/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12307884
Yes, look up project leda

>>12307884
Genetic engineering could offer us the chance of ensuring that all our children are born free from genetic diseases, be born healthy, fit and smart. Their life quality should be in our focus and not the idea that they are superhuman but that genetic engineering is the next level of vaccination. With it you could give future humans greater potential of choice, all talents avaible and enabled with a greater degree of freedom.
The technology might need a decade or two to get all potential pitfalls fixed but it could be utilized right now. It wouldn`t wonder me if some black clinics are modifying people right now. The thing with CRISPR is that you don`t cause side effects (science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/10/24/science.aaq0180), you need of course understand the workings of the gene allells but once we have advanced enough to be to edit 10k loci reliably we would be able to safly make genetic changes with effects that would be big enough to make a distinction between gene modified and baselines appearable.

There will be massive social consequences, if everyone is a born genius, has a olympic physique and don`t have to worry about getting ill until hitting 100 years, that will make changes necessary but not necessarily negative ones. I`m less afraid of its implementation in democratic societies and more worried about the potential abuses that will occur in dictatorships. Super-soldiers would be the least of our worriest.

>Is a nation like China going to be capable of creating a genetically modified human in an artificial womb?
You do not need a exo-womb for gene modifications. They might be necessary for parahuman modifications, but genetic engineering on a germline basis can be done in a natural womb.
>When are the things that I just described going to be possible?
We have already identified several thousand possible DNA alleles that we can modify to our benefit. https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421 And by benefit, I mean objective good traits such as health, fitness and intelligence. We could modify the GRIN2B (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19838302)), the PDE4B (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26272049)), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25225386 and the FOXP2 strain (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19838302)) to help our children to have more potential. Add modifications with TP53, CDKN2A, CTNNB1, NGF, MSTN, EPOR and APOE genes, and you got the basis for a healthy, fit and smart child. But it is true, that we need some 10 - 20 years to test it out, but as CRISPR is progressing and computer can simulate biological process ever better, I could imagine that in 15-30 years, genetic modifications might be viable to support your child to not to have to worry about many issues we have to carry around.

Turn off pain receptors, increase pleasure receptors. MAXIMUM COOM

>>12307904
That show was only good for 1 season, if that.

at best, it's viable for preventing problems, but the relationship between genes and environment are exceedingly complex, and so doing constructive things (e.g. increasing IQ) is going to be near-impossible. best you can do is prevent mutations that might lower IQ, and so there will be a limit on just how much IQ can be modified via genetic modification

>>12308148
>There is good evidence that existing genetic variants in the human population (i.e., alleles affecting intelligence that are found today in the collective world population, but not necessarily in a single person) can be combined to produce a phenotype which is far beyond anything yet seen in human history. This would not surprise an animal or plant breeder -- experiments on corn, cows, chickens, drosophila, etc. have shifted population means by many standard deviations relative to the original wild type.
>Take the case of John von Neumann, widely regarded as one of the greatest intellects in the 20th century, and a famous polymath. He made fundamental contributions in mathematics, physics, nuclear weapons research, computer architecture, game theory and automata theory. In addition to his abstract reasoning ability, von Neumann had formidable powers of mental calculation and a photographic memory. In my opinion, genotypes exist that correspond to phenotypes as far beyond von Neumann as he was beyond a normal human.
>The quantitative argument for why there are many SD’s to be had from tuning genotypes is straightforward. Suppose variation in cognitive ability is 1. highly polygenic (i.e., controlled by N loci, where N is large, such as 10k), and 2. approximately linear (note the additive heritability of g is larger than the non-additive
part).
>Then the population SD for the trait corresponds to an excess of roughly N^(1/2)vpositivevalleles (for simplicity we suppress dependence on minor allele frequency). A genius like von Neumann might be +6 SD, so would have roughly 6N^(1/2) more positive alleles than the average person (e.g.,∼600 extra positive alleles if N = 10k). But there are roughly +N^(1/2) SDs in phenotype (∼100 SDs in the case N ∼ 10k) to be had by an individual who has essentially all of the N positive alleles!
(con).

>>12308194
>As long as N^(1/2) >> 6, there is ample extant variation for selection to act on to produce a type superior to any that has existed before.
>"The probability of producing a "maximal type" through random breeding is exponentially small in N, and the historical human population is insufficient to have made this likely.
>The content of this basic calculation underlies the work of animal and plant breeders. As leading population geneticist James Crow of Wisconsin wrote : The most extensive selection experiment, at least the one that has continued for the longest time, is the selection for protein content in maize. These experiments began near the end of the nineteenth century and still continue; there are now more than 100 generations of selection. Remarkably, selection for high oil content and similarly, but less strikingly, selection for high protein, continue to make progress. There seems to be no diminishing of selectable variance in the population. The effect of selection is enormous: the difference in oil content between the high and low selected strains is some 32 times the original standard deviation."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf (On the genetic architecture of intelligence and other
quantitative traits)
>Accurate prediction of height from genome has already been accomplished, identifying 10k positively associated loci (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/09/18/190124.full.pdf).). The genetic architecture of intelligence is similar to that of height (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.3421.pdf).). It is only a matter of time before enough genotype-phenotype pairs are collected to perform a similar analysis on cognitive ability, and identify the estimated 10k SNPs that explain the variance in IQ. After these are identified, an optimized genotype could be discovered and implemented in human embryos via genetic engineering, although the technology here will also have to advance to be able to edit 10k loci reliably.

Thanks for all the answers. So how difficult would it be to accurately change someones height, facial features or shoulder width? How realistic is the thought of the entire human population being as intelligent and attractive at some point in the future as the top 1% today?

as long as gene engineering can turn me into a cute anime girl i will support it the best i can

>>12308247
>How realistic is the thought of the entire human population being as intelligent and attractive at some point in the future as the top 1% today?
Hopefully never. The elites of past and present are not smart or attractive nor ethical.

>>12308254
>>12308100
Coom science

>>12307884
so china will be white?

>>12308301
yes. if everything is arbitrary why not yolo it

>>12307884
Short answer: no

We will never develop the necesary tech to accurately predict genetic models

>>12307884
>>12308073
>>12308148
>>12308206
YES YES YES YES YES YESYES YES YESYES YES YESYES YES YESYES YES YES YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

>>12307884
It does seem to be inevitable. Makes me think of the tower of babel, and wonder if whatever force rose to stop us before, is still here. Or if it's coming back.

It kind of sucks to be quite honest, because I really do prefer the whole "logic" embedded in the more natural order. Once anyone starts doing this in a net effective way, all others will either be forced to re-organize to follow suit, or they will quickly be subsumed or exterminated. The keyword is effective. There is no need nor guarantee that it'll be a strictly lossless or additive process, it may well end up being reductive. Obviously aspects of class and caste will be key in the immediate term, there will be a rapid drop in genetic diversity, potential for unforeseen consequences, the globalists will want in on it, etc.

>>12308247
>is the thought of the entire human population being as intelligent and attractive at some point

The thing is, when everyone looks like a Ken or a Barbie then the 'cool look' will be looking 'ugly'.

Being super intelligent is a huge boost to life, BUT being average intelligence and a dedicated hard worker get better results.

>>12309807
>there will be a rapid drop in genetic diversity
If we go full on synthetic XNA on the modifications expeect a genetic diversity that goes beyond anything this world of carnon life has ever seen.

>>12310026
This anon knows what's up.
Standards for attractiveness and intelligence and physical fitness vary across historical time periods and living environments, so cannot be optimized for at the genetic level. Perseverance, on the other hand, seems to be a fairly unobjectionable trait for conferring reproductive success.
I'd wanted to add situational awareness and pattern recognition as well, but the oversaturation of information in our modern world is giving me pause.

>>12307884
I spend my free time scrolling through GRCh38 tryna find the big dick gene

>>12310896
>>12310026
That has to do with positional and non-positional traits. A positional good benefits you only because others lack it. Height may be an advantage in men, but if everybody were three inches taller, nobody would be better off. Attractiveness may be another example of a positional good. A gain for one person implies a relative loss for others. I would contrast that with a trait like health. Your life is better when you are healthy, even if others are also healthy. Cognitive enhancements are a complex topic, but they have aspects that are intrinsically valuable. It is good if we can understand the world better. Better reflexes, stamina, strength would also be applied.

>>12310026
>>12310896
Thats not true. Attractiveness is almost completely universal. Things like facial symmetry, prominent cheekbones and a defined jaw are perceived as attractive in all cultures and timelines. These features symbolize strong facial development which stems from strong genetics. When we are attracted to someone its simply because our instincts tell us that the person we are looking at is strong and healthy. We then want to procreate with them so our child can gain the benefits of those genes aswell

>>12307884
chinese people are too retarded to avoid eating diseased meat. you really think they'll be smart enough to understand genetic engineering?

>>12311151
Chinese scientists already genetically modified some humans.

>>12307884
>Are genetically modified humans the future?
Yes but they won't like like that, they'll look like this

>>12307884
I think yes, but I am afraid that the leftists will try to modify humans that the nature of new human will fit to the communism. Their system will collapse anyway but the amount of suffer for people will be terrifying.

>>12311145
>Thats not true. Attractiveness is almost completely universal.
Only facial symmetry is universal

>>12311145
[[[citation needed]]]

>>12307884
>going to be capable of creating a genetically modified human in an artificial womb?
I hope so. They'll turn the next chinese generation into European white people as that's what their beauty standard is measured against anyway.

>>12311179
In this article a biologist from switzerland explains that when judging a womans attractiveness both ethnicity and personal taste are irrelevant. Furthermore its always the same facial proportions that humans perceive as attractive. The article is in german, so probably completely useless to you but have it anyway https://www.unibas.ch/de/Forschung/Uni-Nova/Uni-Nova-116/Uni-Nova-116-Attraktivitaet.html

https://www.youtube.com/c/QOVESStudio/videos

https://youtu.be/ZbTJHCTQArQ

>>12311208
Not that anon, but given the lack of citations in the article, I don't see any evidence that they've managed to avoid the psychology academic's fallacy of generalizing from data on Westernized urbanized upper-middle class undergraduates to making "universal" claims about people halfway across the globe, hundreds of years in the past, and hundreds of years into the future as well.
>both ethnicity and personal taste are irrelevant
That's it? Surely there are other variables they must have thought to include, but didn't report. Even within the nonrepresentative sample of the university campus, they could have at least controlled for sexual orientation, age, income level, family background, marital status, education level (to a certain extent). Each of these factors represents a potential objection to the (very strong) claim of universality, which demands to be addressed if the claim is to be taken seriously.

>>12308254
You're already fully grown, nothing can be done, keep coping tran tran

>>12311252
Not him, but a nanoviruses operating on the basis of proteus retroviruses in combination with biomodded transplants could make such changes. We still are atleast 50 years to 100 years away from such technology though.

>>12311248
Our hunter-gatherer ancestors subconsciously used instincts to determine the genetic strength of other humans and spread their genes most effectively. We humans today inherited these instincts from them. The fact that our environment has changed and we now have things like income levels and marital status does not impact the instincts that are responsible for determining someones attractiveness.

No, everyone with GM DNA is getting eradicated. If you want superior children, then try to find a superior mate.

>>12311542
>No, everyone with GM DNA is getting eradicated.
Eugenics Wars when?

That will be the biggest chunk of humanity we will ever lose, and im hoping we could go back if we want to

I heard talk that one of the most prominent steps will be modifying an immune system to handle retrooviruses like HIV

>>12308073
>Genetic engineering could offer us the chance of ensuring that all our children are born free from genetic diseases, be born healthy, fit and smart.

Iceland tried to fix Downs Syndrome and there was a fit over it.

>>12311873
No, when you're pregnant in Iceland the parents are told if there's enough of a likelyhood that the kid may have downs syndrome and they are given the choice to abort it. It's not forced.

How long will this age reign until posthuman intelligences take over?

Bump

>>12307884
Of course they are, but only China will engage in it since the west is under some sort of egalitarian mass psychosis at the moment.

>>12308206
That's scary

>>12312354
I'll give it a couple of decades

>>12310904
http://uswest.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Phenotype/Locations?oa=HP:0000040

E-tgcdef-ffd

>>12308301
>>12308254
>>12308100

>>12307884
were gonna genetically engineer humans into jobs before they are born. engineers, supervisors, spaceship pilots and soldiers will all be engineered from the start.

>>12313255
It's only the beginning.

>>12312354
100-200 years.

>>12307884
yeah
>>12312954
>implying its not being done illegally in the west already

>>12311173
more like this

>>12315783
>>12311173
You are both wrong.

>>12315880

Most genes have chad potential, development is way more important. You can increase child IQ just by giving the pregnant mother progesterone. Even fathers transmit epigenetic markers based around their stress state.

>>12307884
wonder if they'd be able to overwrite existing genetics as well, for example fixing an old person and making them look young again and taking away their ailments.

>>12315968
Theoretically a nanoviral treatment on basis of proteus retroviruses could do something like that but such technology will only see the lights of the world in the last decade of this century or the next. It useage will also be far more limited and more complicated.

>>12315892
>Even fathers transmit epigenetic markers based around their stress state.
So its better for a dad to be smoking pot then for a dad to be smart.

>>12315783
>>12315880
>>12311173
I personally like think they would look more like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOhpLNLd334

>>12316140
No! Like this!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwsIHG-vLOQ

>>12311252
What's even the point of advancing this field then? Fuck that shit back to wasting all my money on space toys then?

Bump

>>12316140
>>12316828
>>12315880
>>12315783
>>12311173
The classics are still the best.

>>12313381
Okay, now find the gene that causes acne

>>12311644
Already done.

>>12311538
You somehow completely discredit the emotional stimuli at play when forming an attraction towards another human, which as the other person brought up is due to a contemporary interpretation of attractiveness

>>12310026
>>12310896
>>12320444
Do you guys know anything about epigenetics? It's pretty clear that attractiveness is defined as only a select few things. Muscular or at least fit men and women will always be more attractive than fat, ugly slobs. The way that women are portrayed in the Renaissance wasn't because of the different standards at the time but because the painters never saw a naked woman before(gay or virgin, take your pick). That cover story was invented "body-positive" losers to make themselves feel better

>>12307884
possible but must important is the slaying of frog demons

>>12308073
Is this a copypasta? I’ve seen this post 3 times now.

https://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/genetic.html

>>12321212
What's that supposed to mean?

>>12308100
>>12308301
>>12314529
based lmfao

>>12310904
?????
just find the gene associated with prenatal hormones retard.

>>12311538
you are completely retard

>>12307884
Every future human is genetically modified by natural selection. We are GM apes. The easiest path is more deliberate eugenics. Reproduction is already selected by semi-deliberate eugenics of social networks and wealth, with the internet breaking disistance barriers to eugenic matchmaking. Make eugenic matchmaking more active and deliberate and you'll have generation after generation of improved superhumans.

>>12308307
Most likely. Rich Chinese women already are women obsessed with European sperm banks

>>12323165
I've never heard of that one before

>>12308148
It would be better to just have a breeding program for desirable traits.

>>12311542
Did the rape dick ever stop?

>>12322911
You sound like the brutally dumb retard. Why did that comment send you into a screaming retard torment?

>>12308301
Lord Shiva,cosmic dance,the statue at CERN, Geneva.OMFG the patterns all match up

>>12315892
Progesterone to pregnant mother?Is this even remotely true?

>>12325458
you are completely retard

>>12311538
>>12326201
What is this trying to accomplish exactly?

>>12326908
Oops sorry, I meant to reply to >>12322911 instead for the first one

If it was possible to make genetic supermen why aren't countries with zero ethical concerns like NK/China already showing results?

>>12326908
?
>>12326917
literally just retard mode

yes boi yes it do

>>12326931
Because they are ethical and you're brainwashed, reason is that anyone can literally make a lie about china or north korea and claim they know it by an anonymous source and it will be accepted as fact. The lying press has come a long way

>>12326931
Some experiments were done but we still are a decade or two away from safe modifications and understanding of 10k DNA allells to modify a human to percievable levels of talent and you have to wait for them to grow up to adulthood.

>>12327042
> literally just retard mode
You know you have to be 18 to browse here, right? Especially on /sci/.

>>12327107
> reason is that anyone can literally make a lie about china or north korea and claim they know it by an anonymous source and it will be accepted as fact
Tell me then, what IS life like in China and NK? Have you ever been there to confidently say that the rulers are treating their own people with at least a modicum of basic dignity?

>>12327185
you are actually a full fledged retard

>>12327935
And you're a faggot which is even worse

>>12311145
Although I agree with you, we entered a new development in technology, specially in regards to human development, immunity, contraceptives, etc, by which our social dynamics are taking a hit - for instance: the implications of the birth control pill - reduce, to almost null, the chances of impregnanting and you get a freedom degree that for our entire human existence we never had, so we might as well engage in intercourse and explore even more the more twisted fantasies because nothing is stopping us from doing it.
All this to say, I don't know for how long those axioms will keep up. (Probably a couple thousand years at least)