How might the world react to genetic augmented people? How would the world develope?

No, they just recently cloned some monkeys using the nuclear transfer method.
Source that please.

>Source that please.
Not him but fucking google this is old news user, what the fuck

edge.org/response-detail/23838

you just watched GATTACA didn't you?

catgirls will never be real user

lmao

...

lol fuck off retard

>his opinion on genetics and cognition is derived from an anime show

I guess they'd pity them some they'd be dead from bizarre new genetic diseases

Not him but the entire point of his statement is because of the inherent ridiculousness he sees in the idea of bloodline-based monarchy. To him, you shouldn't get to be an absolute ruler because your dad was one, you should have to earn that power through war. Which he does by starting a coup and successfully installing himself as Kaiser.

>inherent ridiculousness he sees in the idea of bloodline-based monarchy.
Just like the "inherent ridiculousness" in bloodline-based inheritances, right?
And king, essentially the owner of his kingdom, has the right to give that kingdom to his descendants. Beyond that, it's also typically a good idea, as many hereditary factors will affect leadership, not to mention the fact that people raised to lead are not unlikely to lead well.
Of course, this all must be completely consensual. The kingdom needs to have a contract with each of its subjects.
But the Galactic Empire didn't. And neither did Reinhardt's regime. He was just a power-grabber trying to justify his power-grabbing.

I at least see legitimacy in a conqueror's rule. It's hard for me to see legitimacy in being king because your dad was.

>Just like the "inherent ridiculousness" in bloodline-based inheritances, right?
Yes, every man should earn their way in the world on their own.

Fuck off, Commie.

Reminder that Reinhard didn't care about any of these things, he just wanted to despose the kaiser because he took his onee-chan away from him.

>commie
>when I want a system where no one is aided
>communism is most known for having a welfare state
wut

>>when I want a system where no one is aided
Oh, so you just dislike people who inherit, and recognize that there's nothing unethical about it and that they have the full right to do that, while you have no right to take from them? And that a king has the right to pass down his country to his children?

No, I'm saying that a man who does not earn his way in life does not deserve the life he has.

>You only need to sleep 2 hours a day, you have an IQ of 200 and you never forget something. You are faster, stronger and healthier than other people

You're thinking smalltime. At least add the ability to breathe poison gas and non-dividing telomeres for biological immortality.

>deserve
What do you mean by this?
And what are your standards?
Someone who got fifty bucks from his dad doesn't "deserve" that? Do you have the right to take it?

Take it? No I'd destroy it so no one can have it. It'll encourage everyone to keep everything for themselves.

Based Catholic distributist

What about that man's father, who worked his ass off for that fifty bucks, just to give it to his son? Does he not have the right to give his own property as he sees fit?
And not even discussing morality, let's talk realism.
If people could not save money to give to their children, lest an angry mob destroy it, many people would work much less hard. All they need to do it work for their own lives, since working for more than they need is worthless, since it'll all be destroyed when they die, anyway.
And what about, say, schooling? I work hard to pay a teacher to GIVE my son an education. He didn't work for that education. He doesn't "deserve" it, right?

Good for them. At least someone is doing it.
Humanity may yet survive, even if only in the form of souless Asian drones, it's better than nothing.

yeah but within the context of OPs post its dumb. its one thing to think that the son of king is deterministically superior. but we know that cognition is genetic, after all, humans are smarter than apes. but what about when the gap between augments and humans starts be 3-4 standard deviations? so the average augment has an IQ of 160, relative to the average WHITE, let alone the avg. nig. What then?

>not to mention the fact that people raised to lead are not unlikely to lead well.

Nanotechnology may have incredible potential for somantic cell engineering and repairing epigenetic damage (some forms of which we're just learning about now).

Ultimately, nazi-style eugenics are too slow, wasteful and cruel to have an advantage over "liberal" eugenics - directly isolating a gene and inserting it with a vector. Societies that went too ham on selective breeding and killing (like the Spartans and Aztecs) were not actually that successful historically, being out competed by more benign states that had better economies, technology and logistics.

>implying Kim jong un isn't a more than competent leader

He's done pretty decent I'd say.

He's likely a more-competent leader than the average leader. Besides that, he's one example, and wasn't even raised to lead, but became the heir after both of his elder brothers were dishonored.

>average leader
Average man, I meant to say.

Leaders should be attractive. I don't care what anybody says.

most of history has been eugenic, using random societies like Spartans and Aztecs as a counter-example isn't logical when we don't actually know their demographic trends or the actual content of whatever 'eugenic' laws they had and the practical societal outcomes of those laws while they were enacted. On the other hand, we do have records and wills for many european societies, where it was almost always the case that the wealthy and successful had drastically more children. entire generations were replaced with the children of the rich. this has likely been the case for most of history: a positive eugenic cycle. Guess where we are now? flying aeroplanes and shiet

One of the reasons monarchy and feudalism made sense in those times (and some argue it still would today) is because being able to lavish resources on individuals can greatly increase their chances of success. Obviously this is no guarantee, but it makes sense to some extent. There's a lot more to it than that, of course. Altogether discounting a social structure and governance that worked very well for centuries is silly. I am not advocating for monarchy or feudalism, but there are some good aspects to it.

>in those times

The person in the picture is living in the year 3601 CE. The only reason they're back to kaisers is because the guy who took control of all humanity was a giant Prussiaboo.

Sorry, that scene is in 3596, my bad

Sparta failed because it literally didn't use the concept of currency, they were still bartering cows.

Yeah, I was meaning in the times that monarchy and feudalism existed, not a fantasy scenario which the anime portrays.

so the chinese or practically openly practicing eugenics to breed better citizens, and the west doesn't give a single fuck?

>Eugenic Wars when?
I, for one, welcome our new augmented overlords

bump

Or gaining the memories of your enemies by eating his brain.

They are probably born with a better health than us baseline.
They will genetic diverse enough that a disease won't kill them and if we go the parahuman route they will be immun to any disease.

I think that's only certain strains of the geneseed

bump

Lol got him

Thread over. user has spoken.

Biological organisms have always been a trade-off. Bigger brains mean weaker bitey muscles. Loss of fur means less parasites but more vulnerability. Being so lanky you can dunk basketballs for a living means your heart detonates earlier. Wouldn't there be some repercussion to only needing to sleep for two hours, or being faster and stronger?

bump

>Bigger brains mean weaker bitey muscles
What if we had bigger heads?

>Being so lanky you can dunk basketballs for a living means your heart detonates earlier.
And stronger hearts?

semen donor here :v

>Wouldn't there be some repercussion to only needing to sleep for two hours, or being faster and stronger?
Not necessarly - You can't min-max life. You can have a IQ of 200 and have as well a very fit body. And without any negative consequence.
youtube.com/watch?v=uaNHUTIbqdo

>How might the world react to genetic augmented people?
How does the world react to white people?

>How might the world react to genetic augmented people? How would the world develope?

We never noticed.

BETTER TO RULE IN HELL

>better to have a second hand whore.

Vzno

Bump