/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14618336]

The thought popped into my head the other day after talking to my sibling and their spouse, who said before they talk about having children they plan on getting screened for any possible hereditary illness. That led me down a rabbit hole, I watched Gattaca, and then I started wondering, once this stuff gets totally figured out, could parents literally have any baby they want? Could two average height parents have a kid who will grow up to be 7 feet tall? Could two African parents have a blonde, stereotypically Scandinavian looking baby, or two Asian parents have the genes of the sperm and egg tweaked to have a black baby? Or is it just limited to what genes the parents already possess and they can't give the baby what they don't already have? And could someone with a serious inheritable condition like schizophrenia have a child without any fear for their child's health since the doctors could just eliminate those genes in the baby?
What about cloning dead people? Could we do something a la MTV's "Clone High," or essentially what Nikolai Fyodorov suggested and get genetic material from the dead and make an exact copy of them?

[Anonymous No.14618344]

much more likely to create abominations and stillbirths than even replicate let alone improve on the hand of god

[Anonymous No.14618357]

>>14618336
>once this stuff gets totally figured out
IF it gets figured out, which it probably won't. If gene editing was improving at a good pace, we'd have it in 100 years, maybe. How things are going now? That's just a gay dream.

[Anonymous No.14618365]

>>14618344
>>14618357
Oh, interesting. So, is it a pipe dream? I had heard all the hulabaloo about test tube babies, and them isolating and eliminating genes for certain mental issues. I had thought it was just a matter right now of moralfags freaked out that it's too close to eugenics (though imo it's the opposite, since if anyone can have any kind of baby they want, then sterilizing people or getting rid of certain races is totally pointless), but if given a free hand they could just go ahead and make an army of Dolf Lundgerens or something.

[Anonymous No.14618368]

>>14618336
>Could two African parents have a blonde, stereotypically Scandinavian looking baby, or two Asian parents have the genes of the sperm and egg tweaked to have a black baby?

Poltard moron detected. Race is a social construct. There is no such thing as a "typical" Scandanavian or a "typical" African. If you had even a basic understanding of human biology, then you would already know this, but I imagine you're the type of person who puts more trust in outdated tropes, bible stories, stereotypes, and racist anecdotes than facts, logic, or modern science.

[Anonymous No.14618377]

>>14618368
You know damn well what I mean you basedfaced prick. Don't be facetious.

[Anonymous No.14618383]

>>14618368
And no, I'm an atheist and a Marxist. I don't put stock in any pearl clutching douchery.

[Anonymous No.14618388]

>>14618365
>So, is it a pipe dream?
Yes mostly. The only people actually doing research into these things are old boomers who will die soon. You must understand, these "moral" questions do not only prevent this sort of thing from being allowed to happen, it also prevents the actual research into these things from being done. You can't do without the research. People who are intelligent know this which is why they would rather make money than go into the sciences that permit this.

Just look at this as an example:
>>14618365
(Also shit bait btw)

[Anonymous No.14618390]

>>14618388
I was meaning to reference this:
>>14618368

[Anonymous No.14618404]

>>14618388
That's a damn shame. But what I'm picking up from you isn't that it's not possible, it's just not likely to happen due to moral constraints and lack of funding? If the gloves came off and geneticists could get to work with impunity (or somewhere, say like China where the public isn't as squeamish as the West) would these be possible? Physically possible, I mean. Or due to the lack of research in the field (because of the moral pearl clutching) do we just not have enough of info?

[Anonymous No.14618409]

>>14618336
since you posted a picture of a baby
the first time i looked at your post i thought it said "a thought pooped into my head"

[Anonymous No.14618413]

>>14618336
>Remember lads
>Eugenics is good
>We need that army of obedient workers for the new world order
>Get your genome checked and only birth approved babies

[Anonymous No.14618419]

>>14618404
>would it be physically possible?
Yes. However I am a realist and this is the question I'm trying to really address:
>will it happen?
Not within our lifetimes. At least not in the west. You mention China but it's so far away I don't know how they are truly doing, at the moment. However, considering their government is very centralized, it wouldn't be for the purposes you mention, or would never be disclosed.
>gloves came off
>moral pearl clutching
This "morality" that prevents it, is way deeper than you think. It's very complex and there's no way of simply "taking of the gloves" regarding it. Believe ne.

[Anonymous No.14618423]

>>14618409
lol
>>14618413
This would eliminate eugenics, eventually. Crude things like sterilizing people or gassing minorities, or even worrying about "muh low IQ immigrants" wouldn't be a thing if a new sort of human race were able to be developed in labs. If that's the case, why would anyone give a shit if poor people from the Third World immigrated to their country if they won't have a lasting effect on the genepool? Or if your daughter came home with a [insert race you don't like] if for all it matters they could have a baby who looks like Wesley Snipes and another who looks like Yao Ming? Science would render all of that pointless because after a few centuries everyone would be perfectly healthy, leaps and bounds ahead of us in intelligence, and race would be rendered nothing but a cosmetic choice.

[Anonymous No.14618427]

>>14618419
Well, I'm comforted to know it would be within the realms of possibility. Even if it takes centuries for the morals to shift, utopianism isn't just a dream anymore. What do you think is the source of the moral fussiness? Is it Abrahamic sensibilities? Or do you think Asia has these same problems? I would think with the pervasive cultural influence of Confucianism, striving for the ideal in everything, paired with communism centralism, they would be a lot more comfortable.
Unless I'm wrong and it's not an Abrahamic issue. It seems to me Abrahamic faith teaches "Don't worry about it. God will sort it all out in the end." and leads to the kind of moral conservatism that would hold us back, but there might be other traditions in philosophy I'm not aware of.

[Anonymous No.14618452]

>>14618413
starwars basedfags have shown they are incapable of free thought
Nothing to lose since you cant make these drones more obedient than they already are

[Anonymous No.14618481]

>>14618427
>Is it Abrahamic sensibilities?
Not only.

[Anonymous No.14618488]

>>14618427
>>14618481
Not only. Yes they would see it against god but of all the things impeding this from happening, this is the one of the leastest.

[Anonymous No.14618490]

>>14618481
Could you elaborate a bit, please? As I said, to me, the influence of the three Abrahamic religions, with its faith that the world will eventually end and God will bring about a utopia is the catalyst for throwing a bitch-fit any time someone tries to improve society a little.Even if they aren't conscious religions, 2,000 years (or 1500 in the case of Muslims) of conditioning has been an albatross around our necks that the Asians don't. Jews are a mixed bag because I guess some want to drag their feet for the Messiah and some >>14618481
have instead been conditioned with whole Tikkum Olam idea of triyng to actively improve the world.

[Anonymous No.14618491]

>>14618427
>Is it Abrahamic sensibilities
You know what would be funny? Just as a prank, God gives horrible cancer and tumor to all gene editing creations, lowering their lifespan to 33 years, while the rest of people who remained faithful got the reward of living 500 years like the people in ancient times.

[Anonymous No.14618501]

>>14618490
Sorry, didn't mean to quote twice.
>Not only. Yes they would see it against god but of all the things impeding this from happening, this is the one of the leastest
Ah, could you elaborate a bit on the others?

[Anonymous No.14618504]

>>14618491
Religioids in vengeful fantasy land again. Why are you on a science board? Shouldn't you be hitting up Answers in Genesis?

[Anonymous No.14618516]

>>14618336
Yes

[Anonymous No.14618529]

mostly limited to genes that the parents have. get invetro to make sure you dont get downies. worth the 5k.

[Anonymous No.14618535]

>>14618504
>vengeful fantasy land again
Remind me again of the "enlightened" population demographics, divorce rates and unhappiness?

[Anonymous No.14618545]

>>14618535
Again, why are you in a science board instead of jacking off to (convicted fraudster) Kent Hovinid videos?
Also, the fact that you're wishing cancer on people implies to me you aren't very happy.

[Anonymous No.14618551]

>>14618545
>on people

[Anonymous No.14618556]

>>14618551
Yes. You hope your imaginary friend gives cancer to people who are smarter than you "like people in ancient times." Lol, people were living 500 years in "ancient times?" When? Who?

[Anonymous No.14618564]

>>14618336
the kid in that picture isn't high iq

[Anonymous No.14618645]

>>14618556
>people who are smarter than you
if they're so smart, why can't they even figure out basic things like happiness?

[Anonymous No.14618684]

>>14618645
If you're so happy, why do you want strangers to get cancer?
And again, who was living for 500 years, and when? I would be really interested to see any articles on that. When was this discovered?

[Anonymous No.14618698]

>>14618684
>If you're so happy, why do you want strangers to get cancer?
it's not that i want them to get cancer, it would just be pretty ironic

>who was living for 500 years, and when?
adam, noah, all kinds of people pre-flood really

>I would be really interested to see any articles on that
"science" has a "standard practice" of rejecting anything that might confirm the Bible as true in any aspect no matter how much evidence it has. You want some REAL science? No tree will ever be found to be older than a couple thousand years using tried and tested methods (not "methods" based on mathematical models)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

[Anonymous No.14618704]

>>14618698
>adam, noah, all kinds of people pre-flood really
Aw, come on son.

[Anonymous No.14618714]

>>14618698
>not "methods" based on mathematical models
Radioactive deacay isnt a mathematical model you schizo

[Anonymous No.14618718]

>>14618491
Just as the everloving God gives cancer and tumor to some of his followers?

[Anonymous No.14618739]

>>14618704
come on what? disappointed your great-great-great-grandpa wasn't a chimp?

>>14618714
>Radioactive deacay isnt a mathematical model
yes it is dumbass, it's based on many unmeasurable things like energy gates, which are derived mathematically, not empirically

>>14618718
>Just as the everloving God gives cancer and tumor to some of his followers?
yeah, as a wake up call. sometimes HaShem loves people enough to give them cancer so they stop with idol worship (christianity)

[Anonymous No.14618755]

>>14618383
>>14618377
anon please, he wasn't even subtle

[Anonymous No.14618799]

>>14618383
>i'm doubly retarded
So this is the stock of people I share this board with?

[Anonymous No.14618829]

>>14618799
Says the dude who believes in magic kek

[Anonymous No.14618834]

>>14618704
why do christcucks love niggers so much, it's quite ridiculous at this point

[Anonymous No.14618853]

>>14618834
What? Is that directed at me? I used a stock reaction image of a disappointed black grandfather in response to some goofball posting about creationism on a science board.

[Anonymous No.14619020]

>>14618336
>or two Asian parents have the genes of the sperm and egg tweaked to have a black baby?
This isnt possible

[Anonymous No.14619024]

>>14618336
>And could someone with a serious inheritable condition like schizophrenia have a child without any fear for their child's health since the doctors could just eliminate those genes in the baby
Schizophrenia isnt entirely genetic. Being traumatized or doing some drugs can induce it, particularly meth

[Anonymous No.14619030]

>>14618365
In vitro fertilization allows you some control over the baby DNA. You can pick the sperm donor and the egg donor (much more expensive). Interesting that relatively old women in the 50s can get pregnant relatively easy if they have a donated IVF egg, theirs are dead but the womb still works.

[Anonymous No.14619038]

>>14619020
practically not, theoretically it is

[Anonymous No.14619094]

>>14619038
>>14619020
Could both you fellas state the reason why you believe what you do?
Anon A. Why is it impossible?
Anon B. what do you mean? Could they change hair color genes? Eye color, skin color, shape of the face?

[Anonymous No.14619101]

>>14619094
B here, they just would not do so

[Anonymous No.14619103]

>>14619101
Do you have any articles you could maybe hook me up with? Is there any indication that phenotype is controllable?

[Anonymous No.14619719]

>>14618336
>Or is it just limited to what genes the parents already possess and they can't give the baby what they don't already have?
Depends on the technique. You could force different expresion, it would be easier to introduce extra genetic material yet it is not necessary.
>And could someone with a serious inheritable condition like schizophrenia have a child without any fear for their child's health since the doctors could just eliminate those genes in the baby?
Yes. Both IVF and CRISPR could prevent the genetic causes of schizophrenia or other diseases and even enable improved health, fitness and intelligence. A deletion of the GluK4 receptor is known to lead higher cognitive functions.

[Anonymous No.14619757]

>>14618383
Fuck off, I should chop YOUR ENTIRE BODY into pieces and throw it in trash cans all over the country to avoid getting caught you fukcing marxist piece of JUNK

[Anonymous No.14619763]

>>14618336
>or two Asian parents have the genes of the sperm and egg tweaked to have a black baby?
Why, in God's name, would anyone want that?

[Anonymous No.14619876]

>>14618383
Hold still as a drive a stake into your head

[Anonymous No.14620258]

>>14619757
>>14619876
Kek, stay mad, boomie.

[Anonymous No.14620262]

>>14619763
The question is whether they could. Maybe they liked the Blade movies.

[Anonymous No.14620323]

>>14618383
>I'm an atheist and a Marxist
You're a schizo either way. Even if you aren't a racist right wing moron who is obsessed with muh deep state and muh New World Order, being a Marxist isn't any better. Just replace the "deep state" and the "new world order" with "neoliberalism" and "capitalism", and they're otherwise identical. Ideologies like white nationalism, conspiracy theories, and Marxism are all just tools used by losers and schizos to deflect responsibility and blame all their personal problems on someone else -- generally some vague, nebulous, and omnipotent force pulling the strings behind the scenes. The only real difference between a right wing hillbilly Qanon christian and a drug addicted Che Guevara socialist lefty, is that the Qanon christian blames all their problems on minorities, globalists, and satan-worshippers, whereas the druggie Socialist blames all their problems on America, Capitalism, and Imperialism. Ultimately, both groups are batshit insane and pose an existential threat to liberalism, democracy, American values, and the rules based order, which is exactly why countries like Russian and Iran are devoting so much time, energy, and effort to promoting these sorts of ideas and ideologies on the internet and social media.

In other words, I don't care whether you call yourself a "Qanon" or a "patriot" or a "Marxist" or a "socialist", or whatever else. The point is, you're a moron who has been indoctrinated into a fringe, reality-denying ideology, and your entire worldview is centered around creating divisions in society and blaming all of your personal problems in life on liberalism, democracy, modern society, and American values.

Keep seething, incel.

[Anonymous No.14620364]

>>14618336
A Chinese scientist established the foundations of that by pioneering CRISPR on human embryos that developed into healthy children. But he got silenced by even his own government.

[Anonymous No.14620392]

>>14618344
>>14618357
>>14618365
>>14618388
>>14618419
You guys are in for a big surprise. A few years ago a Chinese scientist called He Jiankai full sequenced the DNA of an embryo and edited a specific gene to give them HIV protection. This was germline (not somatic) engineering, ie this mutation will be propogated to all future offspring. The babies were born successfully.

[Anonymous No.14620399]

>>14620323
>wall of text
kek fuck off boomer before you give yourself a stroke

[Anonymous No.14620401]

>>14620392
Holy based that's exciting. Thank you for the new rabbit hole.

[Anonymous No.14620478]

>>14620401
Read the picture. Unfortunately even the CCP shut him down. Now there's a flat ban on germline editing in China. So the last possible country with the knowhow to do it, won't do it. We just know that it's possible.

[Anonymous No.14620496]

>>14620478
>We just know that it's possible.
Well, that's my point. We know that it can be done. For the longest time dissecting cadavers was a crime, and people realized that was a stupid thing to be hung up about. I could be wrong but didn't Christopher Reeve start to get a bit of movement back in his fingers or something thanks to stem cell?

[Anonymous No.14620508]

>>14620392
The inhibition of CCR5 is also related to heightened intelligence.

[Anonymous No.14620581]

>>14618368

[Anonymous No.14620939]

>>14620496
There's still a lot of work to be done. E.g. This was a single mutation, it's never been tried for multiple, which would affect humans in unexpected ways. We also don't understand how the genes affect people actually. So before we might try to give someone higher intelligence by targeting mutations that are correlated with it, only to give him a stroke.


Difference is this really is a very difficult field. In the R&D phase countless babies would be born with errors that would give them horrible, incurable genetic diseases

[Anonymous No.14620983]

>>14618336
Depends, are the parents limited to their personal family genome or are they allowed to access the genome of the human species itself?

If it's the former than no, they can't have any baby they want. If it's the later then yes, they can have baby they want. I suspect the later is the ultimate goal if designer babies become commercialized.

[Anonymous No.14620993]

>>14620983
How would it work? Would it be their baby? Biologically speaking, like their sperm and egg, but tweaked with different genes added or removed?

[Anonymous No.14621655]

>>14620581
YWNBAS
You will never be a scientists.

[Anonymous No.14621671]

>>14618336
No because once you modify the genetics of your baby the baby isn't yours anymore.

[Anonymous No.14621770]

>>14618336
A child made in a lab will always be inferior to a natural child, as they are subservient to the desires of their parents.

[Anonymous No.14622316]

>>14621770
It is harmful to deem children inferior or superior, in such opinions the greatest crimes were done.

[Anonymous No.14622318]

>>14621671
The genetic material remains the same, it is the expression that is changed.

[Anonymous No.14622390]

>>14618344
This. Abortion and infanticide should be used to genetically eliminate bad genes instead. Pleiotropy dictates everything. Fixing the brake work doesn't matter if the whole car is shit to begin with. Just scrap it and start again and if the parents are unfit, sterilize them too.