Generation alpha is gonna be FUCKED

[Blackout.xl]

The generation after gen Z is gonna have the highest rates of mental illness, highest rates of degeneracy, highest rates of joblessness, will have nothing in terms of wealth and will likely be blackpilled by default. Be thankful that you were born now and not in the 2010’s/2020’s

 

[Deleted member 2661]

Keep crying for the genetically modified chads

 

[Blackout.xl]

Keep crying for the genetically modified chads

They won’t be genetically modified. At least the majority of them. Only the rich ones will be genetically modified.

 

[LordNorwood]

Keep crying for the genetically modified chads

@FatJattMofo
They're onto us. We need to speed up production.

 

[Blackout.xl]

@FatJattMofo
They're onto us. We need to speed up production.

Speed it up so we can eradicate sub humanity

 

[Mewcel]

I hope so, so I can marry a qt-loli-waifu-of-culture™ from that poor generation once I'm moneymaxxed

 

[LordNorwood]

Speed it up so we can eradicate sub humanity

in a few decades we will send a race of angels out to cleanse humanity of all degeneracy

 

[bonesoverblood]

They won’t be genetically modified. At least the majority of them. Only the rich ones will be genetically modified.

Why do people think that only the wealthy will be able to do this? The cost of gene modification is going down every year.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Why do people think that only the wealthy will be able to do this? The cost of gene modification is going down every year.

Meaningful gene modification that’s safe (such as changing frame, height, bone structure, resistance to most/all disease) will be incredibly expensive. The average person might be able to afford some disease resistance / a race change for their kid at best in the near future

 

[Deleted member 2597]

I'm gonna status max, philosophy max, IQ max, to achieve fame and power to expose the degenerates of the world. I am 15, so I have the time, the IQ, the weaponized autisim, soon I will have the looks, the personality and the status to do it. I swear to any God that exists, I will do it.

 

[Blackout.xl]

I'm gonna status max, philosophy max, IQ max, to achieve fame and power to expose the degenerates of the world. I am 15, so I have the time, the IQ, the weaponized autisim, soon I will have the look, the personality and the status to do it. I swear to any God that exists, I will do it.

Legend

 

[bonesoverblood]

Meaningful gene modification that’s safe (such as changing frame, height, bone structure, resistance to disease) will be incredibly expensive. The average person might be able to afford some disease resistance / a race change for their kid at best in the near future

Genetic modification on embryos is significantly less expensive than gene therapy.

Right now, the cost of gene therapy is $500,000 - $1 Million+, compared to the cost of embryo editing, which is $18,000.

After insurance, that's a $1,800 payment.

 

[LordNorwood]

I'm gonna status max, philosophy max, IQ max, to achieve fame and power to expose the degenerates of the world. I am 15, so I have the time, the IQ, the weaponized autisim, soon I will have the looks, the personality and the status to do it. I swear to any God that exists, I will do it.

GODSPEED SWEET SON

 

[Blackout.xl]

Genetic modification on embryos is significantly less expensive than gene therapy.

Right now, the cost of gene therapy is $500,000 - $1 Million+, compared to the cost of embryo editing, which is $18,000.

After insurance, that's a $1,800 payment.

Embryo editing is still incredibly limited

 

[Kingkellz]

The generation after gen Z is gonna have the highest rates of mental illness, highest rates of degeneracy, highest rates of joblessness, will have nothing in terms of wealth and will likely be blackpilled by default. Be thankful that you were born now and not in the 2010’s/2020’s

Haha
Just imagine your kids/grandkids going around sleeping with animals, eating human meat, and identifying as attack helicopters JFL.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Haha
Just imagine your kids/grandkids going around sleeping with animals, eating human meat, and identifying as attack helicopters JFL.

The hips of my great grandsons will be indistinguishable from the one of a female due to the increasing E in everything.

Those new “impossible foods” theyre pushing on people are packed full of estrogen. The impossible whopper alone has 44 mg of estrogen. Men in the future will have rock bottom T, 5 inch wrists and 15 inch frame, that’ll become the new average. It’s over over over over over

 

[bonesoverblood]

Embryo editing is still incredibly limited

Not really. We have all the tools to do it, we just need two things:

• Regulation and Legal Permits
• Lower Cost

After these things get passed (some big companies are working on that right now) then you will start to see it commercially.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Not really. We have all the tools to do it, we just need two things:

• Regulation and Legal Permits
• Lower Cost

After these things get passed (some big companies are working on that right now) then you will start to see it commercially.

The tools to do it are there but what it can actually do is highly limited. All that’s being done with it right now is curing heritable diseases and so on

 

[bonesoverblood]

The tools to do it are there but what it can actually do is highly limited. All that’s being done with it right now is curing heritable diseases and so on

Bro no.

The only reason why scientists are not giving babies perfect genes, is because the government will not let them.

CRISPR Babies Scientist Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison

A Chinese Court jailed He Jiankui for an “illegal medical practice” in editing embryos’ DNA

www.scientificamerican.com

The government wants more research on it, before anything baby-designing related actually happens, but we already can do it.

The tools to do it are there but what it can actually do is highly limited. All that’s being done with it right now is curing heritable diseases and so on

WHO has strict guidelines on the entire process in regards to embryo development in US laboratories:

Gene editing

WHO is establishing a global multi-disciplinary expert panel to examine the scientific, ethical, social and legal challenges associated with human gene editing (both somatic and germ cell). The panel will review the current literature on the state of the research and its applications, and...

www.who.int

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

It's all illegal, until the government insure it's safety.

 

[Cretinous]

Meaningful gene modification that’s safe (such as changing frame, height, bone structure, resistance to most/all disease) will be incredibly expensive. The average person might be able to afford some disease resistance / a race change for their kid at best in the near future

Lets go one step further and just say meaningful gene modification is way further off than people expect it is. Most of biomed is nothing more than con jobs and hype men trying to attract investors for their pie in the sky, go nowhere projects, see: Theranos, as a prime and pertinent recent example.

The experts were predicting flying cars by 2000. Its now 2020 and they are no closer to realistic flying cars than they were 20 years ago, seriously. The hair loss cure was going to come out in 5 years because of all the cutting edge science accumulating.... in 1997. Its now 2020, and if you want to treat hair loss with FDA approved medicines for both safety and efficacy, the options are EXACTLY THE SAME as they were in 1997. People grossly overestimate the rate or consistency of progress in any field. Another example from a different field: in the 1970s, arthur jones designed the nautilus series of machines, which were designed with close attention to physics and physiology, the goal being to provide nothing more than an improvement over the barbell, allowing progressive resistance training in the full range of motion rather than the limited range of motion provided by most barbell exercises as well as largely giving birth to the modern commercial gym phenomena you know and probably enjoy yourself today..... Nautilus never truly caught on, and was ripped off by inferior competitors who produced markedly inferior machines at a fraction of the cost, that was the death of machine training as a productive form of exercise. The knowledge in this field hasnt improved, the training modalities havent improved, they have both REGRESSED. Dorks are doing and advocating the EXACT SAME THINGS they were doing in the 50s, and pretending it is cutting edge!!

and wheres my fucking hoverboard anyway?

 

[bonesoverblood]

Lets go one step further and just say meaningful gene modification is way further off than people expect it is. Most of biomed is nothing more than con jobs and hype men trying to attract investors for their pie in the sky, go nowhere projects, see: Theranos, as a prime and pertinent recent example.

The experts were predicting flying cars by 2000. Its now 2020 and they are no closer to realistic flying cars than they were 20 years ago, seriously. The hair loss cure was going to come out in 5 years because of all the cutting edge science accumulating.... in 1997. Its now 2020, and if you want to treat hair loss with FDA approved medicines for both safety and efficacy, the options are EXACTLY THE SAME as they were in 1997. People grossly overestimate the rate or consistency of progress in any field. Another example from a different field: in the 1970s, arthur jones designed the nautilus series of machines, which were designed with close attention to physics and physiology, the goal being to provide nothing more than an improvement over the barbell, allowing progressive resistance training in the full range of motion rather than the limited range of motion provided by most barbell exercises as well as largely giving birth to the modern commercial gym phenomena you know and probably enjoy yourself today..... Nautilus never truly caught on, and was ripped off by inferior competitors who produced markedly inferior machines at a fraction of the cost, that was the death of machine training as a productive form of exercise. The knowledge in this field hasnt improved, the training modalities havent improved, they have both REGRESSED. Dorks are doing and advocating the EXACT SAME THINGS they were doing in the 50s, and pretending it is cutting edge!!

and wheres my fucking hoverboard anyway?

Theres a difference between speculation & pseudoscience, and actual science. The same way that people overestimate some fields, is the same way others underestimate. No one expected computer technology to progress at this rate, etc.

Most people are fixated on the same, small group of technological advancements, but choose to ignore & even criticize industries with actual research and development behind them, until it produces something they can use.

People fear what they can't understand, so they gravitate towards familiarity.

Here are some predictions for future tech, the first one is something that is already in use today. (yes it's from futurism.)

A Timeline of Future Technology | Futurism

Futurism's timeline of future technology shows all the things to come. From AI to robots, keep up with the latest sciences news at Futurism.

futurism.com

 

[Blackout.xl]

Theres a difference between speculation & pseudoscience, and actual science. The same way that people overestimate some fields, is the same way others underestimate. No one expected computer technology to progress at this rate, etc.

Most people are fixated on the same, small group of technological advancements, but choose to ignore & even criticize industries with actual research and development behind them, until it produces something they can use.

People fear what they can't understand, so they gravitate towards familiarity.

Here are some predictions for future tech, the first one is something that is already in use today. (yes it's from futurism.)

View attachment 225377

Im
Sorry boyo. But jfl if you think
That full gene editing will be made available to the general public anytime soon. Minor stuff maybe. But do you actually think that the next 1-2 generations will have most people gene edited to be tall, high IQ and naturally strong?

edit: one of the articles you sent only had an embryo edited to possibly prevent HIV transmission. That’s no where close to creating designer babies. Wtf

Lets go one step further and just say meaningful gene modification is way further off than people expect it is. Most of biomed is nothing more than con jobs and hype men trying to attract investors for their pie in the sky, go nowhere projects, see: Theranos, as a prime and pertinent recent example.

The experts were predicting flying cars by 2000. Its now 2020 and they are no closer to realistic flying cars than they were 20 years ago, seriously. The hair loss cure was going to come out in 5 years because of all the cutting edge science accumulating.... in 1997. Its now 2020, and if you want to treat hair loss with FDA approved medicines for both safety and efficacy, the options are EXACTLY THE SAME as they were in 1997. People grossly overestimate the rate or consistency of progress in any field. Another example from a different field: in the 1970s, arthur jones designed the nautilus series of machines, which were designed with close attention to physics and physiology, the goal being to provide nothing more than an improvement over the barbell, allowing progressive resistance training in the full range of motion rather than the limited range of motion provided by most barbell exercises as well as largely giving birth to the modern commercial gym phenomena you know and probably enjoy yourself today..... Nautilus never truly caught on, and was ripped off by inferior competitors who produced markedly inferior machines at a fraction of the cost, that was the death of machine training as a productive form of exercise. The knowledge in this field hasnt improved, the training modalities havent improved, they have both REGRESSED. Dorks are doing and advocating the EXACT SAME THINGS they were doing in the 50s, and pretending it is cutting edge!!

and wheres my fucking hoverboard anyway?

High IQ.

 

[bonesoverblood]

Im
Sorry boyo. But jfl if you think
That full gene editing will be made available to the general public anytime soon. Minor stuff maybe. But do you actually think that the next 1-2 generations will have most people gene edited to be tall, high IQ and naturally strong?

Absolutely, and it will be supported by the public, after people realize the benefits.

There is actual anticipation for this technology.

I think you are scared.

The fact that natural gene selection has made it hard for dating, means that gene therapy & embryonic editing will metaphorically castrate below average men.

The first genetically modified baby has already been born.

I promise you, you will eat every single word you typed out today, and when you realize you were wrong, it'll be too late. You just won't admit it.

 

[Blackout.xl]

Absolutely, and it will be supported by the public, after people realize the benefits.

There is actual anticipation for this technology.

I think you are scared.

The fact that natural gene selection has made it hard for dating, means that gene therapy & embryonic editing will metaphorically castrate below average men.

The first genetically modified baby has already been born.

I promise you, you will eat every single word you typed out today, and when you realize you were wrong, it'll be too late. You just won't admit it.

It absolutely won’t be supported by the public, because it won’t be made accessible to the public. The average person isn’t going to have a designer baby that’s superhuman. That’s something reserved for the 2100-2200’s at minimum, not now.

babies have been gene edited now to be resistant to some diseases / not inherit diseases in their family. That’s completely different from generically engineering them to have more bone mass, more ability to build muscle mass, etc. The tech isn’t there yet. If the tech was there yet, we’d know.

I’m not scared because I know I won’t be around to live in that situation. We don’t even have a cure for cancer yet. CRISPR is in its infancy. Technological advancement has been rapid but no where near as rapid as we expected. You’re in for a big disappointment.

 

[bonesoverblood]

Im
Sorry boyo. But jfl if you think
That full gene editing will be made available to the general public anytime soon. Minor stuff maybe. But do you actually think that the next 1-2 generations will have most people gene edited to be tall, high IQ and naturally strong?

edit: one of the articles you sent only had an embryo edited to possibly prevent HIV transmission. That’s no where close to creating designer babies. Wtf

High IQ.

There is no cosmetic editing of any fetus in the world yet, nor is it allowed. You would know that if you actually read my last three comments.

Honestly, you are like the critics who said the internet would be futile:

"Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.Baloney."

Low IQ critic.

Scientists have already identified 20,000 - 25,000 human genes that are augmentable, there is no doubt that after regulation passes, there will be designer babies.

Do you even know what's happening in this field? How advanced it is?

Curing cancer and HIV through genetic editing, is harder than knocking out a gene, and putting one in. You can do it now.

 

[Blackout.xl]

There is no cosmetic editing of any fetus in the world yet, nor is it allowed. You would know that if you actually read my last three comments.

Honestly, you are like the critics who said the internet would be futile:

"Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.Baloney."

Low IQ critic.

Scientists have already identified 20,000 - 25,000 human genes that are augmentable, there is no doubt that after regulation passes, there will be designer babies.

Do you even know what's happening in this field? How advanced it is?

Curing cancer and HIV through genetic editing, is harder than knocking out a gene, and putting one in. You can do it now.

I do know that it’s not allowed, however the tech is known to simply not be advanced enough to create designer babies yet. When tested, it’s even had unforeseen side effects.

Kennisgeving voor omleiding

Sure, they can be augmented, that’s not the issue though. The issue is that can they be augmented without potentially extreme side effects that are unforeseen? Can they be fully manipulated into what we want? Etc etc. Even the scientists agree that our understanding of DNA and CRISPR is minimal at best right now.

not to mention, the focus of tests and experiments that ARE being conducted are not even based around creating designer babies, theyre mostly based around eliminating disease transmission / disease in general. You’re saying that we can hit the end of gene editing within 30-50 years despite us only scratching the surface of eliminating disease though gene editing. Absolutely retarded.

There’s no evidence of this field being advanced as you’re saying it is.

comparing criticism of gene editing to criticism of the Internet is absolutely retarded. Building up the Internet, making it available to the masses and tweaking it to be affordable and convenient is not even in the same realm of difficulty as literally editing the genetic makeup of a human being. Criticism of both things are incomparable.

 

[bonesoverblood]

It absolutely won’t be supported by the public, because it won’t be made accessible to the public. The average person isn’t going to have a designer baby that’s superhuman. That’s something reserved for the 2100-2200’s at minimum, not now.

babies have been gene edited now to be resistant to some diseases / not inherit diseases in their family. That’s completely different from generically engineering them to have more bone mass, more ability to build muscle mass, etc. The tech isn’t there yet. If the tech was there yet, we’d know.

I’m not scared because I know I won’t be around to live in that situation. We don’t even have a cure for cancer yet. CRISPR is in its infancy. Technological advancement has been rapid but no where near as rapid as we expected. You’re in for a big disappointment.

The technology IS here, that's why there is regulation on it. Companies are already working on animals.

Livestock 2.0 – genome editing for fitter, healthier, and more productive farmed animals - Genome Biology

The human population is growing, and as a result we need to produce more food whilst reducing the impact of farming on the environment. Selective breeding and genomic selection have had a transformational impact on livestock productivity, and now transgenic and genome-editing technologies offer...

genomebiology.biomedcentral.com

Lobbying exists for a reason. When an industry that has potential to make billions, if not trillions, is emerging, they will have their way.

You will be around, because it's happening in your life time, whether you like it or not. 2030's to 2040's

CRISPR is not in its "infancy", it's already here. It's not a coding software or a work in development startup.

I honestly think you are coping at this point, a simple google search would pretty much refute everything you said here.

Do I seriously need to pull up examples?

Synthego | Full Stack Genome Engineering

www.synthego.com

"Oh investors and banks will see the advances in the industry in terms of disease, and not pour billions of dollars into lobbying for its legality. (Which they are already doing btw)"

More reasons why you are wrong.

Most Americans support gene-editing embryos to prevent diseases, poll shows

A month after startling claims of the births of the world's first gene-edited babies in China, the poll finds about 7 in 10 Americans favor using gene-editing technology to prevent an incurable, inherited disease.

www.statnews.com

"It seems that the members of our community think the same way. In a poll on Facebook, I asked if people would prefer a designer baby or an ordinary one, and I received the results that I expected: around 85% of people voted for a designer baby."

Would I Want a Designer Baby? CRISPR, Gene-Editing, and You | Lifespan.io

A couple of days ago, news about the first designer babies has shaken the world. A Chinese researcher, Jiankui He, and his team at the Southern University of Science and […]

www.leafscience.org

2. U.S. public opinion on the future use of gene editing

Gene editing giving babies much reduced risk of serious diseaseRespondents to the Pew Research Center survey read the following statement: “New

www.pewresearch.org

"Americans are split, with 48% saying they would want to use this technology for their child and a nearly identical share saying they would not."


"Those who are at least somewhat familiar with the idea of gene editing are more inclined to say it is something they would want for their baby to reduce the child’s lifelong risk of certain serious diseases and conditions. Among those who have heard or read “a lot” or “a little” about gene-editing technology, 57% say they would want it for their child. But among those who had heard nothing at all prior to the survey, only 37% feel the same way."

 

[FatJattMofo]

Meanwhile looksmaxers and paleo dieters sons will become super chads

 

[bonesoverblood]

I do know that it’s not allowed, however the tech is known to simply not be advanced enough to create designer babies yet. When tested, it’s even had unforeseen side effects.

Kennisgeving voor omleiding

Sure, they can be augmented, that’s not the issue though. The issue is that can they be augmented without potentially extreme side effects that are unforeseen? Can they be fully manipulated into what we want? Etc etc. Even the scientists agree that our understanding of DNA and CRISPR is minimal at best right now.

not to mention, the focus of tests and experiments that ARE being conducted are not even based around creating designer babies, theyre mostly based around eliminating disease transmission / disease in general. You’re saying that we can hit the end of gene editing within 30-50 years despite us only scratching the surface of eliminating disease though gene editing. Absolutely retarded.

There’s no evidence of this field being advanced as you’re saying it is.

comparing criticism of gene editing to criticism of the Internet is absolutely retarded. Building up the Internet, making it available to the masses and tweaking it to be affordable and convenient is not even in the same realm of difficulty as literally editing the genetic makeup of a human being. Criticism of both things are incomparable.

The potential side effects of crispr, have everything to do with the person using it, and the level of competence in the team doing the editing. "Even scientists agree that our understanding of DNA and CRISPR is minimal at best right now." You are acting

" You’re saying that we can hit the end of gene editing within 30-50 years despite us only scratching the surface of eliminating disease though gene editing. Absolutely retarded." We have been able to reach a level of competence in this field, unseen. Do you realize that the development of disease elimination has been streamlined within the last ten years, and is reaching completion? We aren't "scratching the surface" it's very possible, that in the next two decades this will be perfected.

"There’s no evidence of this field being advanced as you’re saying it is." Here are gene companies backed by Goldman Sachs, etc.

Gene Therapy and Biotechnology Companies

Information resource for gene therapy news, clinical trials, guidelines, regulation, literature, databases, background and educational information, scientific r

www.genetherapynet.com

10 Stocks For The Gene Therapy Revolution

Gene therapy, which treats genetic diseases by replacing faulty genes, is a rapidly growing field, with merger activity on the rise.

www.investopedia.com

Heres a time line detailing each and every single recent advancement in genetic editing:

Genome Editing: The Recent History and Perspective in Cardiovascular Diseases

The genome editing field has advanced to a remarkable degree in the last five years, culminating in the successful correction of a cardiomyopathy gene mutation in viable human embryos. In this review, I discuss the basic principles of genome editing, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Comparing criticism of gene editing to criticism of the Internet is absolutely retarded." Genetic editing is the foundation for a plethora of industries we haven't even seen yet. Dismissing its capabilities is ignorant and "absolutely retarded"


"Not to mention, the focus of tests and experiments that ARE being conducted are not even based around creating designer babies, theyre mostly based around eliminating disease transmission / disease in general." False.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612258/are-we-designing-inequality-into-our-genes/

http://healthland.time.com/2013/10/03/company-patents-first-designer-baby-maker-now-what/

Disgraced CRISPR scientist had plans to start a designer-baby business

He Jiankui met with US investors and entrepreneurs to explore CRISPR-baby tourism.

www.technologyreview.com

companies specializing in designer babies research


Absolutely Insufferable IQ.

 

[Blackout.xl]

The technology IS here, that's why there is regulation on it. Companies are already working on animals.

Livestock 2.0 – genome editing for fitter, healthier, and more productive farmed animals - Genome Biology

The human population is growing, and as a result we need to produce more food whilst reducing the impact of farming on the environment. Selective breeding and genomic selection have had a transformational impact on livestock productivity, and now transgenic and genome-editing technologies offer...

genomebiology.biomedcentral.com

Lobbying exists for a reason. When an industry that has potential to make billions, if not trillions, is emerging, they will have their way.

You will be around, because it's happening in your life time, whether you like it or not. 2030's to 2040's

CRISPR is not in its "infancy", it's already here. It's not a coding software or a work in development startup.

I honestly think you are coping at this point, a simple google search would pretty much refute everything you said here.

Do I seriously need to pull up examples?

Synthego | Full Stack Genome Engineering

www.synthego.com

"Oh investors and banks will see the advances in the industry in terms of disease, and not pour billions of dollars into lobbying for its legality. (Which they are already doing btw)"

More reasons why you are wrong.

Most Americans support gene-editing embryos to prevent diseases, poll shows

A month after startling claims of the births of the world's first gene-edited babies in China, the poll finds about 7 in 10 Americans favor using gene-editing technology to prevent an incurable, inherited disease.

www.statnews.com

"It seems that the members of our community think the same way. In a poll on Facebook, I asked if people would prefer a designer baby or an ordinary one, and I received the results that I expected: around 85% of people voted for a designer baby."

Would I Want a Designer Baby? CRISPR, Gene-Editing, and You | Lifespan.io

A couple of days ago, news about the first designer babies has shaken the world. A Chinese researcher, Jiankui He, and his team at the Southern University of Science and […]

www.leafscience.org

2. U.S. public opinion on the future use of gene editing

Gene editing giving babies much reduced risk of serious diseaseRespondents to the Pew Research Center survey read the following statement: “New

www.pewresearch.org

"Americans are split, with 48% saying they would want to use this technology for their child and a nearly identical share saying they would not."


"Those who are at least somewhat familiar with the idea of gene editing are more inclined to say it is something they would want for their baby to reduce the child’s lifelong risk of certain serious diseases and conditions. Among those who have heard or read “a lot” or “a little” about gene-editing technology, 57% say they would want it for their child. But among those who had heard nothing at all prior to the survey, only 37% feel the same way."

The tech isn’t here at all. Humans aren’t the same as pigs and cows. The techniques that have to be used on them in terms of gene editing are different and have different layers of complexity.

It’s not gonna be perfected in the 2030’s or 2040’s, nice cope.

Do you not know what “in its infancy” means? I’m saying that it’s in its early stages. CRISPR has only been in exiestence for 32 years. Sufficient knowledge on it has only come in the past 6 years.

Are you also ignoring the article I sent where researchers in China couldn’t even avoid unforeseen mutations when they tested CRISPR? On top of other issues aswell? Lol

no shit they want a designer baby and support gene editing to eradicate disease. What I’m saying is that they will turn against it when inevitably, only the rich get their hands on it at first and everyone else misses out.

 

[bonesoverblood]

The tech isn’t here at all. Humans aren’t the same as pigs and cows. The techniques that have to be used on them in terms of gene editing are different and have different layers of complexity.

It’s not gonna be perfected in the 2030’s or 2040’s, nice cope.

Do you not know what “in its infancy” means? I’m saying that it’s in its early stages. CRISPR has only been in exiestence for 32 years. Sufficient knowledge on it has only come in the past 6 years.

Are you also ignoring the article I sent where researchers in China couldn’t even avoid unforeseen mutations when they tested CRISPR? On top of other issues aswell? Lol

no shit they want a designer baby and support gene editing to eradicate disease. What I’m saying is that they will turn against it when inevitably, only the rich get their hands on it at first and everyone else misses out.

It's like I'm talking to a wall.

Genetic modification of mammalian organisms, is INDISTINGUISHABLE from humans. It's why we can test on humanized rats, and accurately display results etc.

You are so focused on the unforeseen mutations, of an extremely accurate biological tool. It's like thats your only argument.

It is your only argument, aside from the fact that the rich will only be able to afford it.

Evidence goes AGAINST your claims, as the cost of genetic modification is literally sky falling.

The study was based on disease, and COSMETIC applications, including intelligence. It was a wholistic review on the topic.

"In its infancy" implies that the technology is being developed. CRISPR is not being developed. GENE THERAPY is. If crispr was still in it's infancy, then we would not be able to edit nucleotide sequences at this level, at all.

China's interests go before innovation, and thats with EVERY country. Just because they say that, does not mean it's entirely true. They are literally covering their asses if something catastrophic happed. PR CONTROL.

Please stop.

 

[zerofad3]

We are going to a world like that movie Elysium.

Normal people living in overpopulated planet.

The chad and stacies with gene modified high iq living in space stations.

 

[Blackout.xl]

The potential side effects of crispr, have everything to do with the person using it, and the level of competence in the team doing the editing. "Even scientists agree that our understanding of DNA and CRISPR is minimal at best right now." You are acting

" You’re saying that we can hit the end of gene editing within 30-50 years despite us only scratching the surface of eliminating disease though gene editing. Absolutely retarded." We have been able to reach a level of competence in this field, unseen. Do you realize that the development of disease elimination has been streamlined within the last ten years, and is reaching completion? We aren't "scratching the surface" it's very possible, that in the next two decades this will be perfected.

"There’s no evidence of this field being advanced as you’re saying it is." Here are gene companies backed by Goldman Sachs, etc.

Gene Therapy and Biotechnology Companies

Information resource for gene therapy news, clinical trials, guidelines, regulation, literature, databases, background and educational information, scientific r

www.genetherapynet.com

10 Stocks For The Gene Therapy Revolution

Gene therapy, which treats genetic diseases by replacing faulty genes, is a rapidly growing field, with merger activity on the rise.

www.investopedia.com

Heres a time line detailing each and every single recent advancement in genetic editing:

Genome Editing: The Recent History and Perspective in Cardiovascular Diseases

The genome editing field has advanced to a remarkable degree in the last five years, culminating in the successful correction of a cardiomyopathy gene mutation in viable human embryos. In this review, I discuss the basic principles of genome editing, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Comparing criticism of gene editing to criticism of the Internet is absolutely retarded." Genetic editing is the foundation for a plethora of industries we haven't even seen yet. Dismissing its capabilities is ignorant and "absolutely retarded"


"Not to mention, the focus of tests and experiments that ARE being conducted are not even based around creating designer babies, theyre mostly based around eliminating disease transmission / disease in general." False.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612258/are-we-designing-inequality-into-our-genes/

http://healthland.time.com/2013/10/03/company-patents-first-designer-baby-maker-now-what/

Disgraced CRISPR scientist had plans to start a designer-baby business

He Jiankui met with US investors and entrepreneurs to explore CRISPR-baby tourism.

www.technologyreview.com

companies specializing in designer babies research


Absolutely Insufferable IQ.

I’m not acting. It was literally in the article I sent, did you not read it? The understanding around CRISPR is barebones are best, people don’t know how to fully manipulate the technology/avoid unforeseen mutations because knowledge on DNA and CRISPR both are minuscule at the moment. Here’s another article which explains that

Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements - Nature Biotechnology

Cas9-induced double stranded breaks can cause large deletions near the target site and more complex genomic rearrangements in mouse and human stem cells.

www.nature.com

“reaching completion” is a massive exagger. Elimination of disease through gene editing is no where near complete and won’t be complete for a long time. Progress has increased over the past decade sure, but knowledge of DNA is still low. Perfecting DNA editing for humans is a far off prospect.

Most of the breakthroughs and studies done on gene editing have been based around curing disease. The scientific community is being extremely careful around branching into designer babies.

im not denying the capabilities of CRISPR. CRISPR has the ability to be game changing. But knowledge around it is no where near sufficient enough for DNA editing to be perfected in humans in 50 years.

 

[bonesoverblood]

I’m not acting. It was literally in the article I sent, did you not read it? The understanding around CRISPR is barebones are best, people don’t know how to fully manipulate the technology/avoid unforeseen mutations because knowledge on DNA and CRISPR both are minuscule at the moment. Here’s another article which explains that

Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements - Nature Biotechnology

Cas9-induced double stranded breaks can cause large deletions near the target site and more complex genomic rearrangements in mouse and human stem cells.

www.nature.com

“reaching completion” is a massive exagger. Elimination of disease through gene editing is no where near complete and won’t be complete for a long time. Progress has increased over the past decade sure, but knowledge of DNA is still low. Perfecting DNA editing for humans is a far off prospect.

Most of the breakthroughs and studies done on gene editing have been based around curing disease. The scientific community is being extremely careful around branching into designer babies.

im not denying the capabilities of CRISPR. CRISPR has the ability to be game changing. But knowledge around it is no where near sufficient enough for DNA editing to be perfected in humans in 50 years.

Sure.

First U.S. Patients Treated With CRISPR As Human Gene-Editing Trials Get Underway

This could be a crucial year for the powerful gene-editing technique CRISPR as researchers start testing it in patients to treat diseases such as cancer, blindness and sickle cell disease.

www.npr.org

We are already at human trial phases.

I'm going to keep this short.

I think I am wasting my time talking about this with you, because you are trying to prove an absolute statement on a rapidly growing industry, you know little to nothing about.

If you actually provided evidence, on why we will never see designer babies in a couple decades (we will, screen cap this), then this would be different.

Blanket statements like "Only the rich will be able to afford it" and "Designer babies won't exist in our life time" are simply not true as absolutes. Unless you are some time traveler, then there is no possible way for you to actually know that.

I'll just leave this here:


"DNA sequencing outpaces Moore's Law. So Moore's law is the law of the computer industry that says computer power doubles every 24 months or so. ... About 2007 our major groups switched over to fancy new methods called next generation DNA sequencing methods and almost overnight they outstripped Moore's law by far."

 

[Blackout.xl]

It's like I'm talking to a wall.

Genetic modification of mammalian organisms, is INDISTINGUISHABLE from humans. It's why we can test on humanized rats, and accurately display results etc.

You are so focused on the unforeseen mutations, of an extremely accurate biological tool. It's like thats your only argument.

It is your only argument, aside from the fact that the rich will only be able to afford it.

Evidence goes AGAINST your claims, as the cost of genetic modification is literally sky falling.

The study was based on disease, and COSMETIC applications, including intelligence. It was a wholistic review on the topic.

"In its infancy" implies that the technology is being developed. CRISPR is not being developed. GENE THERAPY is. If crispr was still in it's infancy, then we would not be able to edit nucleotide sequences at this level, at all.

China's interests go before innovation, and thats with EVERY country. Just because they say that, does not mean it's entirely true. They are literally covering their asses if something catastrophic happed. PR CONTROL.

Please stop.

Genetic modification of cows, mice and pigs doesn’t automatically mean that humans can be genetically augmented with no side effects. They share DNA, of course. But the reactions they have to CRISPR/gene therapy have a high chance of being different. This is why scientists are having human trials alongside animal trials.

First of all, you’re acting as if the unforseen mutations in DNA as a result of gene therapy is a small issue, it’s not. Random mutations in DNA can have big implications. Such as Your entire genetic makeup being ruined.

Secondly, that’s not the only argument I put up. I also mentioned the fact that scientists haven’t been able to use CRISPR to consistently produce the results they want, especially in curing disease. Due to knowledge in this field still not being fully sufficient yet.

Saying the price of gene therapy is dropping now, therefore everyone will afford it when it’s fully advanced and streamlined is a low IQ statement. It’s quite obvious that the gene therapy that results in designer babies will cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions when it’s fully developed and released.

CRISPR is still being developed right now, what are you talking about?

Sure.

First U.S. Patients Treated With CRISPR As Human Gene-Editing Trials Get Underway

This could be a crucial year for the powerful gene-editing technique CRISPR as researchers start testing it in patients to treat diseases such as cancer, blindness and sickle cell disease.

www.npr.org

We are already at human trial phases.

I'm going to keep this short.

I think I am wasting my time talking about this with you, because you are trying to prove an absolute statement on a rapidly growing industry, you know little to nothing about.

If you actually provided evidence, on why we will never see designer babies in a couple decades (we will, screen cap this), then this would be different.

Blanket statements like "Only the rich will be able to afford it" and "Designer babies won't exist in our life time" are simply not true as absolutes. Unless you are some time traveler, then there is no possible way for you to actually know that.

I'll just leave this here:


"DNA sequencing outpaces Moore's Law. So Moore's law is the law of the computer industry that says computer power doubles every 24 months or so. ... About 2007 our major groups switched over to fancy new methods called next generation DNA sequencing methods and almost overnight they outstripped Moore's law by far."

The article you sent even mentioned that these tests on humans are preliminary experiments. There is still an element of risk around them. You’re acting as if they’re about to cure disease with CRISPR within the next 5 years.

You’re saying that in 40 years we’re gonna be at a point where most people can afford top tier designer babies. Despite us not even being able to cure disease with them now and with trials being in the preliminary stages, yeah ok. When most diseases can be cured by CRISPR, then I’ll fully get onboard. Until then, designer babies are not anywhere close

 

[bonesoverblood]

Genetic modification of cows, mice and pigs doesn’t automatically mean that humans can be genetically augmented with no side effects. They share DNA, of course. But the reactions they have to CRISPR/gene therapy have a high chance of being different. This is why scientists are having human trials alongside animal trials.

First of all, you’re acting as if the unforseen mutations in DNA as a result of gene therapy is a small issue, it’s not. Random mutations in DNA can have big implications. Such as Your entire genetic makeup being ruined.

Secondly, that’s not the only argument I put up. I also mentioned the fact that scientists haven’t been able to use CRISPR to consistently produce the results they want, especially in curing disease. Due to knowledge in this field still not being fully sufficient yet.

Saying the price of gene therapy is dropping now, therefore everyone will afford it when it’s fully advanced and streamlined is a low IQ statement. It’s quite obvious that the gene therapy that results in designer babies will cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions when it’s fully developed and released.

CRISPR is still being developed right now, what are you talking about?

"Saying the price of gene therapy is dropping now, therefore everyone will afford it when it’s fully advanced and streamlined is a low IQ statement. It’s quite obvious that the gene therapy that results in designer babies will cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions when it’s fully developed and released."

Literal skyfall.

Also.

Capitalism is king.

You would make more money selling to everyone, than just to millionaires. Maybe some premium options, but genetic modifications will be available to everyone.

"First of all, you’re acting as if the unforseen mutations in DNA as a result of gene therapy is a small issue, it’s not. Random mutations in DNA can have big implications. Such as Your entire genetic makeup being ruined."

You can't destroy your entire genetic makeup with one sequence edit. You can potentially remove an existing trait, change the nucleotide sequence, but thats it.

"CRISPR is still being developed right now, what are you talking about?"

The use of CRISPR is being developed, not the actual CRISPR tool. The procedure needs the be perfected, thats it.

"Secondly, that’s not the only argument I put up. I also mentioned the fact that scientists haven’t been able to use CRISPR to consistently produce the results they want, especially in curing disease. Due to knowledge in this field still not being fully sufficient yet."

Scientists are providing consist results with crispr, thats why it's so big. CRISPR's main selling point is it's consistency and accuracy in genomic editing, in comparison to other gene editing tools.

"Genetic modification of cows, mice and pigs doesn’t automatically mean that humans can be genetically augmented with no side effects. They share DNA, of course. But the reactions they have to CRISPR/gene therapy have a high chance of being different. This is why scientists are having human trials alongside animal trials."

Not really. There's a reason why they use rats in the first place. It allows us to analyze it's effects on a basic level, and the off chance that a humanized rat, and a human would have a drastically different effect is slim. It's not a chemical, this is biology.

The article you sent even mentioned that these tests on humans are preliminary experiments. There is still an element of risk around them. You’re acting as if they’re about to cure disease with CRISPR within the next 5 years.

You’re saying that in 40 years we’re gonna be at a point where most people can afford top tier designer babies. Despite us not even being able to cure disease with them now and with trials being in the preliminary stages, yeah ok. When most diseases can be cured by CRISPR, then I’ll fully get onboard. Until then, designer babies are not anywhere close

"You’re acting as if they’re about to cure disease with CRISPR within the next 5 years."
No one implied 5 years, I said decades.

"You’re saying that in 40 years we’re gonna be at a point where most people can afford top tier designer babies."
Yes. Because the rate of development is not linear, its exponential.

 

[Blackout.xl]

"Saying the price of gene therapy is dropping now, therefore everyone will afford it when it’s fully advanced and streamlined is a low IQ statement. It’s quite obvious that the gene therapy that results in designer babies will cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions when it’s fully developed and released."

View attachment 225553


Literal skyfall.

Also.

Capitalism is king.

You would make more money selling to everyone, than just to millionaires. Maybe some premium options, but genetic modifications will be available to everyone.

"First of all, you’re acting as if the unforseen mutations in DNA as a result of gene therapy is a small issue, it’s not. Random mutations in DNA can have big implications. Such as Your entire genetic makeup being ruined."

You can't destroy your entire genetic makeup with one sequence edit. You can potentially remove an existing trait, change the nucleotide sequence, but thats it.

"CRISPR is still being developed right now, what are you talking about?"

The use of CRISPR is being developed, not the actual CRISPR tool. The procedure needs the be perfected, thats it.

"Secondly, that’s not the only argument I put up. I also mentioned the fact that scientists haven’t been able to use CRISPR to consistently produce the results they want, especially in curing disease. Due to knowledge in this field still not being fully sufficient yet."

Scientists are providing consist results with crispr, thats why it's so big. CRISPR's main selling point is it's consistency and accuracy in genomic editing, in comparison to other gene editing tools.

"Genetic modification of cows, mice and pigs doesn’t automatically mean that humans can be genetically augmented with no side effects. They share DNA, of course. But the reactions they have to CRISPR/gene therapy have a high chance of being different. This is why scientists are having human trials alongside animal trials."

Not really. There's a reason why they use rats in the first place. It allows us to analyze it's effects on a basic level, and the off chance that a humanized rat, and a human would have a drastically different effect is slim. It's not a chemical, this is biology.

I literally said earlier that everyone will have access to gene editing. However the meaningful gene editing will come at a premium that only the rich will be able to afford.

Also, capitalism won’t really apply here considering it will be heavily regulated by the government and Will be slathered in restrictions. Especially in the US.

Gene editing has resulted in major alterations of genetic makeup due to unforseen consequences.

BREAKING: CRISPR Could Be Causing Extensive Mutations And Genetic Damage After All

CRISPR has been heralded as one of the most important breakthroughs in modern science, but there could be a hidden and potentially dangerous side effect to the wonders of its genetic editing technology, a new study reveals.

www.google.ca

Results with CRISPR have not been very consistent. Researches arent still able to fully control the results of DNA alteration (as seen in the article I just sent)

 

[bonesoverblood]

I literally said earlier that everyone will have access to gene editing. However the meaningful gene editing will come at a premium that only the rich will be able to afford.

Also, capitalism won’t really apply here considering it will be heavily regulated by the government and Will be slathered in restrictions. Especially in the US.

Gene editing has resulted in major alterations of genetic makeup due to unforseen consequences.

BREAKING: CRISPR Could Be Causing Extensive Mutations And Genetic Damage After All

CRISPR has been heralded as one of the most important breakthroughs in modern science, but there could be a hidden and potentially dangerous side effect to the wonders of its genetic editing technology, a new study reveals.

www.google.ca

Results with CRISPR have not been very consistent. Researches arent still able to fully control the results of DNA alteration (as seen in the article I just sent)

"Not only could such significant mutations of the DNA code have potentially harmful effects – by disrupting healthy gene and cellular functioning – but the researchers warn that standard DNA genotyping assays may not ordinarily pick up on these mistakes.

In the worst-case scenario, if such mangled edits were introduced into humans in a CRISPR/Cas9 treatment, important genes might end up being switched on or off, which could make for potentially serious health consequences."

This is assuming we are going into a sequence blind.

We aren't.

We have the technology now to dissect a single DNA, per nucleotide.

These are all "Hypothetical risks"

There is little to no data backing up any of the claims in the aritcles.

 

[Vitruvian]

Meaningful gene modification that’s safe (such as changing frame, height, bone structure, resistance to most/all disease) will be incredibly expensive. The average person might be able to afford some disease resistance / a race change for their kid at best in the near future

Gene modification is not expensive. The research to look for all the things u listed and make them a product is near impossible and is the most expensive part

 

[bonesoverblood]

"Also, capitalism won’t really apply here considering it will be heavily regulated by the government and Will be slathered in restrictions. Especially in the US."

Uncle Sam only cares about its international outlook, and how much money it can make off taxing the fuck out of crispr research. That's it buddy.

They will do a 180 degree flip on their policy, and reduce restrictions to a minimum, just like every other new technology.

They enforce restrictions on sale, so they can have time to catch up.

 

[didntreadlol]

i am not having kids

 

[Chintuck22]

The generation after gen Z is gonna have the highest rates of mental illness, highest rates of degeneracy, highest rates of joblessness, will have nothing in terms of wealth and will likely be blackpilled by default. Be thankful that you were born now and not in the 2010’s/2020’s

Even we, who are born after 2000; are screwed.

While our brothers from 90's passing their genes and having good wives, me and boyos are struggling to find FUCKING NORMAL girlfriend, who isn't sick in goddamn head

 

[PubertyMaxxer]

They won’t be genetically modified. At least the majority of them. Only the rich ones will be genetically modified.

Bump

 

[Deleted member 5258]