/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6180941

>>>/b/

>>6180941
Because it'd create yet another class distinction between those who are modified and those who are not, like in Gattaca or what Roddenberry describes as the "eugenics wars." Dangerous shit.

The /sci/ in me says that this should be reserved for genetic disorders and diseases, but the /pol/ in me recognises that only xenophobic races with low genetic diversity have these sort of diseases, ie Jews, blacks, certain Asians, etc.

>>6180954
>Because it'd create yet another class distinction between those who are modified and those who are not

Distinctions between people already exist. If the distinctions are improvements why not promote them?

People need to get over their "class distinction" mentalities, thats a social problem, they discriminate based on all sorts of things.

Improving the health of one group shouldn't be banned because it might foster "social tension" for some reason.

>>6180969
>Improving the health of one group shouldn't be banned because it might foster "social tension" for some reason.

It's not improving the health of one group, it's creating more healthy and smart babies....this is fine

>>6180941

Because you probably consider yourself smart, when in fact you're an idiot (source: this thread). You wouldn't consent to sterilization, and neither will anyone else.

>>6180974

>your an idiot

emotional already?

>sterilization

What about it? People can choose to reproduce or not, or sterilize themselves or not.

So how would this be feasible in real life?

You and your girlfriend do a genetic test and see how compatible you are? Or do you mean to modify the genes of fetuses/embryos?

>>6180988
>People can choose to reproduce or not, or sterilize themselves or not.
Did you not read what he just said?
Nobody would consent to sterilization, unless they want to live the bachelor life anyways.

>>6180988
>emotional already?

Not at all. Just answering the question.

>>6180994
>>6180999

No one implied involuntary sterilization, that's unethical.

>>6180941
>Why not breed positive genetic features (intelligence, health, moral character, beauty)
>moral character
>intelligence
I don't think you understand how genetics work, inform yourself before doing stupid threads.

>>6181014
>>intelligence
>>not genetic

Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html

>>6181014
>moral character and intelligence not influenced by genetics

>>6180941
>Why not breed positive genetic features (intelligence, health, moral character, beauty)
>intelligence
While your genetic factor helps you do not become an intelligent person just because of them.
>Moral character
You are retarded if you think our genes affect a construct made by society
>Beauty
A subjective term depending on what part of the world you are.

>Unfortunately, smart people have fewer children than dumb people
This is due to the lack of education not by the lack of intelligence.

>>6181028
>While your genetic factor helps you do not become an intelligent person just because of them.

So why not give kids all the biological tools they need to be better, smarter, healthier?

>Moral character is not genetic

Of course it is. Here is but one example.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118

>beauty is subjective

Not enough to make a difference.

>>6180941

>>6181036
>So why not give kids all the biological tools they need to be better, smarter, healthier?
Never said we shouldn't but is different saying they will be intelligent instead of giving them the tools to become intelligent.

>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/7/2118
I see.

>Not enough to make a difference.
Debatable, the standards of beauty vary too much depending on the society.

>>6181028
>While your genetic factor helps you do not become an intelligent person just because of them.
But it does help
>You are retarded if you think our genes affect a construct made by society
By moral character, it is obvious that the OP means things like predisposition to commit violent and property crime
And these things are influenced by genetics
That they are "socially constructed" is irrelevant, as even the concept of a chair is just a construct
>A subjective term depending on what part of the world you are.
k

>>6181040

The problem with Gattaca was their political and ethical policies, not their Eugenics.

How you use technology is important

>>6181051
>as even the concept of a chair is just a construct

it's funny I just said this today too. hivemind.

>>6180969

And how will you implement the genetic engineering? Will be free for everyone?

Because if it's not, only people with money will be able to get it. That will make the breach between people that can pay for that and people who can't even bigger.

>>6181024

You know what the key world is in what you just say?

It's 'influenced'

>>6181054
see
>>6181058

>>6181054
>>6181064

Oh, so you think you live in an utopic world, where people won't discriminate based on genetic programs if that gets implemented?

That's cute.

>>6181062
When did the OP suggest that the traits are always 100% heritable?

"They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki."

We will soon.

>>6181077

To be fair, >>6181014 didn't implied that genetics doesn't have anything to do with those traits.

What it's more important, if genetics or what happens during your life is up to discussion.

>>6181058
So what?

Would you rather that:

1) Group A has IQ 90 and group B has 110.
2) Group A has IQ 130 and group B has 200.

? The difference is larger in (2) but the average level is too (100 vs. 165), and the lower scoring group is also better off in (2).

>>6181058
>And how will you implement the genetic engineering? Will be free for everyone?
>the poor can't afford it, maybe

Who knows what the cost would be? Maybe it would be cheap. But more importantly:
Why would it be free? Are food and medicine free? Is housing free? Is University free? Are books free? Is a computer free? Is the internet free? Everything with value has a price.

>so you think you live in an utopic world, where people won't discriminate based on genetic programs if that gets implemented?

What do you mean by discriminate?
Do you think an employer picking the most qualified/intelligent candidate is discrimination?

The problem with this would be you could possibly open an entirely new can of worms regarding genetic disorders by attempting to breed a superior human strain, not to mention the psychological issues it could drive into the new offspring or the possible misuse this could have, look at China for example, in their own primitvie clumsy way they selected for a specific gender and now you have literally hundreds of millions of men that realistically will die alone.

Also the only morally acceptable way I can see this working is if every last person in the world stopped having babies for some years, then when it was declared okay to procreate again, every single embryo that was desired to be carried to term would have to be selected for the superior characteristics. That way no one would be left behind. Now OP should go to India and tell them they should stop fucking.

>>6181071
People already do discriminate. For instance, I don't date ugly girls, and employers generally hire the more competent people (otherwise they go out of business). Discrimination is not always bad. It is a necessity. Consider what would happen if the government was indiscriminate in their use of federal funds.

>>6180941
There's no good reason not to, but if you suggest this publicly in a modern Western nation you'll be compared to Hitler and the Nazis and nobody will listen.

>>6181101
>look at China for example, in their own primitvie clumsy way they did it bad

primitive and clumsy being the key adjectives.

>>6181058
You say that as though improving people's lives is somehow only a good thing if the people are poor.

If you see a rich person lying ill on the street should you refuse to help them because that would increase the difference between rich people and poor people? Fuck that. Making the lives of poor people better is good. Making the lives of rich people better is also good. Improving lives is good.

Clearly it would be better to improve the lives of both rich people and poor people, but that's not an option, the only options are:(1) improve the lives of rich people, (2) improve the lives of no one.

>>6181095
>Maybe it would be cheap. But more importantly: Why would it be free?

When I said free, I actually wanted to say 'will be able to everyone, or just the people who can pay it?'
America has a serious problem with affordable healthcare, and I seriously doubt that a new medical procedure will be cheap (check the cost for assisted fertilization now, it's supper expensive and genetics engeneering can't be cheaper that that).

btw, I'm from a country where medicine and university are free (well, not really free, we pay them with our taxes).


>What do you mean by discriminate?

College already filters they student selection by standarized test which scores highly correlate with IQ.
People who can't afford genetic engeeniring will be in a disadvantage and won't get to college.They will fall behind in the social scale because they can't afford higher education. Their sons also won't be able to enter higher education.

Employers will discriminate (they will be able to check if the potential candidate is less prone to alcoholism or stress, they will look for genes correlated with responsability or whatever).

Life will be determined before you were even born, and the most important factor will be if your parents had enough money or not.

>>6181104
The military budget wouldn't be xboxhueg, with so many backdoor deals with arms manufacturers and R&D labs.
but i know what you mean

>>6181124
>scores highly correlate with IQ
yeah, nah. I did very well, as did most of my friends, and half of them are goddamn idiots.

>>6181124

I don't see how any of those are negative. It won't happen in one generation, it'll be a slow progression towards a world with better people.

>Employers will discriminate

They already do, many do drug testing, expect college degrees, previous work experience, criminal background checks.

>Life will be determined before you were even born, and the most important factor will be if your parents had enough money or not.

This is how the world already works.

>>6181124
So the problem is that all jobs and academic positions will be filled by super people? That sounds great. I bet economic output and technological development would see massive improvements, and those things do more to improve the quality of life of the poorest in society than affirmative action ever has.

>>6181138
>We can improve efficiency 110% if we make the laborers work 14hours shifts and give them 1/2 a loaf a day

>>6181140
>You want to make people healthier and smarter from birth? That's like forced labour!

Documentary that explains why this concept is not a good idea

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdzepK-LVtU

by the way the most shocking part is that all the literature he quotes and cites in the movie is actually true, you can find it on the web if you look, it shows how insidious some of these people are

Legions of healthy, fertile, beautiful geniuses??

>>6181136
>They already do, many do drug testing, expect college degrees, previous work experience, criminal background checks.

Two candidates, same everything. Excepet one was genetically engenireed and the other wasn't.The employer will chose the geneticaly enhanced one. That can happen one.
And why would you leave the other one without a job? Because some guy doesn't have the gene that makes him a potential alcoholic? The other one might not have it either.

>This is how the world already works.

And you think that is a good thing? Revise human history, arranged marriages, slavery, domestic violence used to be 'how the world woks'.

>>6181146
Yes, yes it is

>>6181147
Thanks. I really don't like doing research and documentaries give me a decent start.

>>6181147
This kind of reminds me of MGS4, where all the soldiers' emotions are suppressed and they're linked through a massive network. Shit can't be healthy.

>>6181155
How?

Forcing labourers to work long hours for little pay is bad because people dislike low pay and long hours of labour. In fact, they dislike those things so much that the only way to get them to do it is probably to find or place them in a bad situation and then take advantage of that to force them to do it.

Using genetic engineering to make people healthier and smarter from birth is bad because . . .

>>6181151
>Two candidates, same everything. Excepet one was genetically engenireed and the other wasn't.The employer will chose the geneticaly enhanced one. That can happen one.

No. A rational employer would not care. And if there were irrational employers who nonetheless did, then their competitors would gain cheaper labor relative to them and beat them in a perfect market.

>>6181151
>The employer will chose the geneticaly enhanced one

he will pick the one he thinks is the most qualified for the job based on the information he has. As he ought to.


>not get a job -- Because some guy doesn't have the gene that makes him a potential alcoholic?

If it's relevant for the job and the gene has a high probability of being acted on, then maybe they should have the information.

Also if we have the technology to prevent people from having genes that lead to alcoholism, schizophrenia, memory loss, depression, bipolar, shouldn't we do so? Not only to improve our economy but to improve their lives...it would be unethical not to.

>Revise human history, arranged marriages, slavery, domestic violence used to be 'how the world woks'.

You're twisting the point.

"That's how the world works" in the sense that people are already born with benefits and advantages, and they should be allowed to exercise their talents fairly.

>>6181163
because it limits people's freedom to procreate, the ultimate goal of life.

Taking away a person's legacy is taking away their continuation of life.

>>6181173

I think it'll be great for that kind of genes (schizo, depression, alcoholism) and for disease.

I just don't think is a good idea to breed superhumans.

>>6181175

genetic engineering =/= sterilization

>>6181173
>"That's how the world works" in the sense that people are already born with benefits and advantages, and they should be allowed to exercise their talents fairly.

And again, I think it's better to make the difference between advantaged and disadvantaged people smaller than just giving more advantages to people that already have the most benefits.

>>6181175
I absolutely don't agree that procreating is the ultimate goal in life. But even if it were, nobody is talking about going around sterilizing people, we're talking about genetic treatments to improve health and performance.

>>6181173
>Also if we have the technology to prevent people from having genes that lead to alcoholism, schizophrenia, memory loss, depression, bipolar, shouldn't we do so? Not only to improve our economy but to improve their lives...it would be unethical not to.
Wrong!

>>6181184
>better to make advantaged and disadvantaged people smaller

Maybe it would close the gap given enough time?

It might be expensive for the first 30 years, then cheap after some geniuses figure out how to mass market eugenics.

Maybe the discoveries and technologies they come up with would bring more out of poverty...

It's kind of backwards thinking, sure cars were a luxury item that benefited the rich more than anyone. But eventually more could afford them, and slowly everyone benefit from the trade of cars.

>>6181182
how are you implementing "genetic engineering"?

>>6181147
What a bunch of BS.

Eugenicists a century ago were jerks. They were about forcibly sterilizing and killing people based on beliefs about genetics that were often self-serving and pseudoscientific. A century ago we hadn't even discovered DNA, let alone mapped the human genome, and our knowledge of biology and biochemistry was rudimentary compared to the present.

Obviously modern transhumanism is the exact same thing. Sure, modern transhumanists like Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom will say they disagree with the views of the old eugenicists, but that doesn't matter because the dictionary definitions of 'transhumanism' and 'eugenics' are kind of similar and also Hitler!

If that isn't scary enough, the US government sometimes has panels to discuss issues of future technology and transhumanists are invited to these panels! Clearly transhumanists secretly control the world and are planning to implement the ideas of early twentieth century eugenics. I mean, what other explanation could there be?

>>6181210
The normal way. Offer it to people, for free or for sale. Planned parenthood and pre-natal genetic screening are examples of eugenic programs that are already out there.

Very soon we will have the ability to perform arbitrary manipulation of the human genome:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/exclusive-jawdropping-breakthrough-hailed-as-landmark-in-fight-against-hereditary-diseases-as-crispr-technique-heralds-genetic-revolution-8925295.html

>>6180941
>genetic features
>intelligence
>moral character
hahaha, holy shit

>>6181236

What is funny ?