The mainstream media is framing Genetic Editing in the best possible light in all articles. This is across every single major media company. Positive spin on the issue.
anti-eugenics brainlets are absolutely devastated. Look at all the headlines on this subject. EVERY SINGLE ONE is using the best possible spin and wording with zero mention of fears or drawbacks. Da illuminati is in favor of genetic engineering boys, nothing will stop it. Transhumanism wins.
Other urls found in this thread:
c.merriam-webster.com
c.merriam-webster.com
telegraph.co.uk
nature.com
twitter.com
Since people will cry. Why is this thread about media coverage on genetic engineering? Media coverage and spin will greatly effect public opinion and potential regulations. The fact every single media company in USA is running positive spin headlines is telling. When it comes to science like this public acceptance is very important for regulatory and research funding reasons hence relevant to sci.
Spin Examples:
In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in Human Embryos
>breakthrough, edit, dangerous mutation, etc all positive spins
First human embryo editing experiment in U.S. ‘corrects’ gene for heart condition
>corrects, focuses on curing
In Gene-Editing Advance, Scientists Correct Defect in Human Embryos
Research addresses a condition that is a common cause of sudden cardiac death in young athletes
>correct, defect, etc
In a first, scientists rid human embryos of a potentially fatal gene mutation by editing their DNA
>first, get rid of, fatal gene mutation, editing
Just a quick note, the word "editing" is actually a pro spin word. The use of word Edit instead of engineer or other words is considered a big propaganda win for pro-eugenics people.
Scientists edit disease-causing gene mutation in human embryos
ETC.
Every single news article used all the pro-eugenics transhumanist pro-spin wording and ZERO of the anti-editing words.
Good?
Please tell me what word they could've used other than "edit" in that context. "edit" is a neutral word whereas "engineer" and "design" are loaded words. Also, both those articles mentioned the ethical concerns of DNA modification.
I suppose they could have gone with "modify" "alter" "replace" "change" etc.
They all seem equally neutral to me though
You would have to know the space. "Edit" makes people think of a word editor or something like that. It reinforces the idea it is safe and simple. It is by far the best scoring word for positive spin on this subject.
>Fixing genetic defects and curing diseases is "eugenics" and pointing out this is good is "spin"
OP sure is retarded.
Do you have evidence for this? If it is true though, I understand their motivation. Genetic engineering has huge potential and currently any research in that area is prohibited so naturally they want the public to be more open to it so they can advance science.
When are genetic engineering and stem cells going to stop being a nuclear fusion tier technology and people can actually start using it to grow back new limbs and foreskins?
You're misusing the word "eugenics" here to try and spin a narrative, and it reflects badly on your point.
Genetic engineering is being funded specifically for these purposes, so when it makes leeway in its objective, they're not going to cover all the risks because that's not a part of the story. The story is that they prevented a genetic defect, not that commercial genetic services could exist in the future. If you're so concerned with how they're spinning it, then please do try to put a negative spin on CRISPR effectively dealing with a heart defect.
c.merriam-webster.com
I can't give you a quick source. I don't catalog information like this for sharing. I believe there is some proof of it from a speech on genetic editing from an "e*hics" perspective. The speaker complains about the wording on this.
That is not really important though, the spin is positive even aside from the use of word edit instead of harsher terms.
c.merriam-webster.com
>You're misusing the word "eugenics" here to try and spin a narrative, and it reflects badly on your point.
Nope, just being edge. It's factually accurate and completely true. Genetic engineering is eugenics.
>control of human mating
They're not controlling human mating.
>heredity
>c.merriam-webster.com
No ancestral changes are involved in CRISPR.
You're misusing the word.
a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))
Do you know how parenthesis work kiddo? It listed human mating as an example of eugenics. Any improvement to genetics is considered eugenics.
whats your point, I intend on learning how to use CRISPR if I join the lab ive been doing a rotation in, just so I could try to come up with a last resort means to splice dat good good anti cancer lobster gene.
>inb4 CRISPR can cause editing elsewhere
>MFW none of you seem to have scientific literacy
Here is the actual nature paper by the way.
I am not anti-editing. I was just amazed how positive the media was, whether by accident or just by copying some AP header or w.e.
Woah, brainlets are going to be wiped out of the gene pool? I don't like the sound of this competition, better shut it down!
>please do try to put a negative spin on CRISPR effectively dealing with a heart defect
Gene Modifications Being Used to Eliminate a Genetic Minority
I mean, the US has always been pro eugenics, and anything scientific is anti Trump so the media loves it
So? this is a form of eugenics which is non-controlling and voluntary, similar to genetic screening before procreation to assess genetic risks. This is far less aggressive than down syndrome abortions. They are spinning it in a positive light because there is no negative really, unless you are against in-vitro fertilization, which is asinine
The press are being positive towards editing because China is going to go through with it. There is going to be a massive business around IVF. Imagine how costly IVF is and then add the price of editing into the splice.
It's going to be big business.
Ableism and Favoritism for Abilities Governance, Ethics and Studies: New Tools for Nanoscale and Nanoscale-enabled Science and Technology Governance
presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008.
The query, What Sorts of People Should There Be? is striking in its conditions of possibility: First, people are individually considered tokens of types (sorts) rather than sui generis. Second, sorts of people must become a normative domain (not simply indicative, descriptive, ontological): the query presupposes its own normative justification. Beyond more or less desirable sorts (judged by whom?), norms imply a tacit imperative (produce such; conform to such; perhaps eliminate non-such) and a biological or social production function. Historically, biological means have been blunt (e.g., infanticide, sterilization); now technically more refined. Third, the query is open as to what normative criteria (physiological (‘healthy’), morphological (typical), ethnic, moral, economic, social, political, …). Its structure implies exclusion - a province ‘beyond the pale’ for types subject to abjection (cast offs). Symbolically, it is “not lack of cleanliness or health that causes abjection but what disturbs identity, system, order” (Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 1982). What is the humanum? How is value related to it? Exemplars to be explored include Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman; Augustine on ‘monstrous’ beings; Voltaire’s contesting a common human race; medically declared slave physiology (1851); 19th-20th century eugenics and Untermensch ontology; semantics of person according societal protection or not; and economic and health-normative dimensions selecting for sorts under prenatal diagnostic cost-benefit analysis, ostensibly maximizing autonomy while diminishing obligation and social connectedness. Analysis of the query and the series inform its critical value.
Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008
This workshop has had the greatest impact on human life of any scientific gathering in human history.
>tfw in a thread with people who didn't attend
a Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008
>non-controlling and voluntary
Voluntarily make retarded kids when IVF super brains getting popped out everywhere. Soon enough it will be like vaccinations; non-IVF gene spliced kids will be a threat to society.
tfw you're getting your PhD and the average IQ is 137 so why test
What about us brainlets born before genetic engineering?
It's going to be involuntary in any country with subsidized healthcare very quickly. Although this is a rather off-topic point of discussion. Any society in general will have to adopt it. Whether some minority in the society don't is rather minimal. We still have pet dogs even though they have low IQ. It won't change who will actually run the country.
treated/live like disabled
What about medieval peasants who farmed since age 12 and died at 25?
we are far, far, far away from enhancing intellect, and a variety of other "desired" traits. Most of those desired traits are affected by multiple genes, which we have yet to do any real work on. For the time being, this will be used to correct disease causing alleles. Actual designer babies will only come around once all other health issues can be solved, or it will be privately funded and the cost will be absolutely astronomical to any consumer that it wont be threatening to the average person.
just saying, your fear is way way far off in the future
>It's going to be involuntary in any country with subsidized healthcare very quickly.
how though? You think they are going to actively stop people form procreating the normal way to harvest woman's eggs? It just seems like an enormous operation to make it involuntary, without even breaching the subject of human rights. I dont see it being involuntary, that's too forceful. But who knows
what is far, far, far away?
I'm not familiar with this scale. Eliminating genetic disease would save hundreds of billions in USA alone. We are also rapidly and exponentially getting better at uncovering highly poly-genetic traits.
Why do you think that we are far from it?
We are mapping out the genes related to intelligence at a breakneck speed. China has a dedicated project to mapping just these genes.
By 2020-2025 we will be looking at children made with genes to enhance height, intelligence and you name it.
telegraph.co.uk
In a smart society everyone would know already if they are carriers or not of these simple genetic diseases.
Testing everyone in a society and saying "don't reproduce outside of a lab" to carriers could work. Going by trends on unwanted pregnancies and how good contraceptives are getting it's not a stretch to imagine. The cost of PGD+IVF is cheaper than caring for genetically diseased already with current tech.
just guessing, earliest 25 years, latest 100 or so. My main point is there are tons of other genetic issues which would be tackled before designer babies are, especially with things like intellect, if ever at all, i feel a public outrcry to stop intelligence manipulation would be really really strong
I like how China built a huge gene bank recently. It's hilarious if anyone thinks they aren't obnoxiously horny for genetic editing.
maaaaybe when we're all old and gray and have a few teeth rattling around in our mouths, but more than likely another 100 years.
hmm that's a good point. the problem with it is "dont reproduce outside of a lab" is pretty unenforceable, leading to a lack of knowledge of the progeny's genes (but at that point screening would probably be easy enough to establish that through testing).
I was thinking 1-2 years before PGD selection for positive traits, and 10 for full editing synthetic embryos with no parents.
There is no barrier to enhancing intelligence if you can cure genetic disorders. If you can do one then you can do the other.
And they began collecting genomes from intelligent people some 5 years ago.
nature.com
They want to dominate the world, and this is probably easiest topic to do so since US' aversion to unethical genetic manipulation.
Why doesn't anyone just say no to all these crazy scientific advances?
Why the fuck does anyone want to live in a world of artificial AI and designer babies?
And why do you think that you will be able to afford it?
>my firstborn won't be a manlet
I only have God to thank for this. Praise be his name.
i think that's extremely optimistic, but im hoping
eh, i disagree, most genetic disorders are a simple edit away from being cured, enhancing intelligence requires more than just fixing a nucleotide or single allele. Im sure eventually it will be possible and easily doable though.
survival
Is why we aren't single celled organisms. To survive.
Why are you so low-IQ you would think that matters? Muh genes.
I'm pretty sure humans have had the whole survival thing down pat for several thousand years. What we're doing now is far beyond that.
No, survival against other humans and tremendous cosmic events.
You don't need to recreate Einstein. You can change one or two genes here and there, or select an embryos that is promising and make a few extra changes.
It's been explained before and I'm just regurgitating. What is the chance of nuclear war this year? How many years before that combined chance hits 10%? or 50%?
We are currently on the precipice of disaster even if we held steady at current technology. The idea we are stable right now is incorrect. We are a rocket taking off and "stalling" means we come crashing back soon. We have to keep going and we should speed up, especially on space travel.
>No, survival against other humans and tremendous cosmic events.
And how are the superhumans and robots which will supplant you going to improve the chances of survival for you or the human race?
>We are currently on the precipice of disaster even if we held steady at current technology.
Only because people never stopped to consider the consequences of applying rapidly advancing technology.
>We have to keep going and we should speed up, especially on space travel.
This is a sunk cost fallacy. What you're actually doing with this is hastening the demise of the species by introducing more chaos into the equation.
1. Interplanetary travel will never advance to the point where we will be able to easily travel to other planets, let alone colonise them.
2. Constant technological advance will never bring the species to a point where it is stable. The only thing that will bring stability and a surety of survival is to start going backwards.
children grow up
humans "grow up" too, just into AI or humans 2.0
It matters because only a few will use it, thus creating bigger gap between the ultra rich and everybody else
If the ultra rich become more intelligent and healthier how does that harm you?
Are poor people today comparable quality of life to poor people of 1600?
Children are humans, dum dum
children die to become adults
the uber rich have a continuous habit of attempting to enslave humanity
it's odd, but history shows that they really can't stop trying to do it
naturally, giving them the ability to outright become an ascended species above their slave race is probably not in the best interests of humanity
There won't be any possibility for enslavement because everything will be automated. Eventually the technology will be made cheap enough for everyone. At least that's how I see it. No one really knows what the fuck's gonna happen.
How is the media supposed to spin it, then?
China does it:
>horrible, evil, mad Chinese scientists experimenting with eugenics
>ominous ethical undertones
US does it:
>strong, brave, smart, handsome American scientists make groundbreaking discoveries to benefit humanity
Happily their ever-more-precarious supply chains for longevity become that much more easily disrupted.
It helps that no one, in any significant quantity, is ever getting off this rock. Now, if it happened that space travel and something like biological immortality BOTH came to be feasible, then that's exactly the time to intensify
If you are not willing to cheerfully identify as the crab in the bucket, happy to help drag the aspiring ones back down, then you are something much worse than that lowly, loathsome, rightfully resentful crab.
You are a cuckold.
Better that the entire species should go extinct than that a single individual should achieve arbitrarily long longevity.
My soon-to-be wife and I want to have kids, and my buddy works at a secret biotech company, and he tells me that within a year they will be providing embryo selection for intelligence. My gf seems to be coming around to the idea. Shit is gonna be cash af. We are gonna select for the phenotype ashkenazi women crave.
"people" who have been genetically altered in this fashion are not people and frankly shouldn't exist.
IMO the people involved in this should be shot.
How arent they people?
A whole lot of people just say no. They are amish and / or simpleminded
Everytime you think "I wouldn't have babies with that person" you're practicing eugenics.
Better start learning Chinese.
>hurr hurr improving mankind is bad hurr durr
Genetic engineering is great and revolutionary. OP is just mad because he's a low iq brainlet
...