/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11792193]

Designer babies, yes or no?

[Anonymous No.11792223]

>>11792193
>If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.

>The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical” and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial- technological system.

[Anonymous No.11792238]

>>11792193
The corresponding ethical issues of genetic engineering are complex and deserve serious attention in what may be a relatively short interval before these capabilities become a reality. Each society will decide for itself where to draw the line on human genetic engineering, but we can expect a diversity of perspectives. Almost certainly, some countries will allow genetic engineering, thereby opening the door for global elites who can afford to travel for access to reproductive technology. As with most technologies, the rich and powerful will be the first beneficiaries. Eventually, though, I believe many countries will not only legalize human genetic engineering, but even make it a (voluntary) part of their national healthcare systems. The alternative would be inequality of a kind never before experienced in human history. I believe that in the end all will benefit from such universal program, guaranteeing everyone being born healthy, fit and intelligent. The question is for what should we use genetic engineering, and I refer to that the question that we should only augment the potential towards 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. Arguments against positional goods are no arguments against enhancements as such.

[Anonymous No.11792282]

>>11792193
From an ethical perspective, the idea of genetically manipulating offspring is a terrifying prospect (albeit with the potential to prevent a great deal of suffering in many cases), but it’ll inevitably become widespread due to competition between families, nations, and cultures.

Even if you’re convinced such a capability is unnatural and wrong to utilize, it’s hard to stick to such beliefs when your country’s military rivals are pumping out a generation of genius supersoldiers.

[Anonymous No.11792299]

>>11792193
Yeah. Gonna give my kids weird eyes and lactose tolerance

[Anonymous No.11792435]

>>11792193
Of course yes. In a world where you could have ensured your kid super traits he will resent you if you dont

[Anonymous No.11792443]

>>11792435
only if he's a dumb faggot like [math](You)[/math]

[Anonymous No.11792610]

>>11792435
>Natural things are good
>Doesn't drink from puddles

[Anonymous No.11792629]

>>11792193
Somewhat. If we can basically remove shit like downs and autism and other birth defects then it will be a net benefit to society, if it's just cosmetic stuff then it's pointless.

[Anonymous No.11792643]

>>11792629
What about utilizing gene editing to have your children be born smart, ffit and healthy as possible?

[Anonymous No.11792664]

>>11792643
Yeah. My only issue is cosmetic stuff.

[Anonymous No.11792667]

>>11792193
yes, only brainlets are against this

[Anonymous No.11792672]

>>11792629
>if it's just cosmetic stuff then it's pointless.

Not pointless either as it is better to be pretty than ugly.

[Anonymous No.11792678]

>>11792672
Beauty is subjective and variety is the spice of life.

[Anonymous No.11792681]

>>11792678
Explain kpop

[Anonymous No.11792686]

>>11792681
Way to prove my point.

[Anonymous No.11792695]

Yes, because that way the leftist idea of equality can actually be made real instead of just being a lie pushed by the elite to keep the plebs happy.

Currently all evidence still points to different races and cultures being more likely to carry genes that contribute to or detriment intellectual capacity. This is not surprising, as the same is true for nearly all animals on the planet. All attempts to disprove this in a manner that is scientifically verifiable have MISERABLY failed. Of course, it's extremely politically incorrect to point this out, and most people either intentionally avoid it due to the consequences it implies or have simply given in to the brainwashing and unironically accept the equality-myth as truth.

Designer babies change everything and can allow a society with true equality of opportunity, where people aren't statistically more likely to be born as a IQ<100 pleb based entirely on their lineage.

[Anonymous No.11792713]

>>11792223
Based.

[Anonymous No.11792715]

>>11792678
beauty is partially subjective, partially objective

[Anonymous No.11792732]

>>11792713
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhmIz7BFEj0
The Evolutionists have the best daughters though.

[Anonymous No.11792756]

>>11792686
>trying their darndest to look the same
>variety
Way to prove my point.

[Anonymous No.11792769]

>>11792193
I don't think babies would be very good as designers. What would they be designing anyway?

[Anonymous No.11792770]

>>11792193
I don’t understand how this is a ethical concern when this topic is brought up when we already live in a society that uses meritocracy, selecting for the best to flourish

You are already a designer baby if we all had the socialist idea to make everyone equally then I guess you could argue that it’s wrong to be superior and have a power differential

Envy is the only suffering it will cause

[Anonymous No.11792917]

>>11792193
not sure
we could cure pretty much every hereditary disease
but you would have pieces of shit having crippled kids just to be special and gucci

[Anonymous No.11792941]

>>11792917
Breeding =/= Genetic Engineering
Those dogs are products of inbreeding and cosmetic appearances over ability, not genetically engineered. China bred some gene augmented dogs, and they have not disease issues

[Anonymous No.11792944]

>>11792756
They all look like ugly gooks is my point. They are not interesting to look at and they all look the same.

[Anonymous No.11793020]

>>11792941
there are fundamental physiological and biophysical issues these dogs have
they have back problems, joint problems, they can't move properly because how their bone structure is formed. Some can't breathe properly. Internal organ or cancer problems are just the icing on the cake.

My point is, some people would design their kids to be completely malformed simply to stand out.

[Anonymous No.11793029]

>>11793020
>My point is, some people would design their kids to be completely malformed simply to stand out.
True, and that should be outlawed

[Anonymous No.11793034]

>>11793029
>True, and that should be outlawed
Playing devils advocate but couldn't you argue that your kid's appearance is the direct result of freedom of expression? If an individual can do what they want with their bodies, then why wouldn't they be able to modify the results of procreation to create some art piece?

[Anonymous No.11793047]

It's the only way to compensate the disgenic influence of modern society.

[Anonymous No.11793054]

>>11793034
One shouldn't be allowed to express himself with his children's bodies.

And that includes circumcision and tranny kids.

[Anonymous No.11793270]

>>11792193
yaaaaaaas

[Anonymous No.11793275]

I think people should be allowed to do what they want. Personally, if I had the option to remove my family’s genetic predisposition to autoimmune disorders from my child I would do it— but that’s the extent of what I would change.

[Anonymous No.11793310]

>>11793275
What would you say to parents who went beyond health-related modifications and genetically engineered their children to be predisposed to great fitness and great intellect?

[Anonymous No.11793329]

>>11792193
>Designer babies, yes or no?
yes.
It is inevitable that to survive the next 1000 years we must engineer human existence ourselves, so that the human body can overcome pollution and lack of resources. Anyone who believes designer babies will be purely cosmetic enhancements is insane. Of course we will design our own genetics but mainly for practical purposes. For example it may be prudent to engineer our lungs to process carbons more efficiently without developing cancer. It may be that we could engineer children to be resistant to radiation from the sun without merely producing more melanin. Perhaps we will have to engineer the human race to be able to drink sea water rather than fresh water. Forget the blonde haired blue eyed baby. we are perhaps looking at the blue skinned, Carbon Monoxide breathing, saline drinking baby

[Anonymous No.11793336]

>>11793310
They can do whatever the hell they want. I don’t care.

[Anonymous No.11793355]

>>11792944
For the lulz, I want you to post that on Twitter and report back with results.

[Anonymous No.11793391]

>>11792223
>literally nothing
further reminder that teddites are brainlets that don't read books

[Nicholas Daniel Gunderson No.11793450]

How was kal-el made?
https://www.space.com/18348-neil-tyson-superman-krypton-planet.html

[Anonymous No.11793824]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.11793833]

Yes, because the other way around is to stay on this dying Earth will a dumber and dumber population until we all go extinct

[Anonymous No.11793856]

>>11793833
dear rastus, things exist you would never understtand

[Anonymous No.11793863]

>>11792193
Why the fucking shit was I born 100 years early for this

[Anonymous No.11793866]

>>11793856
Like what, nigger?

[Anonymous No.11793897]

Has OP ever read Brave New World?

[Anonymous No.11793909]

>>11793897
Yes, I also have seen Gattaca.

[Anonymous No.11793911]

>>11792193
no

[Anonymous No.11793935]

>>11792193
yes yes yes

[Anonymous No.11793990]

>>11793911
>>11793935
Why?

[Anonymous No.11794153]

>>11792193
Most jobs are too complex for the lower denominations of intelligence. Society itself is too complex for the highest denominations of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11794161]

>Unknown genetic error shows up and all designer babies go blind and schizophrenic at age 11
What could go wrong

[Anonymous No.11794283]

>>11794161
That's not how it works. CRISPR removes unintended mutations, all what we need is ~15 years of genetic research to fully understand the working of the genetic code then we can safely implement it to grant one's child as much possibilities it can genetically have.

[Anonymous No.11794328]

>>11792686
Does it have a second face ontop of it's face? Very uncanny valley

[Anonymous No.11794417]

>>11792193
would literally solve any racial questions, no more sub 80 iq niggers. if they don’t like it force that shit on them and the modified ones will be quick to switch sides.

[Anonymous No.11794426]

>>11794283
>all what we need is ~15 years of genetic research to fully understand the working of the genetic code then we can safely implement it
Famous last words

[Anonymous No.11794432]

>>11792193
No, not until the technology improves. There's too much hype about what genetic engineering could do that far beyond what genetic engineering is actually capable of right now. Sure we may be able to edit genes, but actually figuring out what genes to edit to cause desired traits will be incredibly hard. It's even possible that attempts at genetic engineering could cause more negative traits than good ones

[Anonymous No.11794445]

>>11794417
But wouldn't a new side emerge, of 200 IQ Chad's that don't care for 100 IQ normies or 150 iq semi geniuses?

[Anonymous No.11794715]

>>11794432
Won't this change once we get 1000x the amount of genetic data available today? We already have the ML models. We just need more data, as there are too many parameters.

[Anonymous No.11794781]

>>11792193
If applied equally and given general advantages that don’t require specific circumstances to be applied, like greater health, intelligence, healing and strength
Otherwise if there’s an augment gap you get eugenics race war
If society tailors its citizens to predetermined roles, then it will lead to evolutionary stagnation because people couldn’t break the mold and create something entirely new

[Anonymous No.11794808]

>>11792223
brainlet tier

[Anonymous No.11796801]

bump

[Anonymous No.11796842]

>>11792193
Absolutely and everyone with the capacity should be learning how to do it and design their own genetic modifications
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G89_qyPUz0I
for basic information

[Anonymous No.11797173]

>>11793034
Children are human beings, human beings cannot and should not be property.

[Anonymous No.11797177]

>>11797173
A child's entire being is made up of the genetics inherited from their ancestors altering the genetics of your offspring is little different because either way they're products of genetics they have no control over

[Anonymous No.11797187]

>>11792193
the future of mankind is the übermensch so yes.

[Anonymous No.11797194]

>>11797177
True, but giving your child disadvantages on purpose for guucci money is objectively an evil act, whereas giving them genetic advantage is objectively a good thing. And fuck you if you're some kind of brainlet moral relativist with a need to ask why these things are objective.
it's also better for society if it's members are higher IQ, african countries inevidably degenerate into banana republics because they are low IQ, wheres countries with high IQ inevitably prosper even if they have questionable rulers. If you had a society where 50% of people had an IQ over 120 then they'd win.

[Anonymous No.11797203]

>>11792435
This. I would positively hate my parents if I learned they could have given me better health/abilities and chose not to. It would be almost (actually?) a form of child abuse.

[Anonymous No.11797204]

>>11797194
Absolutely it's an inherent evil to render your offspring lesser it's just for the sake of argument i wanted to add that

[Anonymous No.11797253]

>>11792193
Oh look, an early 2000s middle school essay prompt.

[Anonymous No.11797258]

>>11792193
>spend your time and money raising a future taxpayer
No. No babies at all until the social and economic systems change; whether they're designer or not is irrelevant. That is the most based position.

[Anonymous No.11797277]

>>11792686
>>11794328
the before pic

[Anonymous No.11797280]

>>11792678
>Beauty is subjective
Wrong. There is a pretty good consensus on what beautiful people are like. It is also a fact that they get better opportunities in life, they make more money than ugly people, and companies with a beautiful workforce turn 15% more profit than others with ugly workers. It also helps you find a better partner and it improves your happiness and interpersonal relationships. Your mistake is to assume that cosmetic stuff doesn't matter; it actually can matter more than functional features, because other people make decisions based on what they see.

[Anonymous No.11797296]

>>11797277
This looks much better, like a real person

[Anonymous No.11797905]

>>11793336
Horrible mentality

[Anonymous No.11797925]

>>11792686
Christ the eyes look so fucked

[Anonymous No.11797962]

I wouldn't because that would literally be like cucking myself out of the gene pool, thats the equivalent of raising another man's child.
A designer baby isn't your baby.

Second of all, nobody has the knowledge at this point to tell what those genetic "tweeking" will have down the line, for all we know they'll result in catastrophic failure, poluting the entire human gene pool with tweeks because of your shallow opinions is insane.

If a designer baby come out he should be castrated to protect the genepool

[Anonymous No.11797965]

wont work

[Anonymous No.11798031]

>>11797962
Changing a few genes won't count as cucking. You will still by far be the male genetically closer to your kid.

[Anonymous No.11798070]

>>11798031
No, its cuck, you don't know how it will change the kid

[Anonymous No.11798110]

>>11797962
>>11798070

Because it's likely you've had at least a few errors in your gametes before you've reproduced, it is impossible to ever not be a cuck. Especially because you have no idea how it will change the kid.

[Anonymous No.11798118]

>with wife at doctor's talking baby design and wishes
>when we're done i ask for if i can talk to him just the two of us
>big penis?
>huge penis

[Anonymous No.11798127]

>>11792193
It should and will happen given our current trajectory but it will definitely present some of the most challenging moral, ethical, and philosophical problems.

[Anonymous No.11798155]

>>11797962
Having designer baby is being a ultimate chad. Not only can you make nature your bitch but you you skip the mutation part and take your prizes directly.
Beyond that it is possible to create a gene-augmented clone of yourself. It is you, but better. Become a father-brother to your ultimate triumph over nature.

[Anonymous No.11798160]

>>11797965
But it already did? We are already doing some low-key version of it by removing genes who cause diseases. The method is the same.

[Anonymous No.11798190]

>>11797962
b8

[Anonymous No.11798373]

>>11798155
This is cope, being the ultimate Chad would be impregnating a 10/10 aryan goddess or more.

In reality you don't know what is objectively better, you don't know what is biologically adventurous.
You will just make your kid fit your perception of what is attractive at the time. But you don't know what those modification will result in the long run.
Its like placing 38inch rims on a Honda Civic, genetics is about harmony, you can't just change a part and expecting to just werk.

[Anonymous No.11798414]

>>11794715
>>more data and machine learning will magically fix anything!
yeah and I'm sure unicorns and fairies exist too!

[Anonymous No.11798482]

>>11798414
>>>more data and machine learning will magically fix anything!
It actually will. Magically in fact. Just wait.

[Anonymous No.11798492]

>>11792193
Eliminating disease must occur but beyond that I become increasingly skeptical. Humans will lose out to AI regardless, I suspect maintaining a healthy but largely unaltered human population will be best path for maintaining any sense of meaning in existence.

[Anonymous No.11798493]

>>11792223
>Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.
Yeah but you won't find me from Sulawesi now will you BONG

[Anonymous No.11798511]

>>11792223
And designer babies would probably be centered around artificial wombs, the government can't regulate regular sperm in regular womb.

[Anonymous No.11798526]

>>11798482
>>just wait
and guess what? You may have to wait decades to even know if some of those gene modifications are actually useful and don't have detrimental side effects. Who knows if this gene mod causes people to straight up fucking die in their 40s. Just wait, it could turn out to be very bad!

[Anonymous No.11798552]

>>11797962
You'll just be cucking yourself out in the long run anyway when all the genetically augmented super-Chads are the only ones getting laid, while your outdated all-natural kid gets left in the dust, cursing his idiotic parent for being so shortsighted.

[Anonymous No.11798562]

>>11798526
OK gen-Xer

[Anonymous No.11798567]

>>11798552
Why does getting laid matter in the age of artificial wombs and neuralink-based, hyper-real sex sims?

[Anonymous No.11798639]

>>11798373
>genetics is about harmony
You have no clue how genetics work. Genetics is no RPG nor fair. It is mutation, blind selection and at best equilibrium. Once we understood its workings better we could help our children to have the best possible tendencies to have a greater potential in life: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.01547.pdf

[Anonymous No.11798647]

>>11792193
Should be mandatory.

[Anonymous No.11798650]

>>11798373
>being the ultimate Chad would be impregnating a 10/10 aryan goddess or more.
No, a ultimate chad is someone who founds a civilization all by using clones of himself.

[Anonymous No.11798657]

>>11798492
>Humans will lose out to AI regardless
Unless we merge with them, then we will ride the wave together.

[Anonymous No.11798705]

A picture of Godlesness, God will soon come to claim his own. Transhumanism will simply result in mankinds extinction on this Earth, and it will be well earned, the soul has been sacrificed for material advancements.

[Anonymous No.11798711]

>>11798705
Only the ignorant put a limit on knowledge. Technology is of man and man is holy. All that we create brings us closer to Point Omega. Knowledge stretches us beyond the Demiurge’s prison of air and stone.
The universe is fated to ascend towards a final point of divine unification.
God put us on Earth in His own all-powerful image. This means that not only should we transform Earth as we see fit, but that we should do our best to emulate God as well. This was shown to us by the existence of Jesus who was both Man and God. He manipulated his environment to serve humanity (water into wine, loaves and fishes, healing the sick). Eventually, he left humanity behind and ascended beyond physical existence. We should do our best to live up to his example. God gave us intelligent minds for a reason, and that was so we could create technology which we shall use to become as Him. He waits for us to join Him in an existence beyond this one. To do this, we will need to shed our basic forms while maintaining our elemental soul. That is, we must maintain our intelligence and our love for God and each other. This is the only way we can prove our faith.

[Anonymous No.11798815]

>>11798711
That you think God would accept the twisted abominations of Man as his own speaks volumes of your own degeneration. The arrogance of Man, it was responsible for the death of Christ; God will soon wipe us clean from existence, a victim of our own creations. Cope with this knowledge however you would like, friend.

[Anonymous No.11798827]

>>11798526
You are literally retarded. If you get genetic data AND all other sorts of health/environment related data from the majority of the current population (of all ages) it is quite easy to interpolate the outcome of new DNAs.

[Anonymous No.11798877]

>>11798650
Thats not possible yet

[Anonymous No.11798898]

>>11792193
I want to have nano carbon tubes hardened mussel tissue. An reenforced neuronal reaction systems. Supportive bio-plasma cambers for more strength. Immunity to pathogens. And stopped aging.

If you can do all this i sacrifice my self as first human test-person.

[Anonymous No.11798953]

>>11798877
Yet. But it will be possible to do in this century, maybe even in this half.

[Anonymous No.11798999]

>>11792223
based

[Anonymous No.11799010]

>>11792193
In theory, yes.
In practice, not yet. It will just be used to make obedient, bugmen with superior mental and physical attributes but slavish temperaments.

[Anonymous No.11799262]

>>11798827
prove it. If it's gonna work in people, presumably it works in some model organism today?

[Anonymous No.11799270]

>>11799262
We did some experiments on the follistatin gene with mice and they had an improved 15% lifespan and larger muscle mass less fats and a healthier heart we already have someone injecting themselves with a diy gene therapy

[Anonymous No.11799857]

>>11792193
>Modifying a baby to be a superhuman is highly unethical and should never be done despite having parental consent
>Executing a fully developed baby and selling off its organs/discarding its body afterwards is completely ethical

Do Amerimutts really?

[Anonymous No.11800917]

When will we able to do it?

[Anonymous No.11801317]

>>11800917
Technically speaking, a few years ago already.

[Anonymous No.11801327]

>>11792193
Of course

[Anonymous No.11801634]

>>11801317
Sure, but they only modified the CCR5 DNA alleles, its effects will be limited. We need to go beyond modifications of a few alleles to a general modification.

[Anonymous No.11802063]

>>11798567
The non-engineered babies will be much less effective at interfacing with the neural implant, so they won't even get that, either.

[Anonymous No.11802123]

>>11792238
>genetic engineering becomes part of public healthcare
>Blacks are specifically recommended to participate because of higher rates of "problem genes"
>muh Tuskegee
>Whites engineer smarter babies while blacks refuse to participate in genetic engineering, magnifying racial inequality
I can see it already

[Anonymous No.11802149]

>>11793310
Have you ever witnessed dementia or cancer?

[Anonymous No.11802155]

>>11794283
The future of gene therapy could include engineering viruses to integrate new genes into the host's genome

[Anonymous No.11802172]

>>11797962
Imagine cucking your offspring with anyone else's DNA
t. haploid clone master race

[Anonymous No.11802210]

>>11802149
Yes, to see people decay in mind and body is something I don`t wish on anyone. With gene editing we could minimize that threat.

[Anonymous No.11804188]

Bunp

[Anonymous No.11804190]

>>11792193
Yes

[Anonymous No.11805591]

>>11792193
What will happen if the USA or Europe fails to adapt this technology and we see East Asia breed geniusis by the truckloads? Will there be any chance to compete?

[Anonymous No.11806054]

bump

[Anonymous No.11806500]

>>11793824
Isn't designer babies the very opposite what the nazis wanted? It is the obsolence of social darwinistic thought.

[Anonymous No.11806632]

>>11806500
no.

[Anonymous No.11806688]

>>11792193
It'd be unethical NOT to have a designer baby in 100 years when the tech is fully realized. It would be a horrible idea to be an early adopter though

[Anonymous No.11807068]

>>11792672
>>11792678
>>11792672
If everyone will be beautiful by today standards then soon after "beautiful" will change its meaning.

[Anonymous No.11807402]

>>11802123
Or majority black western countries bar whites from participating because they already have "institutional privilege"

[Anonymous No.11807764]

>>11792299
>Weird Eyes
Why?

[Anonymous No.11808479]

bump

[Anonymous No.11808994]

>>11792193
Yes, to eliminate genetic diseases and mental illnesses. No access to the rich first though, extreme class divide is the last thing we need.

[Anonymous No.11809324]

>>11792193
People will choose lighter skin, so yes

[Anonymous No.11809434]

It's really tough. Even assuming some kind of law that allows people access regardless of income, so the rich aren't pumping out superbabies and rolling past everyone else, there's still a high risk of an ever-escalating arms race, especially when it comes to improving physical, sensory, and cognitive abilities. Even if the US totally outlaws it, a country like China may allow more of it so that they can gain more of an advantage.

I suspect that in the long run, it's going to be inevitable and trying to outlaw it won't really work. I think they'll need to come up with a kind of "equality of outcome" compromise. I know that phrase has very negative associations, but, basically, I think countries like the US will probably end up outlawing all modifications by default while allowing a small list that everyone has access to and can use for their children. So every 10 - 20 years, new gene modifications will open up.

Each new generation will probably be a bit smarter and more healthy than the last, but within each generation, people will all have the same modifications (if their parents choose to make them). So there'll be generational unfairness, but it's unavoidable. At least this way there'll be less intra-generational unfairness, and we'll be able to keep up with countries like China who may do crazy things like make a long list of ostensible intelligence-increasing modifications absolutely mandatory for all children born after a certain year.

Same thing for invasive neural implants and other cybernetic improvements. Past alpha stages, allow everyone access regardless of income, use phased rollouts, and outlaw anything that isn't approved.

If someone is in violation, obviously it'd be unfair to punish or penalize the child or handicap them Harrison Bergeron-style, but the parents should receive very harsh punishments, like years in prison, to disincentivize it. (If it's just a fine or something, wealthy people would consider it a very worthwhile tradeoff.)

[Anonymous No.11809457]

>>11792193
Can I fuck 'em? Then yes.
Can I suck 'em? Then no.
Can I wiggledy-wop? Yup!
Can I friggledy-bop? What?

[Anonymous No.11809736]

>>11792223
> imagine not wanting your son to be a 7" 150iq aryan god

[Anonymous No.11810003]

>>11809434
What's to stop people from going to another country and the entire thing will be nigh impossible to ever actually regulate

[Anonymous No.11810012]

>>11792193
doesn't matter if you say no. That guy said yes. His kids own the future.

[Anonymous No.11810531]

>>11792193
but anon, how would you even use a baby as a football? they aren't aerodynamic at all!

[Anonymous No.11811354]

>>11792713
>>11792732
Hideauze were literally the good guys, since they integrated the best elements of both primitivism and transhumanism

[Anonymous No.11811730]

ni,ü

[Anonymous No.11812056]

>>11809736
>7 inch Aryan midget

[Anonymous No.11812393]

>>11797962
The future
>everyone having superior designer babies
>your narcissistic, selfish and actually retarded parents decide not to because that would be "cucking them out of the genepool"
>everyone the same age are better than you at everything, you don't understand contemporary language anymore, etc,etc

[Anonymous No.11814212]

>>11792193
B

[Anonymous No.11814524]

>>11809434
>>11802123
>>11799010

There is a solution to this, Make it open source. Just like software, find ways for the clandestine geneticist to do it himself. This is the only option, every state-sponsored solution will be corrupted.

[Anonymous No.11816470]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11816571]

>>11792678
>someone (not me!) should be ugly because I like to feel better about myself

[Anonymous No.11816591]

>>11792193
It causes inequality in the short term, equality in the long term. Age will then become the biggest cause of inequality between humans.

[Anonymous No.11816624]

>>11792193
Won't be adopted by the West because people here are cucked beyond recognition when it comes to genetic engineering, but lots of East Asian countries will love it.

[Anonymous No.11816765]

>>11792193
if you throw away your morals and view a human like that of a specific type of ant designed to do one job and one job only, yes
if you hold on to human individuality, and you want them to chose their own destiny, only in terms of purely cosmetic looks, disease, and perhaps even intelligence
if you believe in a god that puts us all to whatever destiny we should naturally have and that genetic editing is immoral because you are playing god, no

personally, I have not made my own decision on if it would be good or bad or how far is too far. would the society that is okay with this be a dictatorship? would they be editing babies just for slave work? would a gene edited baby made specifically for factory work not be outcasted and viewed lower than the gene edited babies made to be successful, attractive, and strong leaders of companies? I find this discussion to be more philosophical or moral than logical, because logically, for the purpose of humanity succeeding, the answer would be yes.

[Anonymous No.11818467]

[Anonymous No.11818590]

>>11792193
>yes or no?
No.

[Anonymous No.11818595]

>>11818590
Why?

[Anonymous No.11818614]

>>11818595
A brave new world. Utopian hell. Nothing will be better, just different problems.

[Anonymous No.11818680]

>>11818614
>Nothing will be better
Well health, fitness and intelligence will be better. Many genetic issues will be solved, but indeed more potential will be misused but it can be contained to a minimum. Important is that this technology will be in free, democratic and fair hands.

[Anonymous No.11818689]

>>11792193
Based China already made a girl immune to HIV, she will be the best whore in all the East when she grows up.
Meanwhile the West will bitch and moan about my ethics while the rest of the world makes proper progress and curb stomps us accordingly.

[Anonymous No.11818692]

>>11818614
>nothing will be better
Lazy cope

[Anonymous No.11819902]

>>11793863
General gene-modded babies are just 20 years away.

[Anonymous No.11819938]

>>11792223
so? nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.11820162]

>>11792223
>the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering
very next sentence
>the only legitimate code of ethics would be mine of course, and I want to impose it on the rest of the population

[Anonymous No.11820169]

>>11792193
3D printed babies, really save some wear and tear on mom

[Anonymous No.11820174]

>>11792678
your pseud intellectual masturbation aside, making people generally more attractive could have benefits in terms of how couples interact and what not. Maybe not, but at this point there's no reason to just rule it out.

[Anonymous No.11820183]

>>11797962
That's silly. By changing a handful of genes, you'll increase the likelyhood that all your other genes will be passed down. The cuckholdry angle really doesn't work, by reproducing with someone a much larger proportion of your genetic material is substituted with much less benefit.

[Anonymous No.11820205]

>>11792223
Look for possibilities in every problem, not problems in every possibility, Ted.
Imagine go-t dictating not too have babies too smart - governments are being taken down for lesser audacities. Then again there are technologies to change genome in adults already, so such asinine regulations will make no sense.
Technologies will allow people live in forests without lacking comforts, so go-t will have less and less power over society (but more and more power over their own life, which is a great trade whichever way you look at it)

[Anonymous No.11820214]

>>11792193
The only way.

[Anonymous No.11820218]

>>11820214
Unskilled fascism relies on homogeneous populations with flat values. Your beliefs are incompatible with the singularity.

[Anonymous No.11820225]

For stuff like downs and other debilitating birth defects? Absolutely. But for stuff like IQ and looks I don't think it should be practiced otherwise you'll end up going down the rabbit hole of a genetic caste system. Imagine the political dynasties that going on right now but this time they have the money to literally breed their perfect successors. It wouldn't end well.

[Anonymous No.11820246]

>>11820225
Cheap genome engineering is gonna be fun. Can't wait for honey boo boo meth babies with special eyes

[Anonymous No.11820419]

>>11820225
So you say to me, instead of inheritary retards we'll be governed by literal geniuses and that is somehow a bad thing? Are you not very smart? Why are you affraid of intelligence? I think all our problems are from our retardations.
Also why would caste system bother you (it is always present one way or another) if you're an immortal healthy and happy intelligent self-sufficient individual, pouring your talients into the common ocean of information and getting all you need for free because of abundance not for being a wageslave for no good reason.

[Anonymous No.11821636]

Would you genetically modify your child? And if so how much?

[Anonymous No.11821995]

>>11821636
I would modify my children to be biologically immortal and enormously smart, so they would know better what else to modify when they grow up.

[Anonymous No.11822030]

>>11821636
100%
at the very least to fix whatever kind of connective tissue disorder I have, maybe give him a 20 inch dick too

[Anonymous No.11822081]

>>11822030
>a 20 inch dick
To become pederasts? Because vulva is usually no more than 6 inch deep, they wouldn't want to break the dick.

[Anonymous No.11822089]

>>11822081
yeah but he could win the cockfencing world championships

[Anonymous No.11822091]

>>11792193
big yes