/sci/ - Science & Math

Pretty darn far considering we can't genetically engineer anything about humans.

>>2602909
Genetically engineering humans shouldn't be any harder than genetically engineering any other animal. The problem is that the ratio of failures to successes is rather high and that there is a large ethical concern.

>>2602934
I would expect it would be harder. Humans have more complex genetic structure than the simple things we can engineer. That means there's more chance you could mess something up. Think about this. Let's say you have small lego building (i.e. a relatively simple animal) and you replace one of the lego blocks with a peice of cheese. Even if you don't do it right, not much is going to be messed up. But now you take a fully fledged sky scrape (i.e. human) and you replace a steel beam with a hunk of cheese. That shit is gonna come tumbling down and everything will be fucked up. You screw up one thing and it can lead to a chain reaction that causes all sorts of other problems. Besides, even if you do perfect genetic engineering, you still have to figure out what makes someone smarter than someone else. And intelligence isn't entire nature anyway, some of it is nurture.

>>2602909
That's not true. We flash a mother with medium levels of radiation of a moderate time frame. As she develops cancer and begins to fail, we have her get pregnant and have a child. The child is very likely to be as screwed as the mother. We just genetically engineered the child to be weak.

I don't think we will ever be able to.
1) extremely difficult
2) intelligence isn't based on nature as much as nurture
3) Think Brave New World; you can't have a society of alpha ones

Does anyone here watch Fringe? You know Astrid but other universe Astrid, how she's basically a mathematical god... that's what I think will happen

We will genetically engineer (1) person to work in the government. We also raise them and then they will be our assets; but I doubt more than 10 people will ever be genetically engineered smarter.

>>2602905
We could probably do it with todays technology.
But good fucking luck getting funding and doding all the regulatory bullets.

I think OP means this:

How far are we from genetically engineering humans into furries, geniuses?

Well thank you very much mister furfag. Now fuck off.

>>2602967
We can genetically engineer species that we don't even have a complete genome map for. We can genetically engineer mammals [see the French glowing rabbit controversy as an example of both] and humans are not really more or less complicated than a lab rat [or rabbit] genetically.

Lol

>>2602905
it takes more than a high IQ however

Christopher Michael Langan vs. Kim Ung-yong

>>2603095
both technically failures compared to the 125 iq Feynman even though they both have +200 iqs

>>2602905
Because... what is intelligence?

#Answers with a theory of intelligence, and some quotient designed to rate retardation#

inject mercury in babies for aspergers, condition then to think for the co-op good of ur organization.

????

profit?

>>2602987
>Think Brave New World; you can't have a society of alpha ones
That was a huge contradiction in the book. They said at one point there was an society of alphas but everyone killed each othere because no one wanted the shit jobs. Understandable, but then they said they reduced the lower classes workload with robots and better technology, but all the dumb one's were bored with too much free time. Obviously they couldn't put the two together and just have robots do ALL the lower jobs. Alpha's wouldn't need to be janitors. The deltas were not needed.