ITT; future of human evolution

[Anonymous No.4356599]

>"Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the force that made us…. Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become."

>Edward O. Wilson

[Anonymous No.4356619]

For starters, lets deal with aging. Who wants to be old and decrepit? We should really fix that shit, both for individuals and for society (caring for invalids is costly).

[Anonymous No.4356632]

>>4356619
Gene therapy can help to combat aging by equipping cells to break down intra-cellular and extra-cellular wastes that accumulate and compromise the function of tissues. Furthermore, mitochondrial dysfunction can be alleviated by placing a copy of the genes for mitochondrial proteins in the nucleus. Both of these strategies have been proposed as part of "SENS" which is a suite of potential biomedical therapies for aging.

[Anonymous No.4356639]

We should do our own "natural selection" and kill (or makes sure they don't breed) the weaks

[Fuyuki Osari !!SD/qp/1lfGH No.4356645]

>>4356639
Then you must decide who qualifies as "weak."

[Anonymous No.4356674]

survival of the fittest is over, as a result humans are going to get physically weaker and stupider as medicines get better and people start breeding because of un important / modern factors such as social status.

back ages ago people used to breed for physical strength and mental ability, so their kids turned out to be strong and smart like their parents, and as the generation went on the kids get smarter and stronger.

with that gone the kids being born nowadays arnt gonna get stronger or smarter, they'll stay the same for a while and then start to deteriorate in strength and intelligence.

that's why you detach yourself from the modern way of life and make up a way of life which is how nature intended.

[Anonymous No.4356671]

Gene therapy can be delivered to immune cells with good effect, since these cells circulate throughout the body. The idea would be to withdraw some progenitor cells from the patient, give them the therapy, multiply them and then return them to circulation. In this way, exogenous genes capable of breaking down wastes can be delivered to a variety of tissues.

[Anonymous No.4356676]

>>4356645
Niggers, Homosexuals, Feminists and assorted leftists.

[Anonymous No.4356685]

>>4356674
by strength / physicall ability i do mean survivability, which is the chance someone has to survive against illnesses, weather conditions, fighting ect.

intelligience is from knowledge (how much you know) and thinking process which benefit survival. so lazy people are mentally weaker than hard working people, unless they can over come their mental lazyness.

[Anonymous No.4356694]

>>4356674
Technological progress will far outstrip the potential decline of human capabilities due to evolutionary drift. Please read about drift to get an idea of the timescale required for negative traits compensated by technology to become prevalent in a population of billions. Human population is large and the reproductive cycle is relatively long. You're looking at a problem that will take 1000s of years to manifest, at minimum.

Meanwhile, those of us who care about human progress will have solved aging. What this means is that there will be no need to replace the population with newer (and perhaps inferior) generations of offspring.

[Anonymous No.4356728]

Having duplicates of the remaining mitochondrial proteins in the nuclear genome sounds like a good move.

>>4356674

Eugenics, even ignoring the morality of its application, fails to take recessive genes into consideration, selecting for a particular phenotype will have little or no positive impact on the short term future of humanity.

Even if you claimed to be in this for the long haul, you'd risk damaging essential genetic diversity, potentially destroying genes that could prove essential to our future survival.

[Anonymous No.4356734]

>>4356694
11-12 generations would be 1000 years right ?

id guess we'd see these negative effects even sooner, infact id say they have already started.

few hundred years ago people bred for which job you have. someone who owned land would be very well off, have a big strong family.

physicall and mental ability wasnt the main priority for the breeding back then.

i think for women it was how much they listened to their husband and how pretty they looked.

for men it was how good they were at their job.

but thats for like middle class people

for lower class people it was a lot more simple, but i dont know the reasoning behind their breeding.

for the top class people they bred for family status, money. both family status and money does require intelligience.

[Anonymous No.4356741]

>>4356734

I'd like to see some sources to support your 3rd grade anthropology dissertation.

[Anonymous No.4356745]

>>4356734
>both family status and money does require intelligience.

You do realize that at various points of time, hereditary rules have been actually retarded, don't you? Several kings of England were retarded. The Taisho Emperor was retarded.

None of this obsessing about human pedigree will matter in the end. Technology will radically change the human condition on much shorter time-scales than it could possibly be relevant.

[Anonymous No.4356757]

>>4356728
wow, i didnt consider that at all, you are smart.

really when i talk about this i only talk about it for myself personally, i do not imply other people should follow this.
you see all i care about is my family and friends, the rest of humanity can fuck off.

so when i talk like this i plan to breed my family to be physically strong and smart.

i want my kids to have high survivability from a physical and mental aspect.

problem is, i sort of have to guess what i want my wife to be, i will fall in love with anyone that will make me happy and i find them attractive.

i will not marry anyone with bone structure problems, dodgy muscle insertions, stupidity, easily gets ill ect.

[Anonymous No.4356763]

>>4356645

Sub 125 IQ's.
Simples.

[Anonymous No.4356765]

>>4356745
technology, thats very unnatural, i will have to spend time thinking about this, cus i do recognise it is in our future, whether i will accept it or not is a different story. but i will not like accepting other humans to be stronger than my family, so i might follow through with it.
but what happens when you get women who are just as strong as men, and this technology fucks with our hormones and shit and makes us think differently.
when do we stop being human and start being something else ?

yes it is logical for survival to accept this technological improvements on ourselves, but as a human i dont like it at all.

[Anonymous No.4356768]

>>4356763

>>lrn 2 latent inhibition.

[Anonymous No.4356787]

>>4356763
So you want to kill people over a very inaccurate measure of intelligence?

[Anonymous No.4356804]

I sure wish we could talk about biomedical technology and genetic engineering without the idiotic "kill everyone I don't like and call it eugenics" bullshit.

I wanted to talk about cellular senescence and gene therapy, relevant topics for the future, not the idle power fantasies of would-be mass murderers.

[Anonymous No.4356807]

>>4356804

go on then, what do you say to my post >>4356765

[Anonymous No.4356818]

>>4356807
Well, we are natural and material beings, just as natural and material as everything else that exists in the world. Therefore, everything that we do, including gene therapy or whatever else is also natural.

[Anonymous No.4356882]

>>4356765
Translation for humans
"Technology, thats very *Against My Bigoted Perception of What The World is Supposed to Be Like As Some Transcendental Matter-Of-Fact Which Is Inherently Good Because I Said So* , i will have to spend time thinking about this, cus i do recognise it is in our future, whether i will accept it or not is a different story. but i will not like accepting other *Humans and Subhumans to be stronger than my Subhuman family because Instead Of Raising Myself To The Level of Those Who Utilize Technology, I'd Rather Level The Strong*, so i might follow through with it.
but what happens when you get women who are just as strong as men, and this technology fucks with our hormones and shit and makes us think differently.
*When do we stop being a historical type of Subhuman and start being another type of Subhuman, or god forbid an actual Human, with the evolution of Technology"?

yes it is logical for survival to accept this technological improvements on ourselves, *But as a Subhuman i dont like it at all because it means that I have to Discard Inadequate Ideas and Actually Learn Something Rather Than Cling to Provincial Stupid Less Powerful Bigotries That To My Subhuman Mind Are More Comforting Than Reality*."1

[Anonymous No.4357089]

>>4356882
i used to think like you after i left my religion of Islam, you look down on my beliefs because you deem them illogical.
when you realise how the human brains works and how ideas are implanted into you, and that most of the ideas you hold onto are not really your own, and that its so easy to make wrong conclusions and accept that your decisions arnt trustworthy, then you will start to think differently.

the reason I am against this technology is not what you think it is.

let me explain to you.

I want to be as self sufficient as possible without having to rely too heavily on things I cant achieve by myself.

if i want to build something i want to do it myself, or at least have the ability to do it myself so that incase i ever have to detach myself from humanity, i will know i can survive.
(this gets very complicated though, for example if you want to build something which transfers energy into electrical ect youll need some items which cant really be built so easily, you need how to farm elements from the earth ect.

1/2

[Anonymous No.4357099]

2/2

everything i know came from using my senses. but that knowledge came from others, so without those others i wouldnt know what i know, meaning i am not so self sufficient as i would like to think.

so i have to make do with semi-self sufficient-ness, where i do rely on others to learn from them, but the length of time required for me to learn from them is short, but i will give up more time to learn something if it is potentially very useful for survival and happiness.

WHEREAS with this future technology, if i want to be self sufficient and have the benefits of technology i would have to learn this technology for myself, which will take a very long time, and i may not have time for it.

the reason i dont want to accept this new technology is because i dont want to turn into something which relies on others more than it has to.

i dont get my asthma medication from the pharmacy i grow it in my back garden, bronchial dilators of the relaxing kind.

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357110]

OH SNAP?! IS THIS A EUGENICS THREAD?! I THOUGHT I TOOK CARE OF THIS BULLSHIT!! DAMN, I WISH I WAS ON MY COMPUTER INSTEAD OF MY FRIENDS' RIGHT NOW. LET'S SEE IF I CAN STILL EDUCATE YOUR DUMB ASS ABOUT EXACTLY WHY EUGENICS IS BAD. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SHORT VERSION BECAUSE MY BUILT-UP COPYPASTA IS ON MY COMPUTER AND I GOTTA TYPE ALL OF THIS OUT AGAIN.

Also, E.O. Wilson is THE man to talk to about ants. Fucking genius about ants. But don't take this man's OPINION of the future as SCIENTIFIC FACT, because the two are extraordinarily different, and scientists are allowed to have opinions.

[Anonymous No.4357122]

>>4357110
I think we were trying not to have this be a eugenics thread. I do hope you won't go there, because it has all been said a million times.

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357123]

Argument 1: Eugenics decreases genetic variability. What is genetic variability? It is the amount of differences within the same species which allows a species to survive when there is a change in environmental conditions. Environmental conditions can include anything from the weather to the type of trees available to the types of diseases (viruses, parasites, bacteria, etc.) which affect the population. When the genetic variation is low (as eugenics would force to occur) then populations are more susceptible to extinction through environmental factors.

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357127]

>>4357122
Well... I guess I'll leave it with the one post... I am monitoring this thread...

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.4357139]

>>4357123
If eugenics is purely changes made in the genome so certain traits are expressed, they wouldn't change genetic variablity, not in a statistical significant matter anyway.
Our genome is filled up with junk DNA and no way in hell would any sane person smoothline it to make it as efficient as possible.
I'm not for eugenics, but this is not a good argument to use in a debate against eugenics imo.

[Anonymous No.4357146]

>>4357139
I think you're confusing eugenics with genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering is one of many reasons why we don't need eugenics.

[Anonymous No.4357158]

you all talking about eugenics as if the human race matters to you.
just think about yourself and your direct family, eugenics will apply to you on that scale.

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.4357167]

>>4357146
Well, eugenics is an extreme view of genetic engineering isn't it?

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357169]

>>4357139
If you are specifically targeting a specific gene (or gene complex, as many traits are polygenetic) and can be 100% certain that you are replacing only that gene (or gene complex) then what you are doing is genetic engineering, which is vastly different from the selective breeding/murdering of eugenics.
But, you're also going to have to be sure that the gene you're replacing has no unknown functions by itself, or in combination with other genes, and you would also have to keep in mind that you're still risking the fact that the gene you are replacing could have as-yet unknown benefits given a certain environmental situation.

Where I see the future of human "evolution" is some combination between genetic engineering and transhumanism. The way things seems right now, it's going to be a much safer and surer bet to replace parts of your body with mechanical aspects than to do so with genetic engineering due to the extreme complexity of how genes interact with themselves, each other, and the environment. At least in the nearer future. Perhaps in the far flung future we will have ruled out a shit-ton more of those pesky variables that currently plague genetic engineering.

[Anonymous No.4357172]

>>4357158
I have no interest in having kids. Evidence shows that more often than not people only *think* having kids brings happiness. I'm interested in pursuing my own enjoyment, not being deluded by unnecessary genetic programs.

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357189]

>>4357167
Blast my long-winded answer.

Essentially: genetic engineering is more precise and can avoid a lot of the fallout eugenics produces.
When you have selective breeding/murdering (as with genetics) you are destroying any traits that are "linked" to the traits you want to get rid of. (Not all genes assort into the gametes independently because of their relative physical closeness to other genes on a chromosome.) With traits controlled by multiple genes, this can result in a ridiculous loss of variability, which I have already explained why it's bad.

[Anonymous No.4357196]

>>4357172
things are how you choose to percieve them, if you want to view something as fun then if will be fun for you n vice versa.

i aint fucking no bitches on a weekly basis but im still happy.

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357198]

>>4357172
Genetic succession is the only 'immortality' we've got until we work out the aging problem.

[Anonymous No.4357202]

>>4357089

I've skimmed your post and while sympathetic with your desire for a self-sufficiency, realize that there are men who will change the world so that you are forced to change with it.

To be "against" such things is like to be against a cold wind or a the heat of a summer day. You can find or create oasis against such forces but unless you are master of a technology, you cannot dominate such overwhelming forces.

Now one can either indulge in oasis creation or try to understand the forces and utilize them for one's advantage, even at the detriment at others. If one indulges in the notion of a positive sum game (of social relations), then one is playing a game of complete fantasy. The game of material relations might be positive but the relation of social power is just a relation where one has less power the more other people advance (in material relations) or the more other people take away.

Really, the only feasible way this shit is going to collapse is if the projections of raw resources available are in fact a fantasy of this system and the reality of raw resources collapse. Whether it be oil, metals, etc.

[Anonymous No.4357206]

>>4357198
wtf are you on about WE as if humans are a unit. your gonna die, why do you even care about the human race like that ?

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357215]

>>4357189
Oops.
Selective breeding/murdering (as with EUGENICS).
Not genetics.
Oy.

>>4357202
Are you trying to argue that a drastic loss of genetic variability can be mitigated with technology? And for eugenics?

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.4357216]

>>4357169
>>4357189

Bro, I'm well aware of how genomes work and how complex they are and some molecular mechanisms that go with them. I just didn't really know what eugenics meant. I thought it was a radical view of obtaining same trait people whether it's through killing the non traits or genetically modifying them. However, the killing aspect hadn't occurred to me, so in that case, it does impover the gene pool. I do believe that with the current research going on in biomedical sciences, biochemistry and bio engineering, we'll be able to understand the gene complexes in full in a decade? maybe two? And genetic modification will only become more succesfull over time.
Also, shared futuristic ideal world view, fuck yeah!

[Anonymous No.4357221]

>>4357206
Because we love certain aspects of our life so much that we wish to have them exist even after the demise of our biological systems.

And in most cases, this involves the perpetuation of humanity or if it ever comes to pass, machinic imitation and evolution of human intelligence.

In this way, the care for the human race is more of a megalomania and the posturing of Christian sentimentality when subhumans express a care for the "human" race is but an example of how insincere most of the world (subhumans) are.

[Anonymous No.4357222]

>>4357202
actually there is many more ways of stopping this movement, 1 being violence against the brains behind the operation.
that requires money, extreme intelligence, and luck comes into it as well i reckon

[Anonymous No.4357228]

>>4357198
Yeah, about that aging problem... I'm the one who was talking about it from the very start of this thread. That's what "we" should be working on. That should be getting billions in research funding, but instead it's barely puttering along...

Aging is not intractable. We've already seen success with eliminating senescent cells, and we have the means to get to work on other aspects. Really, all this needs is some development, some social inertia behind it.

[Anonymous No.4357233]

>>4357215
>Are you trying to argue that a drastic loss of genetic variability can be mitigated with technology?

I'd argue that if there are enough raw resources to maintain our current rate of technological specialization, machinic evolution will *probably* compensate for genetic evolution many times over.

>And for eugenics?

LOL

Eugenics, the science for subhumans who are so naive about implementation of such a science that they fail to see how much of a disaster it would be.

Genetic engineering on the otherhand at least promises a far more precise understanding of and creation of phenotypical expressions. In less jargonish language, being able to directly increase intelligence, strength, etc. without depending on a democratic politician's decision of what families are of the strongest breed (LOL).

[Anonymous No.4357236]

We are still undergoing natural selection. We are not apart from it in any respect. The majority of humans have very little or no understanding of evolution.

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357238]

>>4357206
Any individual is going to be more genetically similar to their parents, siblings, and children than any other non-related individual. The only thing that you have that will last that will be even remotely similar to you is your genes as existing in your offspring, BECAUSE everyone is going to die eventually.
Besides, I know my time is temporary, so I tend to think outside of myself. What I do for me matters, but what I do for others matters more because it affects more people.

[Anonymous No.4357241]

>>4357222

There is no "brains" of the operation. The brains is the network of raw materials surplus (food, water, energy) which attracts human agents of various intelligences to use them as weapons in their bid for power.

[Anonymous No.4357243]

>>4357221
so its purely a concious decision for you, you care because you want to.
interesting.
i only recently discovered the idea of having concious beliefs, i knew about it i just never paid attention to it, and now that i do it seems so weird. before i used to believe because i was told what to believe, like a sheep, nowadays im moving on wolfish, doing things the way i wanna do.

having beliefs you conciously think out means you can start to become abnormal, your ideas seems odd to others, people may think you a weirdo or something.

my friendship with people mean i try to help them survive, and they do the same for me, people see that as weird, they're friendships seem weird to me, so meaningless and empty.

[Anonymous No.4357250]

>>4357241
the brains of the operation are those who push the idea into existence.
the workers (people of knowledge, scientists) are very valuable, you can take them out aswell.
facilities are expensive, take them out
financially, take them out

many possibilities to take them out.

[Anonymous No.4357252]

>>4357238
i dont like how you talk about death as if you know whats waiting for you after it.

if you considered this you would have very different beliefs.

[Anonymous No.4357257]

Well, fuck. This thread is completely full of crazy. I guess it's just impossible to talk biotech on /sci/.

I still maintain that gene therapy, particularly to combat aging-associated molecular and cellular damage, is the "next step" toward our future. Solving the problem of the limited human lifespan will give us the perspective needed to tackle bigger issues.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.4357258]

>implying transhumanism == eugenics

Zoologist...

[Anonymous No.4357261]

>>4357243

In the western world, at least, most people have no NEED to figure out anything beyond their immediate social milieu. Therefore they enjoy the simulation of a liberal society (based on networks of unimaginable ingenuity, exploitation, and violence that grow/extract raw materials) and get hooked to the petty social games. I've mentioned on some other thread that while subhumans rail against drugs, they forget how addicted they are to domination in "easy simulations" (of their social, material fish ponds). This isn't some conscious choice but the inevitability of being born with average intelligence in normal conditions.

Not that I have anything against that (the horror of a six billion hyper-predators with full awareness!) other than when these subhumans try to impose their derelict judgments and resentments against me.

"The strong must be protected against the weak" - Nietzsche

Because a society of weak people people or a combination of weak particles can destabilize an intricate singular person or configuration of forces that is stronger. And please don't interpret strong as "those with the most money, most guns, weapons, etc.".

[Anonymous No.4357262]

>>4357257
yes i aggree with you, i just dont have enough knowledge to talk about it, really what can you say other than "we need to do something about this"
?

i read you previous post and couldnt think of anything to say to it so i ignored it, but i do aggree with it fully

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357264]

>>4357216
>I do believe that with the current research going on in biomedical sciences, biochemistry and bio engineering, we'll be able to understand the gene complexes in full in a decade? maybe two?

I think you're giving a short estimate. We don't know:
1) What every individual gene and allele currently within the human genome does.
2) What effect every allele for any gene is going to have in combination with every other allele for any other gene.
3) All environmental factors and how they interact with any combination of alleles that already exist.

Do you know about alternative splicing, or microRNAs? These complicate each of the above scenarios. And I've not even touched on determining which mutations are likely to occur and how each of those is going to affect the three above. Genetic engineering is still in the youngest of phases. Right now, we're just gathering information. I'd say that until we can reliably predict behavior (as it's the last item in the input/output chain from genes to gene products, to cellular structure, to physical strucutre, to gene product interaction with physical structure along with environmental input along every step of that process) then we really shouldn't be pushing genetic engineering of humans on a wide-spread basis.

>>4357221
So you're saying that anyone who cares about anything outside of themselves is inferior? (In which case, I hate to break it to you, because science is largely involved with the greater, more global impacts of the findings, if it's not science, for science's sake, an institution which is fairly gestalt in the way that it is much greater than any individual contributor.)

[Anonymous No.4357266]

>>4357250

Killing such brains amounts to killing ants and in any event, you have to be honest and realize that the weak overwhelm the strong in civilized societies.

It is a far better strategy to be in charge of the weak than to immolate your strength in futile resistance.

[Anonymous No.4357269]

>>4356599

OP watched Joe Rogen experience and then googled Jason Silva and found this quote

[Anonymous No.4357277]

>>4357264
>So you're saying that anyone who cares about anything outside of themselves is inferior?

No but we don't care about them from the absurd notion of a metaphysical alturism. We care about them because we find them engaging to our own CNS' or circuitry.

For example I get a bit of happiness from helping people and if I could help elevate all of humanity that would be a double pleasure of "helping" and of being strong enough to affect the world in such a scale, of being able to give other beings my energy and still standing.

The inferior position is the Christian posturing that merely "caring" is somehow a separate thing from a selfish reaction (when such "caring" is one of the most selfish impulses of our emotions) and that the superior morality is merely "caring" for other people as some duty or that such caring ELEVATES one above stronger and smarter people who might not directly express such caring or whose form of care is a more intense and honest megalomania towards the world.

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.4357279]

>>4357264
Ofcourse I know about alternative splicing and microRNA's..
And you're right these do complicate, but not necessarily. I mean, alternative splicing mechanics can be deduced by looking at the proteome (even though this will take many hours of seperation techniques). And with the current mapping of the genome, this shouldn't pose too much of a problem.
The microRNA's are on a whole different level. Just because we haven't classified enough of them to even estimate how many fuctional miRNA's we have.

I don't think I've my estimation was that soon. We can do certain genetic engineering because it's fairly straightforward. Also, these fields are growing so fast.. I don't know.. My view might be a little too positive heh.

[Anonymous No.4357283]

>>4357261
>the horror of a six billion hyper-predators with full awareness!

that statement is so poetic to me its exactly what i aim to be every single day i learn new things which will benefit me, i learn more about myself and how my brain works several times a day

im currently studying to be self sufficient as a hobby and the benefit of this is i also make money off it aswell.

i interpret strength as survivability .

ANYWAY the true point you said its not a concious decision, yes it is a very consious decision, you have sat down and thought about this, you want humanity to survive for whatever reasons you have, that is called consiously thinking, its not something that comes to you just because you are smart.

how old are you, how do you make money, how do you protect the things that matter to you, what do you study

[Anonymous No.4357287]

can someone tell me why eugenics isn't a good idea? if this was 9000BC i'd be fucking bitches left to right, as i tend to excel in every field. the only thing holding me back today is money. seeing all the fat fucks and immoral beings being able to 'buy' other's intellectual properties and skills pisses me off to a great extent.

if i ever wanted to create a perfect world, it would be based on natural selection mastered by eugenics, and without currency. money is the source of the unnatural selection.

[Anonymous No.4357288]

>>4357266
wow, i will spend time thinking about this idea

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357292]

>>4357228
I really think we should get more people behind it. But then you've got idiots who argue that the world is already overpopulated and increasing the average age is going to make the problem worse.
There are a lot of factors that contribute to aging.
Also, people still think too small. How many smokers have you heard tell you that they don't care if it shaves X number of years off their life because they don't care if they die at 80 or 80-x?

>>4357243
Are you high?

>>4357233
Just double-checking. We all take in the world through our own filters. I wanted to make sure I wasn't reading something into your statements that wasn't there.
It would still be important to have genetic variability even with "machine evolution" because without it, everyone would be open to an unnecessary level of susceptibility to biological extinction hazards.

>>4357252
Nothing waits for me after death. My atoms get recycled into a zillion other things (which I happen to think is very awe-inspiring) but nothing "waits" for me after death. So all I can do is what I can do while I'm alive and try to make things better. I want to make them better because I would have wanted someone in the past to do the same for me, even though I wont be alive to care about any of the effects.

>>4357258
Colonel Coffee Mug, they are different. Or can be, at least. Unless I'm missing something? I mostly lurk the transhumanist discussions.

[Anonymous No.4357295]

>>4356676
>assorted leftists

Carl Sagan shouldn't have been allowed to breed?

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.4357297]

>>4357292

>Colonel Coffee Mug, they are different. Or can be, at least. Unless I'm missing something? I mostly lurk the transhumanist discussions.

It's that I felt the quote to be more transhumanist than eugenicist. The statement about natural selection I consider tangential to the point, but it's wrong anyways.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.4357299]

>>4357297

If anything, new forms of selection will be introduced.

[Anonymous No.4357300]

>>4357283
>ANYWAY the true point you said its not a conscious decision

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. For most people, there isn't really a need to make a conscious decision (in which they need to be megalomaniac about thinking about the scale of things we are thinking about) whereas the chaos of my personal life caused me to be intensely curious about the origins of civilization and like a winding road, here I am.

>how old are you, how do you make money, how do you protect the things that matter to you, what do you study

24, Military (submariner lol), the ones I care about are either well off or intelligent enough to come out on the upper half of fortune, and plan to study psychopharmacology. Have a fantasy of being a virtual currency entrepreneur (getting on TOR and seeing Silk Road has made me realize what fortunes could be made off of popularizing such technologies and facilitating such transactions).

[Anonymous No.4357301]

>>4357299
Entertain me - what do you think it could be, once the 'standard model' of society will change?

[Anonymous No.4357304]

>>4357089
Oh boy, you are going to love this project then:

opensourceecology.org

[Anonymous No.4357318]

Let's say we greatly expand the human lifespan...won't cancer rates increase by a metric fuckton? In order to keep us alive for so long, we're going to need to find a cure or at least much better treatment options for cancer. If we're messing with gene therapies it just seems likely that cancer rates will increase.

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357320]

>>4357277
I see. So, you're arguing against some religious doctrine for some reason. Or just railing against the fact that people think they're better than others because they care? Regardless, either is an argument about morals/ethics and those things are outside of the realm of science anyway.
I get what you were originally saying now.
You should use more commas.

>>4357279
Having done some genetic research in undergrad, it sure is nice when things work out cleanly. But they often don't when it comes to genetic studies right now, and the best we've got are correlations. (The best we're ever going to have in determining human genes and what each one of them does is going to be correlations, due to the fact that we cannot make human fetuses with exactly the genetic combinations we want, and them plop them in a controlled environment.) It really is messy right now. Some of our (science's) model organisms are coming along nicely, but they've been chosen specifically for the fact that they're a simplification of the larger problem we're getting at.

>>4357287
The shortest explanation I can give. (look up your own vocabulary words)
1) Decreases genetic variability (already briefly discussed)
2) I ALWAYS FORGET ONE! I'm pretty sure this is where I discuss the unknowns? Whatever, you're going to have to be okay with 3 reasons.
3) What humans deem important or genetically superior isn't necessarily going to be the same as what nature deems important or genetically superior.
4) Anything you can do with eugenics you can do with genetic engineering and technology a zillion times faster with a zillion fewer detrimental effects.

[Zoologist !HCYzxgP8mg No.4357332]

>>4357297
Can you quote it for me so I can clarify? I'm not sure which statement(s) you're talking about. I'm talking too much today.
>>4357299
>If anything, new forms of selection will be introduced.
Always going to happen. I am 100% behind this statement.

>>4357318
Cancer is an entire host of causes, each with a different set of treatments. Sure, it all relates to unchecked cellular replication, but there are a lot of avenues through which that can occur. (See picture. Sorry it's the smaller version.)

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.4357341]

>>4357320
The big problem I think is we often can't comprehend how many molecules are confined to a tiny space.
2m of DNA fit in 2nm, that's too impressive, not to mention all the other molecules associated with it. How things are taught can be misleading, because they always represent a "clean" vision.
i.e. Transcription only with necessary molecules.
This is where it becomes so hard in molecular biology or genetic engineering.. We're smart enough to unravel certain mechanics, but we're too stupid to be able take every molecule into account.

[Anonymous No.4357344]

>>4357262
I, as well, am an uneducated dumbass, but just as you I too can see that's a cool dude you quoted.

[Anonymous No.4357345]

>mfw everyday

Humanity is one huge cult of retards, nowadays average beings are tricked into thinking they are gifted. put in reality they are just surrounded by idiots. and the delusion never ends...

[Anonymous No.4357346]

>>4357304
how do you find out things like this project ? where do you search ?

[Anonymous No.4357351]

world's smartest man says the solution is eugenics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTM5tEb_f0

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.4357365]

>>4357332

>Can you quote it for me so I can clarify? I'm not sure which statement(s) you're talking about. I'm talking too much today.

The OP's quote.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4357374]

>>4357365
OOOOOOOHHHHH.

Yeah. Well, like I said before, E.O. Wilson is a genius when it comes to ants, and he is allowed to have opinions about things. But no one here should be taking his opinion for fact. Also, he's old, and most, if not all, well-known scientists start going a little crazy when they're old, and they say stupid bologna like that. Natural selection never stops. Like you said before, it just changes.

[Anonymous No.4357376]

>some faggot zoologist thinks he knows shit about human evolution
>is ignorantly against eugenics

[Anonymous No.4357387]

>>4357376
Being ignorantly against eugenics is a level far above being for eugenics in general.

Unless you're an idealist who pretends that
1. Direct manipulation of genes will never have practical applications
and
2. Subhumans in power won't game eugenics systems to favor the weaker that happen to be themselves and their kin.

[Anonymous No.4357398]

>Edward O. Wilson
>He thinks we can escape natural selection

[Anonymous No.4357401]

>>4357387
What? Form a fucking cogent sentence, bro.

[Anonymous No.4357412]

so, does anyone know what kind of bird that is? That thing looks fucking bad ass

[Anonymous No.4357480]

>>4357412
Is this a new meme? Being unable to read a fucking file name?

[Anonymous No.4357498]

>>4357346
I actually learned about this from a friend. I suppose I could ask him.

[Anonymous No.4357518]

You know, one of the simplest, cheapest, and best ways of improving the human race, genetically or otherwise, is the world-wide liberation women. That way, women could practice selective breeding by having children with whoever they chose, instead of whoever gives the father the biggest camel

[Anonymous No.4357543]

Though this thread is full of bullshit, I'll indulge in a bit of transhumanist futurism.

The immune system is capable of producing, on demand, cells that will consume foreign tissues and reproduce outside the body, dying off after a given number of replications.
Human canines are much sharper than normal, though no longer. They link to epigenetically/neurologically controlled venom glands capable of producing any number of different toxins.
Skeletal muscle is denser and anchored to more points in the body.
The skin can secrete tetrodotoxin/brachytoxin when threatened
A form of bucky-ball weave is immediately underneath the epidermis, making skin almost like an armor. This also surrounds the skeleton, strengthening it and making it rigid yet allowing erythrocytes to pass through.
Epigenetic factors associated with UV levels can alter the makeup of the retina to see into UV or infrared depending on necessity. This takes a few hours.
Faster metabolism to fuel all of these things.
Granulocytes will form around sites of primary viral or parasitic infection, then modified phagocytes digest it for genetic material to be "PCR"ed in the body as a kind of natural vaccine.
A clear nicitating membrane between the eye and eyelids.
Epigenetic/conscious control of the ability to produce chloroplasts in human skin so humans in starvation mode can go photosynthetic to get energy.
The ability to drastically slow metabolic and brain function, super-burmatnion.
Encoded bacteriophages in the genes. You can produce them as needed to fight almost any bacterial infection, as they mutate rapidly to being affecting any foreign bacterium.
Redundant nervous system.
Ability to produce telomerase to prolong life.
Aggressive autophagy and apopotosis mechanisms to prevent cancer.
Regenerating hair cells in the ear- no hearing loss.
Skin may also go photosynthetic and begin producing oxygen from CO2 for the body's own consumption in hypoxic environments.

[Anonymous No.4357567]

transhumanism general

[Anonymous No.4357766]

>>4357401

lol those were "cogent sentences", "bro".

Okay let me dumb it down a bit. There are these subhumans in power, you know the fucks who would be in charge of managing the fucking show, who would take any popular ideology of "eugenics" and turn it into an excuse to elevate their kin and friends into positions of power over the lives of other human beings.

There would be no "meritocracy of the great". It'd be a subhuman pony show of the most hypocritical kind!

Meanwhile genetic engineering is already starting to show promising results and will most likely advance further and with more precision than any dumb Christian fantasy of "eugenics" could ever reach.

Maybe eugenics would work in isolated villages overseen by a genius scientist.

[Anonymous No.4357804]

>>4357518
i agree and disagree. yes women should be free everywhere. but the idea that women choosing their mates would improve the species shows how little you understand how long evolution takes and how little we've evolved since reaching civilization.

civilization is less then 5% for human history, not enough time to be shaped much at all by evolution. basically the evolved behaviour of a human female is to select a mate based on what would have been the best mate back in prehistoric times. basically they select the more aggresive and powerful males.

the best thing for the human race would be if women were to select for the most intelligent, rational, and non-aggresive males who nonetheless show some passion in their work. instead they pick confident aggresive prick who care more about football then a career benefiting mankind.

[Anonymous No.4357814]

just download me into a supercomputer thanks. we can maintain colonies of organic humans kind of like nature preserves both for the hell of it and for our entertainment, and in case the mechanical form of humanity lacks long term survival stability.

[Anonymous No.4357850]

>we'll be rewriting our genes within the century
>brain uploads on the horizon
Looks good. Fuck natural selection, it doesn't give a damn about us. We are slaves to our genes.

[Anonymous No.4358037]

>>4357543
The ability to secrete venom or have a venomous bite would be utterly useless. Even primitive man didn't need these natural defences, because we have tools and cleverness on our side. Presumable future people will have even less use for them.

I also notice your list lacks any consideration of aesthetics. Do you think people don't care to look nice? How about iridescent irises or transgenic pigments expressed in the hair? Thinking more sexually, what about making your sweat and other secretions taste like strawberries? I'd much rather be the bishounen that everyone wants to lick all over than the crazy survivalist loner with poison fangs.

[Anonymous No.4358280]

But what if we are the best of what nature could produce, in this given environment?

THen, it follows that from this point onwards, the human types will only get worse in terms of abilities. Neither bright, nor more attractive. They will only be survivors for the sake of surviving. Thus, human evolution will become a reality show of surviving.

[Anonymous No.4358555]

On the contrary.Natural selection has just evolved , it can never be phased out.

[Gilgamesh !!JNVkU2/omZB No.4358572]

>>4358280
Your argument does not follow from your premise.

The entire point is that we can do better than nature.

[Anonymous No.4359052]

The theory itself doesn't exclude that.
It doesn't say evolution must be neverending.

[Anonymous No.4359054]

>>4358555
The theory itself doesn't exclude that.
It doesn't say evolution must be neverending.

[Anonymous No.4359080]

>>4358572
But I said it's possible evolution just got an optimum, a maximally adapted species to what the environment represents on this planet right now and that from this point onwards, there might not be much room to optimise without reducing from abilities. Like reducing the speed of mental simulation, reducing the capacity for physical effort and so on. The result will be just a species which has become captive of its own previous development and its own artificial environment, trying only to survive, devoid of any new, real challenges.

I think this is quite possible and it doesn't imply that there must be a direction to evolution, only that its maximisation of adaptation to environment could peak with a species and then go the other direction, whatever that be.

>progress uaryll

[Anonymous No.4359113]

>>4358572
The argument was that there is no better than nature in this particular environment. This has been a local maximum of adaptation.
You can only use an evolutionarily in-built logic to "transcend evolution".

[Anonymous No.4359139]

>>4356619
workin on it, bro

[Anonymous No.4360286]

>>4359080
>>4359113

That argument is ridiculously implausible and arrogant. Considering the time-scale of evolutionary change, do you really think we've become "maximally adapted" to our (technological) environment that has existed for less than 10,000 years? For most of our prior history as a species, we were eking out a living with a small population size, barely avoiding extinction. When population size is so low, the potential for evolution to explore the space of possible adaptations is decreased and *many deleterious mutations will become fixed by chance.* Saying that humans are a fitness maximum goes against everything we know of evolutionary population genetics. Honestly, it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard about evolution from a non-Creationist.

[Anonymous No.4360320]

>>4360286
I see this differently. Evolution took more risks with the human species as populations increased (as you say about the relation between population size and the risk of having more fixed deleterious mutations).

The gamut of these bets increased exponentially as populations increased, because human communities afforded to have a bigger spread of traits diversity and so test any possible combination of traits for new adaptations to our technologised environment. This has mostly affected the brain, imo, since it's the most plastic organ in the human body. But then, I think it would be very difficult to test this crazy hypothesis because of lack of tissue to extract DNA and check for all mutations in brain-building genes.

[Anonymous No.4360350]

I wanna be a catgirl dolphin with a ten inch dick clit monster girl furry...thng ...

[Anonymous No.4360367]

>>4360320
You haven't really said anything to defend the claim that the human species as a whole represents a fitness maximum. In fact, there's probably some truth to what you say about recent exploration of the fitness landscape, but this is unfolding on a very short time-scale and accompanied by permissive ecology and lack of purifying selection.

[Anonymous No.4360390]

fuck that bird is magestic

[Anonymous No.4360409]

I for one look forward to a transmetropolitan future where all the fucked up weirdos of 4chan will be able to grow the custom sexual organs they always wanted.

[Anonymous No.4360431]

>>4356676

Because of genetic engineering, eugenics is pointless. GE accomplishes the exact same thing in a single generation that eugenics takes centuries to do, and without killing anyone or restricting who may procreate.

Because of this, eugenics supports can no longer hide behind the pretense of wanting to improve the human species. If that's all they were after, they would be content with making genetic engineering available as an affordable medical service for couples planning to have children. Instead, they cling to eugenics because what they really want is to murder people they hate, specifically:

>>4356676
>Niggers, Homosexuals, Feminists and assorted leftists.

...as well as gaining dictatorial control over sex. Typically they are undersexed antisocial types who feel that it's unjust that beautiful women are uninterested in them. In their minds, eugenics corrects that injustice by forcing women to marry and procreate with them who do not want to, and who never would without state coercion/violence.
>>4356676

[Anonymous No.4360439]

Well, it's either one or the other:

A. Nature/evolution failed and produced individuals who are unable to get a mate, or
B. Human society evolved by affecting an individual's capacity to find a mate, so mating has also become subject to customs and communal decisions. Since modern times, we went against this new trend and fucked the reason why societies evolved in the first place. We're now adjusting to this new reality.

[Anonymous No.4360440]

>>4360431
Well, it's either one or the other:

A. Nature/evolution failed and produced individuals who are unable to get a mate, or
B. Human society evolved by affecting an individual's capacity to find a mate, so mating has also become subject to customs and communal decisions. Since modern times, we went against this new trend and fucked the reason why societies evolved in the first place. We're now adjusting to this new reality.

[Axel the Possum No.4360484]

I just want to point out that there's a group of scientists who are in the first stages of showing that an immune response can be used to target cancer cells. Their first tests in mice have been a proof of concept, and it's steadily going to get better before they move to higher animal testing.

There might soon very well be patient-specific targeted cancer therapies that involve no dangerous chemotherapy at all. Given that, not too long ago, the CTC-HD test was confirmed for being able to detect cancer in a blood test, we might soon see a world in which all cancers, save brain cancer because of the blood-brain barrier, could become treatable with a one-time shot.

Science is awesome.

[Anonymous No.4360959]

>>4360484
I too am exited by this prospect, but one must bear in mind that the immune system becomes increasingly incompetent with age (vaccines don't even confer immunity on most elderly individuals). This is not a doom and gloom realization, it's an opportunity to understand the importance of rejuvenating the immune system. From the beginning of this thread ( >>4356671 ) I've been extolling this necessity. Hopefully the scientists involved in this research will realize themselves the feasibility and importance of repairing and enhancing the immune system.

As the costs of gene sequencing continue to decline (following a sort of Moore's law analogue) it will become feasible to choose undamaged and healthy immune cells or progenitor cells, grow these cells in culture and return the healthy and youthful cells to circulation after administering a drug that kills a majority of the immune cells in the patient (many of these cells are dysfunctional and useless).

[Anonymous No.4361020]

>>4356632 Furthermore, mitochondrial dysfunction can be alleviated by placing a copy of the genes for mitochondrial proteins in the nucleus

>implying less-essential mitochondrial genes haven't been "migrating" to the nucleus all along
>implying that most of the remaining mitochondrial genes can be placed in the nucleus and still create their original function

[Anonymous No.4361045]

>>4361020
I never implied that mitochondrial genes haven't been horizontally transferred to the nucleus.

As for your other roundabout assertion that if it were possible for the rest to be transferred this would already have been done, this is naïve adaptationism at its best. Do you really think that horizontal transfer is that easy, that evolution would necessarily have explored all the options?