gene editing

[Anonymous No.16013662]

The science to eliminate congenital diseases i.e. Huntingtin’s chorea, Duchenne dystrophy, etc exists now. Doesn’t even have to be through selective abortion or sterilization or anything violent, but with gene editing, so the person is born how they would be just except without a debilitating disease. The suffering worldwide that would become 0 from diseases that we can treat is astounding. But force people to suffer from the moment they’re born because society throws a tantrum when
genetic screens or gene modification is even mentioned even if it can CURE illnesses

Also IQ is one of the most heritable traits (80%) even more than even height. Genes determine so much about a person. We could make people smarter and healthier

We throw so much money at limiting disease risk (example the reason we tell pregnant mothers not to drink or smoke so no birth defects) and burn hundreds of thousands of dollars per INDIVIDUAL to keep people born sick on drugs their whole lives. Heck, we even stop siblings from blinking uglies in most civilized places because more often than not the kids are freaks of nature. But the second it comes to actually DOING SOMETHING about genetic diseases there’s nothing we can do?

Censorship is awful. Can’t bring any of this up in science otherwise you get called a Nazi. If we say fuck taboo and only look at the science, there is a legitimate case for so-called “eugenics”, no? Why are people so against giving these treatments if they can save lives and make humanity better?

[Anonymous No.16013671]

>>16013662
I think it is already be done with embryo selection. I have an autosomal dominant form of early onset Alzheimer's in my family which can be eliminated before birth

[Anonymous No.16013699]

>>16013662
>dood gene editing good remove disease!
>just ignore the jews planting deadly diseases to all nonjews!

[Anonymous No.16013945]

>>16013662
I agree. Through gene editing we can ensure that genetic diseases can be cured and that the genetic cause of cancers, alzheimers and mental diseases are cured as well. We can ensure that humans are in general be born healthy, fit and intelligent. Raising the standart everywhere. 5000$ per newborn could not just ensure health but greater possibilities, freedom and autonomy.

[Anonymous No.16014242]

>>16013699
Meds.

[Anonymous No.16014308]

>>16013662
Height, IQ, nor facial characteristic are particularly inherited.

[Anonymous No.16014411]

>>16013699
>muh jooz

[Anonymous No.16014604]

>>16013662
It's not genetics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFkR0w-3h74
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ti3xNltlsM
We figured this stuff out a long time ago, but it was ignored to generate profit and cull the populace.

[Anonymous No.16014815]

>>16013699
You are a psyop for denying us removing diseases by gene editing

[Anonymous No.16014854]

>>16013662
>Why are people so against giving these treatments if they can save lives and make humanity better?
because people assume the average person who proposes these things has a selfish intent.
it's probably easier to sell the idea if you spin it as the rich want to live forever and make sure their kids end up super strong and smart. at least then their intentions are clearly visible instead of hidden behind the same talking points used to justify genocide

>>16013945
>We can ensure that humans are in general be born healthy, fit and intelligent. Raising the standart everywhere.
you'll be disappointed with how much the average person cares about that
but the average normie can support gene editing because they care about themselves

[Anonymous No.16014862]

>>16013662
Yup, I agree. But governments wont let us have nice things. Frankly it's a miracle we had the industrial revolution.
I think dysgenics is the cause of the rise of government power.

As you said, there's no arguments against eugenics via free market genetic engineering, even if done on an unborn baby.

[Anonymous No.16014868]

>>16013699
If we're allowed a free market, there will be competing suppliers of genetic therapies.
The therapies that are poisoned will lose in competition to the therapies that provide improvements. The same principle assures we will never reach an uncrossable limit to genetic improvements.

In a sense natural selection operates as an undefeatable guiding hand through the free market. I think this might be evidence for God.

[Anonymous No.16014870]

Can I just edit my genes so that I become a big booba anime girl?

[Anonymous No.16014878]

>>16014854
>you'll be disappointed with how much the average person cares about that
Natural selection acting through the free market makes that fact a non-issue: Successful people in complex modern civilization have traits that are by coincidence good at maintaining complex civilization: intelligence, conscientiousness, high impulse control, high mental health etc.
A free market will preferentially select for people with these successful traits. It will do this because unsuccessful people will observe and mimic successful people by getting genetic therapies to improve these traits.

A free market also bootstraps ever better genetic therapies by competition between companies vying for those people's money; if they innovate a better treatment they get more money.

The free market is the optimal organization of society, and in the far future we will adopt it. Personally I suggest far future because I don't think we've the right genetics to adopt it now.

[Anonymous No.16015176]

>>16013662
gene editing is how cancer is actually caused

now its going to be used to sell you the cure, that will be $999,999 please

[Anonymous No.16015180]

>>16013662
>Also IQ is one of the most heritable traits (80%) even more than even height. Genes determine so much about a person. We could make people smarter and healthier
People in most countries besides India are against this because of muh ethics and muh eugenics and muh inequality.

[Anonymous No.16015183]

Do you realize how much money is made putting bandaids on shit instead of fixing shit once and for all?

[Anonymous No.16015264]

>>16014308
How silly. Look up FOXP2 gene mutations and how they affect linguistic capabilities. You would be a fool to think that across millions of base pairs and thousands of protein-coding genes, there is no combinatorial effect of genes on intelligence.

>>16015183 of course there are strong incentives and a boatload of money to be made in keeping things inefficient and fucked up, on the part of the government and healthcare industries. Even so, this earned money from inefficiency could probably be offset tenfold by long-term societal gains, such as less spending on disease treatment, less costs to family members, less lost productivity per person. Not to mention the benefits of a smarter and stronger workforce en masse, as well as the personal benefits to happiness and health for individuals.

Imagine spending realistically 20k to clear an embryo of a long-onset (let’s say at age 50, neurological) genetic disease and make said baby slightly more intelligent. That offsets potentially 100k spent on drugs, 150k in hospital costs, 50k on hospice care. In addition, this person contributes and extra 20 years in the workforce, making over a million in earned wages. Not to mention that each dollar spent from GOVERNMENT-run programs (partially subsidized education and job training for example) goes much further as this person is able to learn faster and get a slightly better job with better benefits like more vacation time. As a result this person also literally enjoys their life more. I don’t see how this is not a win-win situation economically and socially

>>16015180 I really can’t think of a good, articulated principled argument as to why we shouldn’t make people slightly smarter. I think most people are just scared. They object out of fear, not logic.

Then again, most people thought washing your hands was quack science back when it was introduced. So aside from measuring the number of beans in a jar the wisdom of the crowd doesn’t seem to be worth much

[Anonymous No.16015276]

>>16014854
So I guess one just markets it as personalized medicine and dances around the actual purpose and benefit of such treatments forever, but yeah, broadly I agree.

What is nuts is that some people, especially in academia, want to censor RESEARCH into the genes that cause violence or criminality, or balk at even starting to unveil the genetic basis for intelligence. Or at least they try to delay it for as long as humanly possible at the ethics board and grant allocation meetings

[Anonymous No.16015286]

>>16015264
but you already knew our species is largely short sighted and barely sapient. Most people don't think they'll live forever or even long enough for these changes to be worth the immediate sacrifices. And like others have said even if these advancements were made they'd happen in the richest countries and dramatically increase the gap between rich and poor countries so poor countries would feel super threatened. The elites like things the way they are and improving the average person in every possible metric would make things too unpredictable and uncontrollable for them. Also as >>16015180
said there's all the muh ethics shitters.

[Anonymous No.16015445]

We should ask: would be needed for AI to understand gene editing to such a degree that people could do it black market?

I have no faith in craven modern scientists, but I think humanity's best hope for gene editing in the future can only come from an explosion of genetic understanding lead by AI. But how can you train a model to be able to generate a DNA string or understand and edit one you give it?

I've got little idea of how much DNA data would be needed for training, no baseline to go off of other than image and text models. But where images and text are freely available online, genome samples aren't. Furthermore, a person's DNA is about 700MB compared to under 1MB for a single image, of which millions are used to train an image model. Is it even possible?

Around a year ago, ancestry.org data was stolen, to the tune of around 300TB of dna data, combined with pictures, information and more. Would that have been sufficient? Who knows, but the hacker was asking for 50million USD in exchange for the collection of HDDs.

Can you imagine what we could make if we had AI that could understand the building blocks of life fully? Forget high IQ, height, or eliminating defects.. We could produce whole new lifeforms that could look nothing we've ever seen. Humans with new limbs, who can photosenthesize, vast new senses, can hybernate, never age and have vast brains that can make out intellect compare to our house pets. We could grow these bodies for ourselves: the gift of conquering dna doesn't have to only be for a future generation.

We really just need the data. But in a society distrusts science, no one wouls give that up freely. I think maybe we could develope some scheme to verify real human genome data in exchange for a kind of cryptocurrency, and target poor people. The samples will be skewed more toward lower intellect and uglier specimens, but its better than nothing. We have to start somewhere. Eventually we will need animals too.

[Anonymous No.16015485]

>>16015264
On the contrary, it's silly to think that something so important isn't already near its optimum. The changes are also too fast.
Same with eyesight, no responsible genes have ever been found, the cause of its loss is environmental. Or is it some weird fantasy about supernerds outbreeding everyone else?

Yes, fear. You could seriously fuck things up. You know, people also used to think that the belief that fruit prevents scurvy was a sailor myth.

[Anonymous No.16015489]

>>16013662
People fear technology out of ignorance and primitive fear.

[Anonymous No.16015493]

>>16015180
Indians have low IQ, of course they want to make babies more intelligent

[Anonymous No.16015494]

>>16015264
>I really can’t think of a good, articulated principled argument as to why we shouldn’t make people slightly smarter.
We should make people as intelligent as conceivably possible, and create new bodytypes such as squidpeople and bugpeople.

[Anonymous No.16015496]

>>16015485
>You could seriously fuck things up.
Doesn't matter. Keep trying and error-correcting until it's perfected.

[Anonymous No.16015510]

>>16015496
No, you won't keep error correcting if you fuck this up.
Genetics is often outright wrong. There is a supposed racial difference, you won't notice it unless somebody points it out, or move to a foreign country and meet the lack of instruments for dealing with the problem. It's supposedly genetic, you can look up the supposed exact gene. Yet, it's a side effect of a cultural practice.

[Anonymous No.16015873]

>>16015445
Ancestry.com data is exome only for genes of interest to my knowledge. The problem with AI and in-silico modeling is that while you might be able to predict gene function, it is not a substitute for in-vivo knockdown studies of gene function because the AI can have a completely different internal model for predicting gene function and kind of coincidentally be outputting data that matches with your data for the size of your pool. Also it’s not as simple as “generating a gene sequence” because this involves protein modelling first, which is getting better but still needs some improvement.

Not to mention that exome alone is insufficient for predicting disease. You could have an exome read (depending on the service) that looks completely fine and STILL have a genetic disease because a critical promoter for, let’s say, a receptor in your retina is completely fucked up, and then you have no gene expression.

Look up synthetic biology for the engineering of life. I really think this is gonna be the next computer level innovation, just wait 10 years for it to get consumer level. I literally think they just made a completely artificial yeast chromosome that makes actual living yeast, so we’re actually not that far from artificial forms of life. Unicellular now, and then maybe more complex in a few years.

[Anonymous No.16015879]

>>16015485
“I exist, therefore human intelligence is already optimized” Your comments alone are proof that this is not true.

Genes that affect vision:
Rb (retinoblastoma cancer)
Colourblindness (sex-linked)
Eye tracking disorders (nystagmus)
Myopia (OPNLW1 spliceforms)

If you’re worried about screwing up, you start with the low-hanging fruit which is genetic diseases liked to single genes which have been proven in hundreds of research papers and longitudinal studies to be disease causing, and genes absolutely known to be correlated with intellect. The molecular methods to correct these genes are already well known and it would just be a matter of implementation.

[Anonymous No.16015902]

>>16015879
>“I exist, therefore human intelligence is already optimized”
No. I mean because it's very important for people. It's unlikely that such a key ability would be plagued by so many genetic defects. You won't find many cheetahs that are bad at sprinting, or dolphins that are bad divers. Our intelligence and vision are our key abilities, so it's virtually impossible that any clear improvement can be made, it would already happen if it was. The drawbacks would be virtually guarranteed to outweight the gains. And you do see high IQ people plagued by often debilitating cognitive problem.
And really, you won't solve it if it happens. How long until you admit the problem? How long does it stay at something like "oh no, tou just don't understand the IQ140 culture of our gentically modified children, they know better than us." 9? 15? 24? What are you gonna do as an old man, the world is in ruins, when you finally admit, "yeah, I guess they are fucked in the head after all"? ...

[Anonymous No.16015909]

>>16015879
>“I exist, therefore human intelligence is already optimized”
No. I mean because it's very important for people. It's unlikely that such a key ability would be plagued by so many genetic defects. You won't find many cheetahs that are bad at sprinting, or dolphins that are bad divers. Our intelligence and vision are our key abilities, so it's virtually impossible that any clear improvement can be made, it would already happen if it was. The drawbacks would be virtually guarranteed to outweigh the gains. And you do see high IQ people plagued by often debilitating cognitive problem.
And really, you won't solve it if it happens. How long until you admit the problem? How long does it stay at something like "oh no, you just don't understand the IQ140 culture of our gentically modified children, they know better than us." 9? 15? 24? What are you gonna do as an old man, the world is in ruins, when you finally admit, "yeah, I guess they are fucked in the head after all"? ...

[Anonymous No.16015921]

>>16015909
>so it's virtually impossible that any clear improvement can be made, it would already happen if it was
lol
reminds me of the economists and the 100 dollar bill on the street joke

[Anonymous No.16015941]

>>16015921
One maybe. 100+ no way.

[Anonymous No.16015984]

>>16015264
>In addition, this person contributes and extra 20 years in the workforce, making over a million in earned wages.
You're assuming people want to work an extra 20 years.
>As a result this person also literally enjoys their life more.
Or you could just genetically make them more tolerant of shit work conditions if your goal is to create better wagies.

>>16015276
>So I guess one just markets it as personalized medicine and dances around the actual purpose and benefit of such treatments forever, but yeah, broadly I agree.
That seems to be the current state of things, but longevity research is becoming less fringe with time, even if it's full of scams.

>What is nuts is that some people, especially in academia, want to censor RESEARCH into the genes that cause violence or criminality, or balk at even starting to unveil the genetic basis for intelligence.
It's a very taboo topic. Personally I would want to make myself smarter, less violent, less impulsive, more attentive, etc since I view those all as positives. But this probably would fundamentally change parts of my personality, and ethical questions such as who decides what traits are "good" start to come up.

>>16015445
>Can you imagine what we could make if we had AI that could understand the building blocks of life fully? Forget high IQ, height, or eliminating defects..
Idk I'm just hoping I can be a cute anime girl with gigantic breasts. That's really my main interest in anything related to this subject.

[Anonymous No.16015993]

We don't even know how most of it works, especially the interactions. This is playing with fire. Maybe in worst cases like Huntingtons yes but just changing your genome because something is correlated with something else is pretty fucking dumb. Typical blind /Sci science enthusiasm.

[Anonymous No.16016017]

>>16015873
Well I think so too. I think in the upcoming decade, biotech will be the next wave for a market that is being disillusioned with software thats stopped giving functional benefits. I think in the coming decade thinking will change among futurist bourgeoisie types and they'll talk less about uploading their brains to computers and more about enhancing their biology. We already have a wave of longevity startups and personalities rising, which I think is the spear tip into the next ten years of gene editing. I think soon markets will start thinking that this wont just suck the money out of software, but pharmaceuticals too. We just need regulators and morals to stay out of the way

[Anonymous No.16016023]

>>16015984
well its my belief that with enough time, just about anything in that realm could be possible. I don't know if the future involves changing your body or growing a new one to seat your brain into, some hundred years from now, into an oppai loli anime girl or whatever you are imagining. I think if thats all you want in life, maybe youd have to settle for more conventional stuff like longevity and coping with VR, for the next so many decades, or who knows

[Anonymous No.16016080]

>>16015984
>You're assuming people want to work an extra 20 years.
they do

[Anonymous No.16016081]

>>16016080
People already work too much. It would improve the economy if they could work less.

[Anonymous No.16016121]

>>16015276
>What is nuts is that some people, especially in academia, want to censor RESEARCH into the genes that cause violence or criminality, or balk at even starting to unveil the genetic basis for intelligence. Or at least they try to delay it for as long as humanly possible at the ethics board and grant allocation meetings
why does this happen

[Anonymous No.16016130]

>>16016017
>We already have a wave of longevity startups and personalities rising, which I think is the spear tip into the next ten years of gene editing.
who are people who talk about it openly

who are idiots like nancy pelosi who want to fuck over the average person in order to live forever?

[Anonymous No.16016141]

>>16013662
Yes it's possible, yes it's inevitable, but no you're gonna be totally censored for bringing it up since every subhuman realizes they would voluntarily end their genome if they were allowed to respec.

And strictly speaking gene editing shouldn't be a eugenic or racial force (though obviously it would be in the early days given the racial clusterfuck humanity is in now) since totally novel genes could be introduced. You could even cycle through genes as you aged to achieve desired effects.

[Anonymous No.16016146]

>>16016130
who are some other idiots i mean

>>16016141
its not actually inevitable, and theres a chance everything topples over before it could be properly started.
why would he be censored? if anything common people would fight for their chance to respec, especially against those whod try to censor their chance. (provided it would be broadly available.
they wouldnt have to remove their entire genome. even one saved allele is enough to mark their previous existence.

[Anonymous No.16016152]

>>16016121
the genetics of those sorts of people predisposes them towards being a cunt

[Anonymous No.16016159]

>>16014604
Wait I never knew there were actual videos of Dr Price?

Are there more?

[Anonymous No.16016160]

>>16015485
>Same with eyesight, no responsible genes have ever been found, the cause of its loss is environmental.
Don't get this sort of thinking. If eyesight wasn't in part genetic, why can't we subject all living creatures to the environment a human inhabits and thus provide it with eyesight?

[Anonymous No.16016164]

>>16015445
I recon AI will be used as a tool to automate the creation of cell pathways by finding/creating optimal proteins for the job. Scientists/engineers will come up with a pathway to solve a particular problem, then AI will help them make it.

[Anonymous No.16016166]

>>16015445
Also I'll remind you that even if/when this civilization collapses due to dysgenic selection pressures, a new civilization will revolve in a few thousand years so don't loose hope.

[Anonymous No.16016173]

>>16016160
How do we get rid of all the bots?

[Anonymous No.16016180]

>>16015485
>You could seriously fuck things up.
That's fine because of free market economics as said here >>16014868.
Therapies that don't work, won't be sold. People will just buy the competitors ones that work.

>The changes are also too fast.
If you pissed off and let us have a free market, the market would choose the optimum pace of change. You don't have to take genetic therapies if you don't want to in a free market.

>Yes, fear.
Please don't let your fear stop other people. Again you don't have to take anything, just don't use the state to stop others.

[Anonymous No.16016185]

>>16016173
put a 60 second waiting timer behind 3 cloudfares just to post

[Anonymous No.16016199]

>>16016164
stupid. youd still need to experimental verify these combinations. this would cost more than any foreseeable factions would bother spending on, because they couldnt run tests and maintain their states at the same time.

[Anonymous No.16016200]

>>16016185
use captcha puzzles that would take seconds for 120 iq and up to post but minutes for lower to solve. this would solve the bot and human bot problem at once.

[Anonymous No.16016451]

>>16016023
>I think if thats all you want in life, maybe youd have to settle for more conventional stuff like longevity and coping with VR, for the next so many decades, or who knows
I mean, is it that different from what most of this thread is describing? Feels like I want the same things you want but also to be a hot girl with fat tits.

>>16016080
Maybe if your lifespan was longer, but most people want to retire and achieve financial independence as soon as possible.

>>16016146
It's growing more popular among Silicon Valley VC types. All of them pour immense amount of money into biotech or medical research, and probably get scammed up the ass by quack startups.

[Anonymous No.16016714]

>>16016199
AI pathway elucidation is the difference between having to run 10000 stupid little PCRs or just 5 to test your theory. Do you not understand how big this is? Of course you have to do experiments in vivo and do controls but you decrease the amount of actual lab work by orders of magnitude

[Anonymous No.16016750]

>>16016714
>AI pathway elucidation is the difference between having to run 10000 stupid little PCRs or just 5 to test your theory.
Articles on this?

[Anonymous No.16016765]

>>16016750
Here are some broad applications:
De novo protein design: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06415-8
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867423014022

Signalling cascade determination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9036331/

Genetic disease prediction: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9198206/

Drug discovery: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02361-0

To sum up, instead of having to fumble blindly around random protein interactions or stimuli to look at response patterns, you can quickly isolate the strongest biological candidates and test only those. None of the papers are going to tell you that on the face because the methodology and technique are normally not the focus of the research, but it saves so much fucking testing because you waste way less time and money on human (incorrect) guesses

Of course AI is not perfect and models can hallucinate, give incorrect results, etc. but broadly an incredibly powerful tool.

Makes me depressed that the best computers in the world are probably being used to run porn servers or make targeted ads or something instead of being used for these kinds of advanced computational problems that can benefit humanity, but I guess that’s just the world. Oh well

[Anonymous No.16016771]

>>16015993
Who’s we?

And obviously no right-thinking person would target genes with unknown functions. Do single-gene level changes, like changing the cystic fibrosis receptor. Start small and then scale up

[Anonymous No.16016878]

>>16016451
I hope in the future we can turn people into fat titty anime girls against their will

[Anonymous No.16017453]

>>16016159
I don't know.
This is the only I was able to find.

[Anonymous No.16017459]

>>16016180
this retard thinks we have a free market LOL

[Anonymous No.16017511]

>>16016878
>against their will
Well that's basically the entire ethical argument against gene therapy or eugenics. These movements tend to be hijacked by moralfags who want to impose their will on others.
Gene therapy being pushed onto the public will be done by someone with an agenda. Every issue with the pharma-industrial complex won't just magically go away. Doctors will be trained to push certain treatments for commercial interests.
Maybe there's some genes that make you more tolerant of working in a factory for 16 hours a day. Maybe their interests are not to make you a more complete person, but to make you the most obedient, unquestioning wageslave or soldier possible.
Or maybe it'll all be pozzed as fuck.
A thought experiment, if there was some gene therapy that makes one less racist, I genuinely don't think most people would consensually take it.

I don't really give a fuck about any of that moralfag shit or what others do, I just want to be a big titty anime girl.

[Anonymous No.16017549]

>>16016878
I mean you could but they could also just change back. Even the most ridiculous supervillain imaginary situation you could think of is better than *THE LITERAL ACTUAL WORLD WE LIVE IN NOW* where 99% of people are permanently and irreversibly assigned shitgenes against their will.

There's no actual 'ethical' argument of any kind against gene therapy.

[Anonymous No.16017550]

>>16017549
>but they could also just change back.
How are you so sure?

[Anonymous No.16017571]

>>16016146
When I say it's inevitable I mean it's possible and obvious and engineering can begin even with current understanding. I don't mean to say we're not going to be hit by an asteroid or enter a demographic dark age first.

It's already censored today as a racist concept (which it is insomuch as half the world would turn themselves white). The obvious development path for the technology includes refactoring of genes in novel ways as well, making the entire undertaking not merely a modification of gene frequency in the species, but an abrupt shift in the species itself. In that sense it may be considered 'speciesist' or even anti-human as well. Obviously I don't think that but it's a mainstream position.

Combine that with the fact that the "bioethics" grifters are simply more numerous and better funded than the researchers themselves and you have the issue we have now.

>>16017550
Because that's what the technology used implies. You might as well be rewriting a CRUD app at that point.

[Anonymous No.16017594]

>>16017571
>Because that's what the technology used implies.
Technology, maybe. But availability is a completely different question. Anyone forcibly imposing gene therapy on the population sure as hell would regulate the shit out of it.

[Anonymous No.16017667]

>>16017571
i meant extinction by nukes which is becoming more possible because nukes are becoming proliferated by groups who arent as invested in preserving their wealth and so have less to lose if they go insane.

>insomuch as half the world would turn themselves white
please show me statistics of this. i could say many but i wouldnt say half. was there a poll on int or something? also many would just turn themselves into light skinned athletic versions of their race, and theyd be able to influence their people to do so. most smart white people dont even want everyone to be homogeneously white because they realize epidemics would have a much higher chance of making a homogeneous planet extinct.

[Anonymous No.16017673]

>>16017667
>also many would just turn themselves into light skinned athletic versions of their race,
which probably will often just degrade into white anyways as more and more of their ethnic phenotypes are seen as undesirable

[Anonymous No.16017685]

Well I made a poll for it

>>>/int/193524824

>>16017673
IDK, is upper class Pakistani considered white? It might go to there or close, but China and the Muslim world have been pretty successful as promoting their races' looks, and East Asia in particular outnumbers whites.

[Anonymous No.16017727]

>>16017685
maybe people like the anon who wants to be an anime girl probably wants more asiatic features but racial features are more than just skin color

[Anonymous No.16017810]

Many traits stem from complex interactions from different genes, but we know of allells with strong effects such as:

1. COMT (Catechol-O-Methyltransferase): Involved in dopamine regulation, which affects cognitive functions like working memory and executive control.
2. BDNF (Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor): Plays a role in promoting neuronal growth, survival, and synaptic plasticity, which are important for learning and memory.
3. NTRK2 (Neurotrophic Tyrosine Kinase Receptor Type 2): Encodes a receptor for BDNF and is involved in synaptic plasticity and cognitive functions.
4. APOE (Apolipoprotein E): Associated with memory and cognitive decline in aging. A specific allele, APOE ε4, is also a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease.
5. CHRM2 (Cholinergic Receptor, Muscarinic 2): Linked to working memory and cognitive processing speed.
6. DTNBP1 (Dystrobrevin-Binding Protein 1): Involved in synaptic function and cognitive processes related to working memory and executive function.
7. DRD2 (Dopamine Receptor D2): Plays a role in dopamine signaling and is associated with working memory and cognitive flexibility.
8. GRIN2B (Glutamate Receptor, Ionotropic, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate 2B): Involved in glutamate neurotransmission and is associated with cognitive performance and risk of neurodevelopmental disorders.
9. NRG1 (Neuregulin 1): Participates in brain development and synaptic plasticity, affecting cognitive processes like working memory and attention.
10. SLC6A4 (Serotonin Transporter): Influences serotonin levels, which can affect mood and cognitive functions related to emotional regulation and decision-making.

Among hundreds known whose single gene modifications would be beneficial to everyone. Not just curing hundreds of direct caused genetic diseases but increasing life quality by chaning hundred other allells for improved health, intelligence and fitness. Shit, we are doing this to lifestock and animals already. We got literal super-dogs.

[Anonymous No.16017814]

>>16015909
Genetically modified humans already exist and the same appeal to ignorance was made about children born through IvF. The world is bigger and messier than any social theory.

[Anonymous No.16017823]

>>16015993
Ever heard of that thing named progress and understanding? We start with single gene traits, understand complex interactions better and move from there. We already have modified animals with traits depending on the interaction of several genes. Its proteins not demonic magic.

[Anonymous No.16017837]

>>16017823
>Dude we can just invert the SHA-3G hashes, and design people the way we want.

[Anonymous No.16018025]

>>16016199
I was more thinking like how mordern computer chips are designed by algorithm. You don't pay a man to map out each and every transistor connection, AI does it.
Analogous would be asking a computer to come up with the correct proteins to allow a signalling pathway to secrete a chemical when a messenger molecule is below X concentration.
AI comes up with it's best couple of guesses, human tests it. I don't see whats so outlandish about this suggestion.

[Anonymous No.16018027]

>>16016750
In the future, I obviously didn't mean it was available now. Could be 100 years, could be much less.

[Anonymous No.16018029]

>>16017459
You're the retard for not picking up that I was trying to highlight the importance of a free market. Of course we don't have a free market now, that's why I trying to explain the virtues of one to the person who wanted to have more government regulations that would drag us further away from one.

Us not having a free market doesn't invalidate the reasoning that shows a free market would be optimal.

[Anonymous No.16018624]

>>16018025
>secrete a chemical when a messenger molecule is below X concentration.
And, what is that for? If it is needed, we already have it.

[Anonymous No.16018708]

>>16017814
>>16017823
The problem is the indirectness of the genes. There is no gene for a given thing, more like for its part. So you may have a gene that disables cinema, tracked vehicles, and turns bicycles into those big wheeled ones. But in fact it's a gene for sprockets.

[Anonymous No.16019037]

>>16018624
For whatever reason your genetically modifying someone you thick cunt. You're a case and point demonstration for why we need eugenics. Fuck me.

[Anonymous No.16019042]

>>16014308
>Height, IQ, nor facial characteristic are particularly inherited
What a ludicrous statement. All have a major genetic component - merely consult identical twin vs fraternal twin studies that measure any of those metrics.

[Anonymous No.16019045]

>>16015264
>hey there all you tyrants, corporate overlords, demagogues and autocrats!
>do you want a healthier, smarter, stronger, more independent population that is better able to resist your propaganda and compete against you in dominance hierarchies?
I like your position OP but it will NEVER be permitted in most of the world. It will require a quasi-rogue state or a high degree of secrecy, either of which is going to add significantly to the costs.

[Anonymous No.16019058]

>>16018624
Nature is about what's good enough to pass the genes, not about what's perfect. And even then, this is giving intent to processes. For instance, if we gave ourselves the ability to produce every essential amino acids (named as such because our bodies can't produce them themselves), we'd be able to survive on sugar water and nothing else.

[Anonymous No.16019097]

>>16019058
>we'd be able to survive on sugar water and nothing else
We would still need a dietary source of nitrogen. When your body synthesises a non-essential amino acid, it recycles the amine group from an amino acid it already had.

[Anonymous No.16019227]

>>16019058
On the contrary, nature is about going over and beyond what is needed for survival.

[Anonymous No.16020258]

>>16017511
You guys are so weird about this 1984 stuff “muh government will make me more of a wagie” realistically the government would not spend the money for gene therapies to make every individual worker more compliant. They seem to be doing a pretty good job forcing people to be wageslaves without it anyways. More likely elites try to secure what they can for their family and friends

[Anonymous No.16020264]

>>16018027
>in the future
What are you talking about? This is actual research that is happening in labs across the globe at this very moment. Papers on this have been published over the last few years. the future is right now

[Anonymous No.16020845]

>>16020258
>realistically the government would not spend the money for gene therapies to make every individual worker more compliant.
Realistically no but it's still a consideration if you bring up compulsory gene therapy.

>They seem to be doing a pretty good job forcing people to be wageslaves without it anyways.
Weirder things became widespread. Routine infant circumcision still happen in the US, which seems like a waste of money (or a profit for some) and they still do it.

>More likely elites try to secure what they can for their family and friends
I don't think the two are exclusive.

[Anonymous No.16020985]

>>16013662
Censorship? They are aberrations that hate us.
See Communists that genocided thousand of intelectuals in name of equality.

[Anonymous No.16021014]

>>16020264
cunt i responded to was bitching about a source when i was suggesting how AI may be used at some point. Now youre bitching that i didnt specify whats currently going on. /sci/ is full of unpleasable retards

[Anonymous No.16021019]

>>16017511
Deregulate the medical industry to competition floods the market. That way companies wont be forcing treatments, the customer will be forcing the innovation.

No doubt someone will piss and moan claiming this will make monopolies.

[Anonymous No.16021033]

>>16013662
we have been making people smarter and healthier since forever, through evolution and selecting smart and healthy partners, fucking idiot.
gene editing wont beat evolution

[Anonymous No.16021172]

>>16021033
It already has. We cured genetic diseases and improved on lifestock/plants within one generation with far greater effect and precision than ordinary breeding.

[Anonymous No.16021225]

>>16013699
you're more than welcome to use DIY gene editing. just pray that you sourced the DIY kit from a trustworthy blackmarket and you have the adequate knowledge not to give yourself super cancer on accident.

[Anonymous No.16021610]

>>16021172
It didn't. It doesn't really work. The gene may get used for something else than intended, or it just doesn't get used, in a way that seems totally unoredictable.

[Anonymous No.16021731]

>>16021610
It did. More than 10 years ago. Cas-9 is already more than 10 years old and it worked exactly as intended. Facts proof you wrong.
https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/genetically-engineered-dogs-34636

[Anonymous No.16021796]

>>16021731
No it doesn't work exactly as intended for the exact reasons that I described.

[Anonymous No.16021799]

>>16021731
No it doesn't work exactly as intended for the exact reasons that I described. The lack of myostatin, in this case, causes a whole list of disabilities not related to the muscle. The animals are cripples.

[Anonymous No.16021881]

>>16021799
Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.16021942]

>>16021881
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494293/

[Anonymous No.16022006]

>>16021942
>2012
What was discovered 2 years later?
https://academic.oup.com/jmcb/article/7/6/580/2459501
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549068/

[Anonymous No.16022009]

>>16013662
https://gwern.net/embryo-editing

[Anonymous No.16022011]

>>16022006
Do you want me to come up with arguments against myself? If you have a counterargument then post it.

[Anonymous No.16022045]

>>16022011
Read, nigga, read.
> Western blot analysis of homozygous KO founders confirmed the absence of myostatin, showing heavier body weight than wild type counterparts. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that CRISPR/Cas9 system was a very efficient tool to generate gene KO sheep. This technology is quick and easy to perform and less expensive than previous techniques, and can be applied to obtain genetically modified animal models of interest for biomedicine and livestock.
What disabilities did these sheep get from their modification? None.
They are now stronger than any natural sheep alive. Traits modification on basis of single allells work.

[Anonymous No.16022201]

>>16022045
Yes, by this retarded definition of success it is a success. But the sheep suffer from the same defects, such as a broken immune system reduced organs, trouble eating, trouble breathing,...

[Anonymous No.16022229]

>>16022201
>But the sheep suffer from the same defects, such as a broken immune system reduced organs, trouble eating, trouble breathing,...
Why are you lying? The sheeps are now 11 years old and no deficient was discovered. They are more than healthy as their modifcations strengthend their muscless. Why are you making stuff up? Broken immune system, trouble eating? Where does this stand in these studies?

[Anonymous No.16022231]

>>16022229
I already posted you a link for the defects in cattle, what do you want?

[Anonymous No.16022247]

>>16022231
It s not about Myostatin. It s to proof that pre-natal genetic modification can be applied for beneficial uses. That the gene modification is precise and safe. Hundred thousand genetically modified animals proof that. Cas-9 is by now old history, prime editing is now being developed ad refined.

[Anonymous No.16022261]

>>16022247
I'm not disputing that CRISPR works. The genes themselves don't work the way you think. I mean that breeders were basically blamed unjustly. Selective breeding doesn't work, the same gene that provides the trait you select for also causes some of the defects, it wasn't because the breeders didn't care, or because their animals were inbred. It's because genetics doesn't work that way. Genetic editing isn't going to work any better. For the exact same reason.

[Anonymous No.16022265]

>>16022247
I'm not disputing that CRISPR works. The genes themselves don't work the way you think. I mean that breeders were basically blamed unjustly. Selective breeding doesn't work, the same gene that provides the trait you select for also causes some of the defects, it wasn't because the breeders didn't care, or because their animals were inbred. It's because genetics doesn't work that way. Genetic engineering isn't going to work any better. For the exact same reason.

[Anonymous No.16023270]