What do you think about the idea of fixing inferior genetics with genetic engineering or screening?
Is it not an appropriate thing to do?
With knowledge about things like MAOA gene being linked to violent behavior and criminality, shouldn't society start also including genetics in any overall strategy to reduce crime or improve society?
Is there a scientific reason this is not logical?
Other urls found in this thread:
gizmag.com
twitter.com
No, there is an ethical reason.
If you had any level of formal education, you would have read about this by now.
Veeky Forums has an age limit you know.
China is already colonizing Africa and doing this. In the future Africa will be Chinese and the only black Africans will live in Europe and America.
Fuck off. How about we cure fucking cancer? Let's start with you.
What ethical reason is there to not genetically enhance humans?
They asked the same question during every eugenics movement.
You're an idiot.
First of all those eugenics programs are completely different than genetic selection or engineering.
In one, a parent has the power to choose to enhance or select a child.
In the other, the government kills or sterilizes against the will of the person.
Don't try to compare the two. Genetic selection is already legal in America and available to parents. It's just not popular yet.
Do you really think that Africans can afford to genetically screen/engineer everyone? Or better yet, do you think it'll ever be more efficient to take the genetic engineering approach to children than to just out-fuck surrogate births?
Homogenization is death for a species. We really should avoid streamlining our genetic profile. A trait valued today will not always be valuable.
CLASH theory blames violence in hot climates on "fast life strategy"
CLASH theory blames violence in hot climates on "fast life strategy"
"Planning in agriculture, hoarding, or simply preparing for cold winters shapes the culture in many ways, It centers on the belief that hot weather without much seasonal change leads to less self-control, contributing to more aggression and violence.If there is less variation, you're freer to do what you want now, because you're not preparing foods or chopping firewood or making winter clothes to get you through the winter.You also may be more concerned with the immediate stress that comes along with parasites and other risks of hot climates, such as venomous animals."
gizmag.com
would not be any more homogenization
Also natural laws don't apply when you talk about transhumanism.
But Africans are already superior. You mean fix the weak Caucasians, right?
I think we need to fix white europeans
Like how many genocides against EVERY single group of people (even other europeans)do you have to have untill everyone decides to kill all the white europeans
White people were a mistake
>posts white Caucasian with a literally a neanderthal brow.
Did you guys know that Caucasian translates into cave dweller?
Sage
Rwanda had a genocide, you know. The kill rate was the fastest recorded.
If Africa had better note keeping, I suspect you'd find many more.
They live in this climate tens of thousands of years. If the "fast life strategy" giving a reproductive advantage, Increased tendency to "fast life strategy" should already be in their genes.
In evolutionary biology, the Baldwin effect describes the effect of learned behavior on evolution. In brief, James Mark Baldwin suggested that an organism's ability to learn new behaviors (e.g. to acclimatise to a new stressor) will affect its reproductive success and will therefore have an effect on the genetic makeup of its species through natural selection. Though this process appears similar to Lamarckian evolution, Lamarck proposed that living things inherited their parents' acquired characteristics. The Baldwin effect has been independently proposed several times, and today it is generally recognized as part of the modern evolutionary synthesis.]
Suppose a species is threatened by a new predator and there is a behavior that makes it more difficult for the predator to kill individuals of the species. Individuals who learn the behavior more quickly will obviously be at an advantage. As time goes on, the ability to learn the behavior will improve (by genetic selection), and at some point it will seem to be an instinct.
brow? really? cause i was thinking fetal alcohol syndrome.
did you know the closes relative of negros is the homo-erektus. there are 2 evolutionary gaps between whites and blacks.
blacks are primitive humans (homo-sapians) whites are homo-sapian sapians, the newer version.
they even take pride in being unevolved by saying "we wuz first humans" but never mention that even tho they been here the longest they have nothing but mud huts and primitive stone tools to show for it
>Did you guys know that Caucasian translates into cave dweller?
lol wut?
Caucasian means someone from the region of Caucasus, where the white race is said to originated from.
We should fix /pol/ first.
>where the white race is said to originated from.
1900's racial science is hilarious. Back then they actually believed that God made the white """"""""""race"""""""""" in the Caucasus mountains and they """"""""""degenerated"""""""""" as they traveled.
>but the genetic variability!
There have always been some genes which have been useful and tended to be a main focus for reproduction. Now, the New Eugenics plan to focus on some genes, which increases Intelligence and productivity, besides the previous fit genes.
We currently don't know how the brain works, the intelligence, nor the genotype side of those conditions.
They're not the one raping women, shooting innocent civilians, stealing your flatscreen tv, abusing the welfare system, accusing people of racism, committing gang related crimes, etc...
Yes they are.
Okay so lets start with a simple counterpoint, GATTACA. This was a nice film that neatly encapsulated the issue with genetic perfection as an end all catch all for children. Assuming that we as humans are not so far stuck up our collective ass that we don't act like humans do in GATTACA which is unlikely in my personal opinion we get to the second issue.
Genetic diversity, we do not have nearly enough understanding of genetic nor biochemical effects to transform a human embryo to target genes beyond simple fixes such as replacing a defective copy of a cancer repression factor. Simple example, I work with anisomycin to induce JNK production for stem cell signalling pathways. Anisomycin is a basic chemical used in a huge amount of papers, we have no clue on how it produces JNK. We think it causes "Stress" that triggers JNK production, but if you try to look up a pathway they usually are drawn as anisomycin->?->JNK. Now I find a trait JF9 that has been identified as increasing aggression and alcoholism, I remove the gene because as a health conscious parent I do not want my child to become a drunk.This becomes a norm, pretending that we won't start reaching a self imposed genetic bottleneck by ourselves, the trait is now completely gone. Fast forward 20 years, a disease starts spreading around the world that we have never seen before. It is virulent and killing everyone, too late we discover that JF9 was part of a pathway that produces antigens capable of binding the virus. Now we are stripped of that and are completely screwed. Or the whole issue where increased intelligence is usually paired with mental illness and by making your child smart you could also make them suicidal.
We need gene therapy techniques that can alter already living peoples genomes so any issues can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the person who altered themselves.
But they aren't black.
Racism doesn't change reality.
And thats why prison is full of black people.
They are though.
>Anglos
>white
Wouldn't it be easier to isolate their genome and sterilize it, thus removing it and all the associated problems with its existence from society?
Trust me, the sickle cell bunch isn't going to save anyone.