person, because there are unholy imaginations that could do things that would make you wish you were dead. Now think about a time when we have increased human lifespan to 800 years. Murder of an adult today robs someone of 40-60 years of life. Murder then will rob an adult of CENTURIES. Giving us this taste of life, as it exists right now IS A JOKE.

GOD KNOWS HE HAS MADE A MISTAKE AND WE WILL CORRECT THAT MISTAKE

>>10324912
>WE ARE ROBBING FUTURE GENERATIONS OF THE POTENTIAL GREATNESS OF THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCE

But think of all the disprivileged peasants and unfortunate idiots who'd have a high bar to measure their lives against! If everyone lives in darkness and misery, nobody does!

Or so the leftist would think.

>>10324871
Debating the ethics of abortion is a retarded waste of time. It's pretty fucking obvious that abortions are unethical. However, outlawing abortion isn't ever going to be pragmatically viable, because people are fucking retarded. It's not a good idea.

>>10324790
Not an argument. Provide a testable and objective basis for the concept of “age of consent”. Chronological age alone does not mean anything.

>>10324734
^

>>10324230
This reminds me of last night when I marked your mom with my DNA, if you catch my drift, faget.

>>10323092
Gene editing isn't intrinsically bad, but if you don't know what you're really doing or the tools at your disposal has off-targeting, you're letting someone grow up with potentially more problems than you were trying to solve to begin with. Right now, there are people dumb enough to think we can just do gene editing to "turn on the smart genes" or some bullshit, and if the scientists have no ethical code, they'll say "uh sure" and whoops turns out the kid is mentally fucked because the human brain isn't that simple who knew

>>10324064
Then you don't know what "Good" is. By your definition, it doesn't even exist. Say for example you help clean up a homeless guy and offer him a job. Good? Apparently not, because there are many more homeless people you didn't to that for. What an utterly absurd notion.

>>10323927
If you want a more equitable world, the last thing you should be doing is halting science. The problem you're describing is an issue of politics and economics. Completely misguided.

>>10325003
>Chronological age alone does not mean anything.
But it correlates with things that do matter, but are much harder to measure. Using chronological age in consent law allows us to draw a bright line between legal and illegal.

>>10325050
You’re very confused. The wealthy being able to genetically enhance themselves would further lead to oppression, alienation, and class conflict. Cleaning up a homeless person is just cleaning up a homeless person.

>>10325207
If those “things” exist, you can make some attempt at measuring them.

>>10325483
Sure, but if you base law on something like "psychological maturity", people aren't really gonna know who they can and can't fuck.

lads we now have a new group of people to lynch when the time comes

>>10324912
>If someone had chose to abort me before I was born I wouldn't be upset about it because nothing gained nothing lost
every aborted baby loses their soul to hell as they weren't baptized

>>10325496
They can fuck anyone that has a libido as far as I’m concerned. I don’t give a shit about “psychological maturity”.

All of you /sci/ idiots have such shallow intelligence. If any of you had any idea of what you were talking about, you would realize that restrictions would be put on gene editing in first world countries. If a dictatorial country like, say, north korea were to capture and reverse engineer such technology, he would use this to his advantage by making hundreds of hundreds of amalgamations of perfect soldiers.

Then there is the question of freedom, in which certain edits would be encouraged through propaganda and/or certain edits would be made mandatory. These edits would only serve to work towards the interests of the elite, obviously.
>But gene splicing won`t be mandatory for everyone!
Yeah, and neither are telephones. New technology, when new, is unessential and optional, but as time goes on the world adapts to the changes that this new technology brings, and it becomes a basis for many changes. Living in the world without a telephone today would be borderline impossible for anyone trying to live productively. The same progression will happen with gene splicing.
This isn`t a question of ethics, science bitch.

>>10325532
>and neither were telephones
fixed. I`m a bit out of it.

>>10324010
There is no principled way to deal with this question when generalized but I think the deaf thing is acceptable. I draw the line at FGM.

>>10325532
We should have never discovered radiation because what if a bad country figured out how to make nukes. Revert to pre-industrial era now!

Fucking retard Luddite.

>>10325539
You’re a retard. It isn’t acceptable. It should be banned and the parents beaten to death for even proposing it.

>>10325542
>We should have never discovered radiation because what if a bad country figured out how to make nukes.
Nukes are
a) Not a method of offence but a method of defence
b) Entirely contained and not sentient
Right now you are defending making extremified sentient people with the sole purpose of being war pawns. Comparing that to a nuke is a false equivalency.

>>10325532
>he would use this to his advantage by making hundreds of hundreds of amalgamations of perfect soldiers.
a perfect soldier would be designed to kill, no emotion, extremely strong. if the entire nation were comprised of these emotionless being what would be the point of ruling such a nation?

>>10325553
>a) Not a method of offence but a method of defence

Wrong. They have only been used once and were not used defensively, so you’re objectively wrong and now look retarded.

>b) Entirely contained and not sentient

Irrelevant.

>Right now you are defending making extremified sentient people with the sole purpose of being war pawns. Comparing that to a nuke is a false equivalency.

I never defended making nukes or making genetically engineered soldiers. You just lied, and now look retarded. I defended the implementation and exploration of technologies even if they have potential uses in warfare.

>>10325542
>what if a bad country figured out how to make nukes
Every country can make a nuke. Not every country can be spooked out of their morality to make an army of lab-born gene spliced super soldiers.

>>10325563
This would be the army, not the general population.

>>10325565
Not every country can be spooked out of their morality to make nukes.

>>10325564
>Wrong. They have only been used once and were not used defensively, so you’re objectively wrong and now look retarded.
You forgot about every other moment they have existed, where they have protected us from other countries not using them. The gene splicing scenario is more accurately represented as only one country having nuclear weapons.

>>10325568
These countries are almost always in alliance with one of the three superpowers of the world.

Consent is not a good argument because consent in reality only has instrumental value, not inherent value. We structure our societies in ways that revolve around consent because usually that is what leads to lower harm. For example, sex with someone underage and hence without "real consent" is outlawed not because it is impossible that such a relationship would be healthy, but because the likelihood of it being healthy is so low compared to the possible harms such a relationship would have (power dynamic) in an unhealthy setting. Here, consent plays an instrumental role.

In the same way, consent only would play an instrumental role in gene editing, yeah, an embryo cannot consent to gene editing, but if the gene editing is done for the sake of the child and will benefit the child, then the inherent value of having a healthy baby trumps the instrumental value of consent of the child. A similar argument can be made against parents who consciously choose to an unhealthy baby.

The real reason why people are uncomfortable with this entire thing is because they think it is hard to draw the line as to where "healthy" is. For example, would being born with blonde hair be more "healthy" because such a person might have an easier social life growing up? But such concerns as usually overblown and it is not fair to condemn thousands and millions of children and parents to have a disabled, addled or extremely sick child just because theoretically in 500 years we might be able to select for hair colour.

>>10325564
>I never defended making nukes or making genetically engineered soldiers. You just lied, and now look retarded.
This is the natural progression of this exploration of technology that you love to explore. How long until you realize just because something sounds initally good doesn`t mean it won`t have drastic negative consequences? You probably think solving world hunger would be a good thing as well. People like you will be why the world ends.

>>10325580
>But such concerns as usually overblown and it is not fair to condemn thousands and millions of children and parents to have a disabled, addled or extremely sick child just because theoretically in 500 years we might be able to select for hair colour.
Yes, this is just what we need! A larger population!

>>10325571
>You forgot about every other moment they have existed, where they have protected us from other countries not using them

They...protect us....from other people NOT using their nukes?


>The gene splicing scenario is more accurately represented as only one country having nuclear weapons.

No it isn’t, because you literally said “North Korea would reverse engineer”.

>>10325582
I agree. Let’s destroy all technology ever because people can make weapons using it.

>>10325589
>overpopulation is a problem
yeah its magnitude of people that's killing our planet and causing a sustainability crisis, not our over-reliance on fossil fuels, wars, corruption and unchecked capitalism
get your head out of your ass

>>10325591
>No it isn’t, because you literally said “North Korea would reverse engineer”.
You forgot the part where I said
>If any of you had any idea of what you were talking about, you would realize that restrictions would be put on gene editing in first world countries
These restrictions wouldn`t need to be followed by an already morally bankrupt dictator. Nice try though idiot.

>>10325603
>These restrictions wouldn`t need to be followed by an already morally bankrupt dictator. Nice try though idiot.

Agreed. Let’s revert to before we figured out atomic theory so no morally bankrupt dictators make nukes.

>>10325601
Yes, because overpopulation totally isn`t a problem!
It`s not like it`s harder to sustain MORE people when we have a SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEM
get your head out of your ass

>>10325614
We have no sustainability problem.

>>10325601
Are you having a stroke? Do you not think a higher population contributes to each of those things?
>less people using fossil fuels
>less competing ideology to fuel wars
>less people to govern, leading to smaller government with less power, less corruptable
>less people to consume everything
Is this bait or are you actually this fucking dumb?

>>10325621
Over ten billion people could sit on earth till the Sun eats it with proper implimenration of even modern technology.

>>10325607
You are obviously ignoring the thing that i have said three times now, which is morally bankrupt dictators would be allowed to utilize the full power of gene splicing because of their increased drive for power over a democratic first world country. You can continue simplifying my points all you want, but this is true and you have done nothing but try to make the false comparison of nuclear technology, which is non-sentient and does not bring as much existential and moral baggage which my argument is reliant on due to the differences in dictatorial and democratic societies.

>>10325621
you didn't actually respond to the argument retard, its not the actual magnitude of people that causes those problems its the systems involved, it doesn't matter how many people you actually have if the same systems are in place the same issues arise, imagine being such a failed abortion that you start typing this response out thinking you've actually addressed anything

>>10325625
and 5 billion of those people would be living in a shithole with an avg life expectancy of 55

>>10325626
>Some people that can run really fast and don’t pass out from pain are more of an existential threat than thousands of nuclear warheads that could render vertebrates extinct


You’re a troll. Bye.

>>10325567
why stop at making just the army perfect? why not make perfect scientists, perfect construction workers. if everyone is perfect how boring would that be.

>>10325633
How’d your little brain figure that? Most of Africa has better lifespans than that.

>>10325641
It would be awesome, not boring. If I’m bored, I can go amuse myself using my heightened pressure sensors by shoving my perfect penis into women and men with perfect bodies.

>>10325630
>it doesn't matter how many people you actually have if the same systems are in place the same issues arise
Is this a joke? Even a child would disagree.
Let me give you an example of a system that people could live on and how population would affect it.
The population of this system is 3. Every day an apple is taken and split amongst the population. While this is a small amount of food, everyone can still maintain sustinence.
Now lets multiply this population by a million. A single apple would be split amongst a million people every day.
In the first example, people could barely sustain, but could still live. In the second, everyone was dead within a week. How can you be this stupid to think there was no difference?

>>10325626
Not him but I also think you're wrong, governments are not powerful enough to just make anything work, a scenario in which we develop this technology would require multiple top scientists requiring collaboration, and even if the work was contained and there were no leaks, it WILL inevitably be reproduced.
Enough countries exist with a minimum GDP, development infrastructure, and research expertise that there are labs spread across the globe working toward similar goals, which don't come all at once. The work leading up to something becoming classified was not classified. There was no reason for it to be since no one realized the potential. By the time people realize the potential, others in the scientific community will have read it and also recognize this potential. When the work goes silent they will try to continue that work in an attempt to publish in high impact journals, and eventually someone will develop it, though in the public it will take longer. And no the power of one single country is not enough to silence any research on the topic, that is impossible. It would be impossible to enforce in nations you are not allied to.

>>10325641
I agree. That's why I`ve been arguing against it.

>>10325651
........But you forgot to change the amount of people farming apples.

>>10325638
There are more two sided fist fights than two sided gun fights

>>10325643
Because the disparity of rich and poor in our current world already reflect this distribution.

>>10325655
I cannot believe that I need to lower my expectations even more.

>>10325664
You’re cute.

>>10325652
I agree that this will be reproduced. I agree that there are limits on the number of units that can be produced I am saying that the full potential of gene splicing can only be unlocked by the morally bankrupt, which is most prominently found in dictators. Do you understand now? Maybe my wording was confusing or something.

>>10325659
Just kill all the rich people and redistribute their wealth.

>>10325651
why do you think this analogy holds? with modern technology and progress in renewable energy there is no reason to suspect that the total production of humanity would not multiply as long as humans multiply, so yes you can't share 1 apple among 3 million but if 3 people can make 1 apple why couldn't 3 million make 1 million apples?
Moreover, none of this is an argument against the central point which is that gene editing is wrong. How would getting millions of people to have disabled babies put a hold on population growth? If you really were concerned with overpopulation then you'd want to stop all reproduction wholesale or severely limit it, which means you aren't against gene editing, you're just against humanity itself

>>10325655
But that was the system I chose. Since my system contradicted what you said, you are wrong.

>>10325672
We can do it too. Let’s make Space Marines.

>>10325674
There are limited resources. Gene Splicing decreases mortality rate. Lower mortality rate = Higher population. Higher population = Larger demand for resources. A kid could figure this out dude do I really have to spell it out for you.

>>10323146
This. What's next, going to feed them without their consent as well?

>>10325676
“I made something up so you’re wrong”

Absolutely astounding.

Fact when it comes to progresses you simply can't tell people to not do it because it's "wrong". How is improving people genetically morally wrong but giving kids glasses ok?

>>10325677
And maybe we could and I would be wrong on this, that is a fair argument, but that still leaves my other two original points still up for though concerning the lack of possible freedom and the eventual making of gene splicing mandatory.

>>10325692
>A higher population won`t affect the usefulness of a system to that population
>Heres an example where a higher population does affect the usefulness of a system
>WAAH I NO LIKE YOU MADE THAT UP
This is just embarrassing anon.

>>10325688
the only thing that is limited is land mass, and the population will naturally limit itself as it approaches that threshold, not to mention that is so far in the future it is once again impractical to and immoral to deny millions of children from having healthy lives because in in 1500 years there may be too many humans for the planet to literally hold, its not like there is a finite amount of food and resources, humans have renewable means to achieve them
not to mention your argument applies to literally ANY medical intervention to prolong life, if we found ways to aid terrible sicknesses while the children were alive, then you'd have to against that as well since that would cause overpopulation, the only difference between treating them outside the womb and while they are an embryo is a matter of location only, so if you disagree with CRISPR because of overpopulation you'd also have to disagree with medical intervention altogether

>>10325707
>sharing one apple is a system
I feel sorry for your moms.

>>10323092
Gene editing will be a good thing for insecure faggots who somehow lost their virginity and don't want their traits in their kids. They will regret the moment when they find their Chad son fucking their wife, actually glad that she found a real man who could please her and that came from her own belly.

>>10325733
Yeah but that sounds hot.

>>10323113
Genetically Engineered CatGirls

https://youtu.be/AGeKc-zXBcI

>>10324288 >>10324621

>>10323113
https://youtu.be/2Rt2avRZvBs

>>10325707
That’s a silly example. A better example would be one in which twenty percent of a population has to be involved in agriculture to sustain the population. Obviously, this is way more than we actually need, and this will continue to drop until we have agri-roombas out in the fields harvesting grain and whatever, so ....what?

>>10323113
>>10325741

>>10325733 >>10325740
Porn tags:
#Incest #Cuckold #Milf #Shota #Chad #Cheating #Gene_Editing

>>10324624
Wrong if you take the worst of what you have to offer, like bad eyesight, manlet height, crooked teeth and remove it your making your Gene's super Chad

>>10325758
I’m more into black girls doing anal and various kinds of bisexual group sex, but you’re pretty close.

>>10323970
fucking communist retard

>>10325924
>State

>Communist

But communism involves the dissolving of the state. Go back to /pol/ where your boomer-tier political knowledge flies.

So do you think those that are already born would benefit from any genetic tampering in the coming years? I've read little admittedly, but it seems to be no.

>>10323092
vey

>>10325928
oyy

>>10325927
No we should develop better cybernetic agments

>>10323092
Yes, it's good until you haven't got immunity to HIV and everybody has that.

you are sanctioning the use of a technology that makes social will ingrained as a physical AND subjective, individual reality, when we're barely beginning to understand the determinants of phenotype. you will reveal the world as standing reserve and think yourself stable but you will be just as destroyed

>>10326014
Yes bring on the sex slaves

>>10323146
Do babys concent to their natural DNA configuration?

>>10323684
Yeah! We need geneticaly modified babies, so they dont grow up to be OP.

>>10323113
>e your son born with MS is going to thank you for making the """ethical""" decision to let him be born with a horrific disorder that effectively ruins his life.


using gene editing to cure such illness is good, but when it comes to other shits like iq then we tell u to go fuck yourself bc that shit is unethical.

>>10326079
That's actually a very good point, anon.

>>10323092
this is what happens when people value equality more than liberty

>>10325496
>it's okay to fuck someone who's 28 but has the mental capacity of a 6year old
>it's not okay when it's a 12 year old that has matured enough and has a better mental capacity than the aforementioned waste of space
>Every single person around the world matures the same way, at the same rate, physically and mentally; Thus chronological age is a universal decent measure
>no need to care about what I don't know, teehee
>no need to regulate what's hard to regulate, teehee
kys

>>10326122
Intellect and muscle are ethical. Engineering babies immune to some viral infection and then spreading viral infection everywhere so just your babies survive is unethical.

>>10326147
You sound like angry pedophile. Of course she's mature, for her age, even for you if she is 12 because you are fucking 28 with capacity of 6 year old.

>>10326176
>it's okay to fuck people who didn't develop psychologically
>it's okay as long as she lived for 18 years, despite her physical development or lack-thereof
>y-you're the paedo, not me!
Keep projecting faggot

>>10326135
Yes anyone should be able to research what ever they want fuck ethics boards

>>10326181
I'm not the anon you ware talking with.

If somebody isn't psychically developed while 18 he has it as legal status and intercourse with him is de-facto rape.

>>10326198
>18
Amerishit detected

Half if America is 16
Most of the world is 14-16

>>10326147
Although I agree with your overall points anon, it is *much* easier, and also should be the norm, to legislate for the majority and make exceptions for the minority.
And you are incorrect to assume that sex legislation is only about maturity or psychological aspects. A six year old with the mind of a 30 year old would still be physically injured by the act of penetrative sex. A 12 year old who entered puberty earlier and thus is able to give birth technically would be under physical threat were she to get pregnant at such an underdeveloped age. To say that the legal age is 2 would be wrong, and to say it should be 25 because that's when the brain stops developing is also wrong. 18 is simply a number that is easy to tie to other things (legal age of adulthood) rather than a good biological number.

>>10323162
it isn't

>>10323162
You're preventing a life of pain and suffering.

>>10326471
Only if your a incel like 90% of you faggots

>>10326147
>but has the mental capacity of a 6year old
People like to talk in terms of this shit, but it's not a real thing. It's how retards like to conceptualise retardedness.

>>10324178
> CRISPR @ home affordable kits
> Obviously mentally deranged individuals/couples would never create abhorrent and/or suffering creatures for fetishist and/or sadistic purposes
Nothing can go wrong.

>>10323113 >>10326079 >>10325749 >>10325741

>>10326471
unironically based

>>10326079
They don't, therefore giving birth is unethical. On the same level as abortion perhaps.

>>10323162
Because an aborted baby isn't going to grow up a fucking artificial abomination. I think the thing that gets really deep into the root of people's fear of gene editing is the idea that each person is existentialist in that they truly own themselves. Gene editing insets existentialism into the whole problem and the idea that you no longer fully your, that someone has interfered with you and given a prior essences to what you gave yourself is frightening to people, a rightly so in my opinion.

It does have to be regulated. What if those feminists decides to make their baby into a 600 pounds monster?

>>10323162
It's not

>>10325003
That wasn't supposed to be an argument, brainlet. This kind of attitude must be why you have no friends at school

>>10325647
>implying you would be allowed to have sex for fun on your own time
you would be bred to work 24/7 and be the most productive being possible.

>>10323092
>just got back from a date
>I'm biotech, she's biochem and a year ahead of me
>conversation goes to gene editing
>she thinks it's a slippery slope, says it'd be better to have babies born with Down syndrome than risk messing up their DNA or leading to designer babies
I convinced her that it's not a good way to live, but she still thinks the risks outweigh the benefits. We still had fun together though, gonna see if I can't set up another date.

>>10323092
>durrr EtHiCs dduurr MoRaLiTy duurrrrr
Anybody who mentions that shit thinks with their feelings not with their rational mind and is therefore fucking retarded

>>10323730
Parents are supposed to have ethical boundaries to raise their own babies
>Giving your kid a culture education and religion
Ok
>Dismembering your baby, making him grow fish eyes or have green glowy skin as result of your messed up mind
Not ok

>>10324763
You are retarded

>>10327562
You must be braindead to actively ignore what humanity has done in order to think all developments of science should be left unchecked

>>10327611
Humanity isn't my problem.
I'M my problem.
I don't give 2 fucks about humanity, if their matters don't affect me. But of course since we live in an "organized society", shit has to be everyone's problem.
Can't wait to go transhuman and outlive all you fucks.

>>10323175
>implying blacks would have the money for gene editing
They're too busy buying minivans and fried chicken with their wages.

>>10327448
Would you recommend going for someone a year older? Don't girls lose their value and become less valuable than men by 28?
You only win by going for an 18 year old or so.

>>10323175
Blacks aren't dumber than whites though, that's the scientific consensus :^)

>>10328195
I'm 19, age doesn't really matter to me unless it's a massive gap. But she texted me later saying she had a nice time and I seem great, yadda yadda, she's not into me so it's a moot point anyway. Whatever, it's not like this is my first rejection and it won't be my last.

>>10328264
Oh you're just a zoomer nevermind.

>>10328216
Incorrect actually

>>10323162
an unborn baby cant sue you

>>10327582
parents can decide a child's gender and have hit penis removed when he is young its happening now and the left is embracing it

>>10328601
hot

>>10324763
You're retarded

>>10325810
manlet height is superior and will only be proliferated with the coming genetic modifications

>>10327586
>>10329393

But it is true though. If it was not then you guys would be able to provide a non-religious reason why any moral claim is true. It has no place from a purely scientific point of view.

If it was wrong and you guys knew it was wrong then you would be able to point out the flaw. Which you can't, so you won't. Ethics and morality belong in theology like other religious beliefs. There is as much scientific evidence that people should or should not do anything regardless of desires as there is for heaven and hell.

>>10330608
Based

>>10323092
ching chong ming mong bing bong chop suey Chairman Mao dog tofu rice 233333

>>10331110
Mr. Long Dong.

>>10324010
>deliberately bringing a child into the world with a disability
>simply because you're selfish enough to want them to only experience a life like yours

These people should not be parents.

>>10323092
Then the government will force it and missuse it to gain more power.

Gene-editing should strictly be for humanitarian efforts only. Any and all attempts at privatization of it should be shot down immediately and the instigators jailed.

>>10331784
Genetic editing could prevent disabilities & diseases. It's so morally good.


Brainlets fear Eugenics (super enhanced master race humans that could enslave them)

But the benefits for society outweight the risks.

>>10331960
Absolutely. By simply screening or editing embryos for health issues - congenital heart defects, diabetus, brain development problems (retards, autists), diseases like MS or parkinsons - you'd significantly reduce the number of people in the world who are either a drain on the healthcare system, a huge burden to their family, or living a miserable life due to their disorder.

Ethically and morally speaking, the application of eugenics should be high priority in every country. Making your kid grow up to be a tiddymonster or a catgirl is just a bonus.

>>10332072
>kid grow up to be a tiddymonster

>>10323092
>some guy on the internet thinks it's ethical so it must be

>ethics
spooks

>>10323092
>posted on Thursday the 24th
>it is now the 27th

hiding this thread, this board is dead as fuck

>>10323162
hey do you consent to being a 6'+ blue eyed blonde god with a 8" cock?

No, thanks for asking though, I really wouldnt want to have been forced to be one.

>>10332196
Ok basedboy

>>10328601
Look at the mat. Notice anything?

Oh so a child would rather be an ugly motherfucker with an IQ of 90? right ? Because the parent shouldnt choose...

Its not ethical ????

If you ban it rich people will do it secretly and than youll be really fucked, ass raped.
Cos after 3 generations wed have overlords that would be many standard deviations away in IQ from us completely controlling us and enslaving us. If you keep it legal... you could give normies a chance to uplift them... to give their children the gift of being beautiful,smart, having no genetic defects etc....

>>10332599
It's not ethical to turn someone into an abomination. Currently the experiments are failing somewhat. The babies are mosaic.

>>10332212
What if your parents are sick in the head and want you to be born with tastebuds in your anus?

>>10324072
>

>>10331960
>Genetic editing could prevent disabilities & diseases.
But it could also encourage it if it's not regulated.
Take what this anon said >>10333092
How to prevent socippaths from playing God with their children? Who's to say what you can and can't edit.
I am in favour of genetic editing, but to me thats the main issue with it

>>10333092

Then we should have regulations on what is allowed.

>>10323092
We unironically should. Embryonic experiments should be allowed though, we shouldn't brung them to term. At this stage gene editing is just to dangerous, we're more likely to make potatoes than supermen. The error rate is too high. We need to do more testing in primates and embryos before going to term. That's why the chinese arrested the guy, because they're worried about someone opening up a potato farm.
>>10324288
>>10324621
Yiff in hell fur fags
>>10325743
>>10325741
that's not a catgirl, that's disgusting furryshit. KILL IT WITH FIRE!

>>10323092
As long as it is not forced implants like the stupid cyborgs want.

>>10324104
Thanks to idiots like YOU is why nobody likes to talk about genetics anymore.

>>10332599
>Cos after 3 generations wed have overlords that would be many standard deviations away in IQ from us completely controlling us and enslaving us.

Do you not think that the rich won't use this for that purpose regardless, Normies if anything will get only the bare minimum of choices to prevent possible insurrection or even promote traits ideal for their perfect worker.

>>10323092
chillax Cadet Capslock

>>10323921
antivax vibes

>>10333365
Kek nigger

>>10333833
If you keep it legal you could at least buy it for 200 000 dollars and you wouldnt need to be ultra-rich for that just higher middle class... With time the price would go down and maybe even the lower classes could afford it. Even the cheaper varient of selecting the best sperm/egg could create disease-free superhumans.

I'm suprised China isnt gungho about doing this. The could make super obitiant people

>>10323113
/thread

>>10334780
Are already super obedient

>>10323181
Statistics may want to have a word with you

>>10325518
The fetuses can hope some external force sadomizes the faggot who came up with that then.

I hope we can all agree that the true endgame of this is getting rid of niggers

>>10323092
these guys have NO IDEA what it's like being UNABLE to build muscle as a man

>>10335768
The true endgame is replacing all humans with ultra humans

>>10335780
Here we go... Get a tripcode already so I can filter you

>>10335781
the true endgame is getting rid of women and replacing all men with ultramen that can reproduce asexually

>>10335787
Sounds gay, can some of the men at least be cute and fuckable?

>>10325518
This is the kind of dumb theology that gets neckbeards all fired up. There is likely a god and he very likely does not think like this. If I found out god was 100% real and he was this person who created a world where anyone who dies before baptism ends up in hell, I'd tell him I don't want to be in his heaven.

>>10335795
See, this is the big difference between ultramen and us; they have no need to succumb to carnal desires as opposed to us who delve so deep into it that we end up spreading infectious diseases

>>10326189
Correct “ethics” hold us back.

I think it should be exclusively used to improve the health of the fetus, not cosmetically or any of that "designer baby" shit

>>10333092
all i know is you can give your children stuff that sets them up for success, and stuff that sets them up for failure
we usually define prepping kids for success as good parenting
and setting kids up for failure as bad parenting/abuse

giving your child good odds of success in life (intelligence, looks, physicality) would only improve their lives
giving your child bad odds of success in life (constantly tasting shit from their assholes, dwarven features, comically hideous appearance) would hinder them, I think people would regard mutating your child for the meme as child abuse because it is a deliberate effort to undermine your child's life and future success

So i feel like there should be laws against abusing your child genetically

>>10323092
GENETIC ENGINEERING IS WRONG
>son dies of cancer
on a second thought...

>>10334786 >>10323113 >>10333332

https://youtu.be/AGeKc-zXBcI

>>10337091
I want catboys

>>10337128
are you a girl? only if you accept amazon girls too

>>10337147
Huh?!?!?!
You really asking this question mate?
Get your head out of your six. This is 4channel. I'm not a female.

>>10337128
>>10337147
>>10337153
>I want catboys

>>10337128
https://youtu.be/yZSpZ6G616g

>>10330608
To live is to suffer, so from a purely scientific point of view, you should off yourself.
But not everything can, or even should be seen from a purely scientific point of view.

>>10338597
It is still religious. There exists no non-religious reason why anyone should follow any sort of rule that they don't want to follow. Especially if they feel that they benefit, afraid of getting caught? Just do it in a way where you won't get caught. If it was morally wrong then there would exist a reason why you should not do it. In religions there is ideas like hell and heaven where everyone wants to avoid hell and everyone wants to go to heaven. But in science there has never been observed anything magical connected to any action that everyone wants.

Some wants to die, in that case killing people to suicide by cop is a good way to get on TV if people like that. People are different. As long as moral value has not been scientifically measured then it has no place in science. Only thing that matters is if we get something interesting to publish.

>>10339475
>There exists no non-religious reason why anyone should follow any sort of rule that they don't want to follow... If it was morally wrong then there would exist a reason why you should not do it.
That depends on what one considers moral. As an example, suppose a maxim can only be morally permissible if and only if it can at the same time be willed that it should become a "universal law". If you were to do something that would be by this definition immoral, you would be logically inconsistent with yourself. For example, to say that lying is morally permissible would result in a contradiction upon universalization. Lying presupposes the existence of promises to break, but if lying were to be universalized, people would stop making promises, and with no more promises to break, the law logically negates itself.
This is only one example of an irreligious reason to have and follow morals.

On your second point, I do agree that ethics has no place in science, but because science asks how, and ethics is a matter of why.

>>10340583
There exists no reason why anyone ought to follow such a maxim. If I do something to someone else that doesn't mean that everyone else might do it to me. It would be logically inconsistent if anyone followed that maxim. But why choose to put any behavioral restrictions upon oneself?

By that maxim people should not lie even to protect the lives of their own children and so on. And it is not a reason to do anything because people who like lying, killing and other things that the maxim would exclude does generally have no motivation to follow that maxim (it would allow killing if people is suicidal. A melancholic school shooter might want killing to be an universal law so school shooting is generally never wrong with your rule).

So if you find someone intending to kill and eat children and they will believe any fact of the world that you do, but keep his personal taste then he would have no reason not to kill and eat children even if he knew that this rule existed and even if he knew that you liked to follow it. It is not a reason why people ought to do anything irrespective of desires because even if everyone agrees on the facts of the matter there would still not be a reason to compel anyone to do anything.

I am on a mission. The other day we visited an orphanage of blind girl. A lot of them were under psychatric care or are mentally disabled. A thirteen year old I met who was really sweet and smart. She had been sexually assaulted by multiple people before the orphanage found her.

Gene editing has my full support.

>>10334573
>i laugh, so i'm not an idiot

>>10323092

>Gene edit plants and animals in the technologies infancy

>Do so without having a solid base of understanding

>Allow the plants to contaminate unmodified plants and begin feeding them to people without any significant research

>Start genetically modifying animals without controls or isolation

>Start modifying humans without controls or isolation

Were just asking to completely fuck ourselves over before we have even addressed if what we are doing is a good idea and what the long term cost of it will be.

>>10326471
hurdur

religious-eugenic sexual selection > gene editing

>>10341621
Learn biology faggot, gene editing an animal or a plant has practically the same, if not safer, effects on emergence of "faulty" genes than artificial selection does

>>10340873
A society without ethics is literally doomed to fail, simple as that, in the same way there can't be trust in a group that takes advantage of each other, have you learned nothing from game theory? You don't even need to consider religion for this to work, this is quite literally a principle based on pure logic

>>10333365
Fuck off, the only idiots are leftist fuckheads like you who deny the reality that humans have inherent traits, and these traits can and should and will be ranked, so you deny genetics. As evidence by that pic were you believe immigration isn't a societal destructive thing, and them make up a false narrative about how race and IQ is an evil subject because it will lead to another LE NAZI HITLER. Despite the fact that there was no race and IQ science during Hitler's time, and IQ was never a big part of Hitlerism or National Socialism, which makes the connection fucking stupid.

>>10342785
But... but you can't rank people's Gene's dats racist

>>10336112
>not cosmetically or any of that "designer baby" shit

C'mon, are we really going to pretend that cosmetics can have a huge impact on your quality of life? A harelip doesn't really affect your health, but will have a huge impact on your social, romantic and professional life because we're visual creatures.

>>10323092
>let's meddle with a complex system we don't remotely understand and that has the capacity to end life as we know it

>>10324010
This is why SJWism should have been nipped in the bud immediately. This is the kind of retardation you get when you glorify victimhood.

>>10323092
>t. China

>>10325925
>not real communism

ok lets just let a billion people die because??? no reason?

>>10324010
I want to see their faces when someone explains to those retards that nondeaf people can also learn sign language.

>>10325481
It's you who's confused and lacks a principled moral code. You just want to bring low your betters in a spiteful fit.

>>10325925
go back to your freshman dorm smoke sesh where your ridiculous hypotheticals go unchallenged. communism is a low iq ideology

>>10323146
The gene editing is done before they're born though.

>>10344000
>dur your gonna whipe out all life by messing with Gene's of people

>>10323146
Consent is a low IQ concept that instills a fundamental equality of choice and person and actually serves to undermine morality because "did they concent" becomes the arbiter for right and wrong rather than the act itself. Indeed, people can consent to wretched deeds, as in the case of sodomy. This does not excuse it or make it right. Moreover, the burden is placed on individuals at with very specific temporal points and windows, with faulty cognitive faculties, and many fail to recognize their own limitations. People do not know what is best for themselves. Consent often becomes the noose used to hang a person, as after all, starvation is morally justifiable undet this framework given someone concerned to a low wage. Nay, the morality of an act should be judged on the act itself using reason.