Are there any valid reasons whatsoever why we, as a species, SHOULDN'T be able to make "designer babies?" as long as they're not intentionally making defective children like the fucking dwarves it should be fine, right?
No, and we will pretty soon.
It'll take off big in East Asia, then eventually make its way to kike-controlled countries.
Because human life is not a toy.
>>7969820
/thread
>>7969837
he said valid reasons
>>7969806
Designer/Non-designer babies might have issues trying to get laid.
>>7969853
> human life is a toy
No it's not. Deal with it.
>>7969806
Look at your pic. These are the qualities that some people would create in their children. When you ask people to start selecting traits instead of nature, you get this hippie freeform garbage that contributes nothing to society or nature. God help us should we ever allow the populace to actively control our evolution.
>>7969806
Nothing wrong with it. People already make the decision to terminate problem fetuses and mutilate their babies as soon as they are born. Doing it through genetic engineering is just the next step.
>>7969859
humans have been fucking animals and inanimate objects since the dawn of the species. the only things not able to get laid are those who have a mental block that prevents them from getting laid.
>>7969870
>art is only done by the few in the beginning
>computers are made, photoshop gets pirated, GIMP is used, people do art on their phones
>now there's tumblr noses and lens flares all over the fucking place
Translate that into people designing their own children then think about all the various whacked out shit people do to themselves to make themselves different. Then look at this image and ponder what they'd want made.
>>7969870
>>7970299
>2075
>browsing /b/
>"trips decides what my baby will look like!"
>>7970302
i find this funny coz its funny
i find it sad coz its actually gonna happen
>>7969806
>Are there any valid reasons whatsoever why we, as a species, SHOULDN'T be able to make "designer babies?"
We might hurt some liberal feelings.
>>7970332
You mean Conservative feelings. Liberals would actually want it. Or has 4chan corrupted the word so much, like many words, that it literally means the opposite now?
>>7970345
Not that guy, but OP's prompt plays to both liberal and conservative moral panics, and it's disingenuous for you to insist that it's only one or the other. This is because much of humanity is still 'squicked' by genetically engineering anything, even if in practice as other anons have said, humans have always been getting rid of unwanted babies and behaving like intelligent, depraved animals anyway. It's also ironic that you complain about 4chan bastardizations of words (a valid point), except that your usage of 'liberal' itself as opposed to 'conservative' is itself not an original, general meaning of the word, but a specifically American political one.
The conservative moral panic over designer babies goes like this: muh religion, muh slippery slope to even more abortions, muh entitlement mentality. Sincere Christians will also dislike eugenics for the usual reasons (even though eugenics has been practiced all along in the form of individual mate choices), and the honest Christian view of the matter can, for our purposes, be subsumed into a general "muh conservative feels" rubric.
The liberal moral panic, on the other hand, is that the previously oppressed (blacks, gays etc), muh precious minorities, would be oppressed even harder on account of designer babies. Muh racism, muh exterminating gays in teh womb, and so on.
So you see, the moral panic angles over this issue really apply to both sides, and your attempt to limit it to one side or the other is disingenuous. Both sides will variously wring their hands, and then the thing will just move forward anyway as technology always does, so it's a moot discussion, as we well know.
>>7970383
Not that guy, but I was pleasantly surprised your text wasn't just a /pol/ 'librul' fest. Great post.
My hopes for our species make me question my political leanings. I support transhumanism because I think it's cool. Our Rothschild overlords are actually probably more likely to engage in that sort of thing than others might be. They also have the nuts to axe most of the population, which, let's face it, will be necessary at some point.
So I'm torn, should I still vote TRUMP?
>>7969870
there are limits to human DNA
those limits would probably be within current genetic diversity
i dont think you need to worry for a couple hundred years
90% of it will just be switching off all the bad genetic traits that increase cancer risk and the like.
people usually arent as crazy as you think when it comes to their own children
>>7969806
>as long as they're not intentionally making defective children
Except that is exactly what will happen.
>>7970383
>and it's disingenuous for you to insist that it's only one or the other.
Hey, I didn't make up the bullshit "sides" to be on. The rest of your post is conjecture.
>>7970468
>there are limits to human DNA
Right now humans take genes from animals and plants and put them in other animals and plants both. Spider-goats, fish-strawberries, bacto-corn/mice, human-goats, etc. Those and tons more are already made, approved and used. We even have bananas that make vaccines. Transgenic modification is nothing new. There's no reason putting other species' DNA into human being can't/won't be done; other than social-political stuff.
>>7970484
Of course (you) did. Anyone who reads the first two sentences of (your) post >>7970345 sees very clearly that you have set up a conservative/liberal dichotomy, also known as "sides", in the American political sense of the words. "Conservatives would dislike x, while Liberals would like x". Wave your hands harder.
>>7969806
>>7969806
Technically no, especially with the advent of CRISPR. However there comes the whole GATTACA problem as well as the fact that by doing this we could inadvertently remove some "junk" DNA that actually prevents us from snapping at 35 and murdering a bunch of people. Even if we just focus on disease states there's still possibility to introduce vulnerabilities into our genome like how the only vaccine against malaria is sickle cell. Personally I believe designer babies are the way to go as we are not gonna be able to evolve at a fast enough rate naturally to overcome the bullshit we dumped on ourselves. The problem is babies can't consent and sign release forms so if one designer baby comes out horribly deformed then just imagine (vaccines cause autismo)^2
Personally I think we are gonna need to complete gene therapy techniques so that people can sign 300 pages of paper work, go into a clinic and get a bunch of stuff injected and surgically implanted and come out with the ability to shock like an electric eel or some stupid shit like that. After that stuff becomes normal designer babies will make a resurgence.
we have no idea what that kind of genetic tinkering would do several generations down the line. you'd risk contaminating the gene pool.
also, the first application of any new technology is almost always weapons, and we have enough trouble with discharged veterans as it is, let alone super soldiers.
>>7970524
>as well as the fact that by doing this we could inadvertently remove some "junk" DNA that actually prevents us from snapping at 35 and murdering a bunch of people. Even if we just focus on disease states there's still possibility to introduce vulnerabilities into our genome like how the only vaccine against malaria is sickle cell.
This is the major reason why human gene editing hasn't been seriously considered yet. The scientists who work on this stuff still really have no idea how the genome works to produce a working human.
First it will be bacteria. Then slightly larger organisms like slugs or some shit. Eventually it will work it's way to plants (efficiently, not the stuff we're doing now), then ultimately small mammals.
I don't think confidence in human genetic engineering will be high enough to go through with it by the end of the century.
>>7970524
>Personally I believe designer babies are the way to go as we are not gonna be able to evolve at a fast enough rate naturally to overcome the bullshit we dumped on ourselves.
I agree with this but we might defer on what is the bullshit we dumped on ourselves
Right now I think we have 2 self-imposed challenges/problems
1) Robots and that's not even getting into AI, a whole lot of jobs are getting and will inevitably get replaced, your country says no? Tough luck, the business will just switch place until a more convenient country with no morals says no and those are always easy to find, if we can have child labour on chocolate and depressed workers prone to suicide in China making our iphony bullshit, disgruntled workers replaced by robots is the least of the concerns I think.
2) People want to be "faster", be young, stay young, reach goals earlier and do multitasking, but multitasking is impossible, no if you are on the phone on the road you are posing a danger you are not equally focused on both, you can't read and chat on facebook.
So what do we do? If we truly want this, we have to improve ourselves, because evolution is simply too slow, (what the hell is even the point of evolution if it takes so long anyway but oh well)
I am up for other solutions as well though.
>>7970501
I didn't set it up, the original use of the word 'liberal" did that in >>7970332 which did more to imply it than you point out. I was pointing out that it was all hogwash to label anything. I was pointing out:
>Typical divisional social propaganda. You try to make a side to be on so you can hate others that are not on your side as well as bring others to your side to prevent your own cognitive dissonance. The truth of the matter is that you are using "divide and conquer" tactics you learned from entertainment propaganda meant to keep the masses off balance and disorganized.
>There are no "sides" to be on. Stop making up problems where none exist.
I pointed out the illogical usage of the term.
>inb4 lol just trolling
>>7970538
>but multitasking is impossible
Finally, another anon who realizes this. If humans were ever to really multi-task, we'd need two head, or rather separate processing centers to allow that very thing to occur.
>>7969806
Morals, aside...
It would be too expensive, and if someone can afford it, he would get shunned and mob'd for doing it by the entitled masses.
At best there may eventually be a vaccine-like process to make a standardized version available to the public, maybe in a north-Korea haircut-like variety, with the odd illegal operation here and there.
And i'm not even sure if it's humanly possible for such a technology to be developed in the first place.
There's also the incredibly massive problem of how the hell do you even perform tests of this technology? Because I really don't see it produced in a working form, without large amounts of (human baby) testing.
And will they breed?
>>7970533
We can already do bacteria, we can also already do slugs if you consider c. elegans a slug although I'm pretty sure it's a nematode. We've been messing around with this shit for a long time.
Youa re also forgetting that it has already been seriously considered, and used, in China. Also gene therapies are being used in Brazil by a CEO who said that she tweaked her metabolism to make herself immortal.
We actually have a lot of confidence, as scientists, in a lot of different genetic engineering tricks but the problem is the public can't distinguish between "yeah maybe making someone albino might fuck shit up" and "yeah we can alter this one protein so that it stops misfolding".
>>7970538
Yeah I'm qualifying the bullshit as the potential to transform our current environment into one that is naturally hostile to ourselves. If we want to be smarter and shit you need to find out the right way to zap a brain cause messing with the genes usually causes mental illness, hence why many geniuses are depressed as fuck.
>>7970545
Well there is a small subset of the population that has been identified as like "supertaskers" or something. Essentially the more tasks you give them the better they get at the individual tasks or they remain the same competency. I think it's about 2% of the population..
>>7970545
There's a pic somewhere of them blowing a guy (one)
>>7970625
It's fake (dumbass)
>>7970626
Theyre pornstars ( idiot)
>>7970595
> If we want to be smarter and shit you need to find out the right way to zap a brain cause messing with the genes usually causes mental illness
Is maddening to me how, say in Cancer research it tends to boil to
>take X trend in Y candidates, wait K years and see what happens
is like playing lottery, you might waste millions on nothing.
Maybe once laboratory grown organs are a reality research can be faster, maybe I am too ignorant or too optimist but that would mean no more donors, no more organs black market and testing to things that are closer to human beings than rats and pigs...maybe?
Still about zapping, I am not sure if you meant it as a synonym to a generic stimulation or that odd trend about focusing electric charges around specific zones of the brain, I remember seeing in that Morgan Freeman into the hole show how for instance, someone practicing violin could improve in doing it, if he was stimulated in the zone that was lighting up.
BUT
1) How much electricity?
2) For how long?
questions that I can't possibly think of with my knowledge, has it been done a serious test yet on that or is just a matter of "wait and see if these people get a form of cancer"?
>>7969806
Yes. Genetic engineering on humans is principally a good thing, but unfortunately fags like you only want cat-girls or other retarded stuff while normies want tall kids with blue eyes.
Genetic engineering on humans will be legal, but not for the average retard.
>>7970299
Plz....Plz.....plz no.
>>7970632
Can't tell if trolling.
If the procedures for designer babies are too expensive or the wait for it is too long you could start having an underground market for it that's not closely monitored by international health organizations.
That alone could potentially wreck the human genome. I mean you already have a number of illegitimate medical procedures and operations going on as we speak that isn't in the books.
The next logical step would include designer babies that are not in the medical records and therefore possibly have "error prone" genes. Which you wouldn't be able to address or fix easily until it's too late.
I expect some HIV/AIDS tier disease to pop up thanks to that in say the next two centuries.
The only good answer is that monoculture will kill the humans.
Designers babies will suffer some extreme gene monoculture, which will make them extreme weak to the diseases of their generation, if they reach like +15% of the population.
>>7971883
>extreme gene monoculture
I want normies to leave.
>>7971890
I am just really glad a lot of genetic traits are not visible traits. Which means there is a extreme amount of genetic diversity going around.
With designer babies, what will most likely happen is that the first 3-6 generations of them will be fucked in terms of disease resistance, due sharing too many traits.
>>7969806
Hey guys, I don't know if my dick should be hard or not, is this a guy or girl?
>>7969806
Dunno if it's been mentioned but watch Gattaca
Unless that's where you got the idea
>>7971903
>>7970302
>>7970299
>>7969870
People already modify themselves, so why not their children?
>>7972016
Tony?
>>7971984
Turns out its a boy
dont care, im going to fap to his cosplay later anyway.
>>7969806
Because pedos like you will try to fuck your elven loli daughteru or someone elses under the guise of handholding; if you consider that there are no mature ones and probably there never will be during your life time. It seems like this would be the only reason for you to say this. To get a girl at least 30 years younger than you.
Biological immortality is more important
>>7972032
Eh me too, what's his name? Image search gives nothing.
>>7972039
Prince Rits
But he is starting to look like a man.
Left is him at 17, right is him at 20.
>>7971883
I don't see how designer babies are related to monoculture. It's more likely to assume that the parents would be used as a basis or that there will be a mandatory randomization factor if parent-independent genetic templates are used. In any case, this is a fairly obvious technical difficulty which would naturally need to be fixed, before they're released to the market.
But it's not at all improbable that some previously unknown factor ends up doing something with a similar end-result.
>>7972048
Thanks dude
Depends on just how much freedom you have to design your baby. If it became a really widespread thing, it could create genetic bottle necks that make huge parts of the population vulnerable to certain diseases in the future. Homogeneity of an extreme degree is pretty dangerous because it means there's decreased genetic diversity to tackle certain stressors. Who knows what fat/ugly/stupid genes may help us in the future?
An alternative concern is that it will create a two tiered species of humanity; those who can afford to design incredibly beautiful, athletic, intelligent children, and those who cant. The beautiful super people will quickly muscle all the ordinary humans out of the most competitive jobs in society, and as a result designer babies will increase class divides. If this gets really bad the world might start to resemble Aldous Huxley's brave new world, with society divied up into castes of Alphas, Betas etc...
>>7970728
Maybe they'll give it a name like DGS (Degenerative Gene Syndrome)?
>>7969806
Devaluing my superior genes. Now my children won't be unique in being tall, blue eyed and blonde.
>>7969865
Why?
>>7969837
To some, human life is merely a tool.
Chinese leaders have already stated they see no problems in gene editing. They want (officially) to eradicate mental illnesses. Personally I guess by extension they also want to edit in some extra obedience.
So, 30 years from now when the Chinese have mastered gene editing (and swept damaged babies under the rug), they will be the go-to people to ensure your offspring is healthy and free from even low risk genetic disorders.
>>7969806
Because people with questionable taste like you
