EUGENICS 2.0 - MIT TECH REVIEW

technologyreview.com/s/609204/eugenics-20-were-at-the-dawn-of-choosing-embryos-by-health-height-and-more/
(Why can I link this and not Nature articles on Veeky Forums?)

The company’s concept, which it calls expanded preimplantation genetic testing, or ePGT, would effectively add a range of common disease risks to the menu of rare ones already available, which it also plans to test for. Its promotional material uses a picture of a mostly submerged iceberg to get the idea across. “We believe it will become a standard part of the IVF process,” says Tellier, just as a test for Down syndrome is a standard part of pregnancy.

Testing embryos for disease risks, including risks for diseases that develop only late in life, is considered ethically acceptable by U.S. fertility doctors. But the new DNA scoring models mean parents might be able to choose their kids on the basis of traits like IQ or adult weight. That’s because, just like type 1 diabetes, these traits are the result of complex genetic influences the predictor algorithms are designed to find.

Armed with the U.K. data, Hsu and Tellier claimed a breakthrough. For one easily measured trait, height, they used machine-learning techniques to create a predictor that behaved flawlessly. They reported that the model could, for the most part, predict people’s height from their DNA data to within three or four centimeters.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8
youtube.com/watch?v=dn4LaowsGiA
nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2017121a.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24417771/
hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm
pastebin.com/75jvaszD
reoxy.org/gc.htm
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016
youtube.com/watch?v=Tf6_IpzuvyQ
biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/18/190124
elifesciences.org/articles/03896
nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272
pged.org/genetic-modification-genome-editing-and-crispr/
m.pnas.org/content/113/25/6892.full
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/#!po=32.8947
uh.edu/engines/epi385.htm
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3069156/bin/1017511108_sapp.pdf
cbsnews.com/news/playing-god-crispr-dna-genetic-ethics/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Discussion on the topic at google, 6 years old information

youtube.com/watch?v=62jZENi1ed8

Another discussion with someone controversial though
youtube.com/watch?v=dn4LaowsGiA

Great, nothing could go wrong by selecting for one trait without knowing how it affects other things.

>get 6ft4 kid
>but mentally disabled because you selected for genes which increase early cranial fusion

You must open a door.

A) 1 Door, 10% chance to be shot in the head once open.

B) 10 doors, 10% chance on each to be shot in the head once open.

Is B less safe of a choice because you can be shot in the head?

You can't isolate B) aka PGDw/IVF and say it unsafe because it carries the same risk as natural birth does. You have to compare it's safety with natural random birth.

In this case, the chance of the weird cranial error is relatively equal in the random and selection case. The increase in information via PGD does nothing but improve things though. As you can avoid so many genetic diseases to begin with and add more as time goes by.

If I get a genetic disease, can I sue the doctor who edited my embryo before I was born for malpractice? Seriously, how do you have oversight on something like this?

>edited

Can you sue your parents if they didn't get carrier tests and you have cystic fibrosis?

If you are anti-vax parents, how can you support parents that don't screen genetic diseases when it's affordable and available?

The oversight/legal stuff you are talking about is essentially low IQ nonsense thoughts.

Yes, avoiding genetic diseases makes sense e.g. dwarfism etc. However there is a reason that we haven't evolved to all be 7ft superhumans with high IQs, huge penises, flawless faces, long lives, and muscular lean bodies. Everything has a pro and a con. E.g. higher IGF1 -> cell proliferation -> lower quality of cells + faster aging + higher cancer risk. Taller people have a higher risk of cancer. Taller people live shorter lives. They have more joint problems, require more calories and nutrients (i.e. higher chance of deficiencies), and the faster bone growth can make their faces either very handsome or very ugly. Makes it more difficult to build a muscular physique as a man. Also reduces sexual attractiveness of women to be too tall. Similar thing with testosterone: men who mature earlier do well sexually when they are young, have bigger dicks, are usually more masculine. However they also go bald more easily, get more prostate issues, have lower IQs and do less well financially. There's a genetic contribution as to why most beautiful/handsome men and women are at best normie-tier in terms of intelligence. Everything is a trade-off.

Nice post but it's ultimately pointless. The immediate emphasis will probably be on genetic health and avoiding risk factors for very serious disease. It will also be diverse in usage and have a pretty hefty random component.

Of course the holy grail is IQ improvement, not beauty or height It is also something that will improve over time as other technologies improve. In the end though this will be nothing but a positive change for the genetic health reasons alone. Just as an example about half of children visits to hospitals are genetic disease related.

To continue. A very important thing is that assuming a mass usage of the technology in a dumb way is pretty speculative. At the moment at least in non-dark markets it is only being used for health reasons and avoiding obvious genetic disease.

I can't wait until the first 10000 IQ humans are born in China.

The US and the West will become completely irrelevant in all research as humanity moves on. It will be the end of Western civilization. The reign of ignorant, know-nothing control freaks running the research ethics boards will finally be over.

I agree there is a lot of low hanging fruits in terms of rectifying the genetic damage that modern society has produced (as well as inbreeding in some cases/countries). However it will get more complicated rapidly. We know IQ depends on a huge number of genes, each with a small effect size, and quite possible on interdependencies among genes and modulation by the environment. In terms of IQ it might be easier to use stem cell therapy and growth factors to increase cortical size directly (as cortical size correlates pretty strongly with IQ) if genetic manipulation proves too difficult. The most immediate benefits here will probably be to people with significantly below average IQ, which is actually exactly what would improve society the most.

The too difficult argument has been dead for at least a year. It relies on the argument you need to know exactly what is going on versus allowing statistical methods to predict it. It holds up to no scrutiny and polygenic risk scores are improving in predictive power massively.

What percent of variance did they account for? This study:

nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2017121a.html

Even though they studies a lot of extremely high IQ individuals, only managed to account for 1.6% within the normal range. I've seen others where they said that if they extrapolated their results to the whole genome they could explain 40%, but they only identified genes for a tiny fraction of that.

I agree a lot of progress is being made, but I'm skeptical. If you need to change thousands of genes to increase IQ, how do you know that you are not inadvertently giving people something as catastrophic as a sphingolipid disease or something

>1200 people

At this point I would just be linking you to literature on the subject showing it needs a large sample sizes for good predictions.

The hypothetical you propose is outlandish. At this stage the immediate application is in embryo selection and not editing. Though editing and reroll/selection are very similar processes.

Assuming even a small ability to predict intelligence the results would still be massive on societal scales.

We killed god.

>To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in
why should I reveal my identity before i can read the article

It's a paid after X reads website.

You'll be edited in such a way that the thought won't even occur to you.

Everyone will be super compliant. It's going to be great.

>not screening for illnesses is the same as causing them
No wonder you didn't graduate from high school, Reddit.

I don't think so.

Yet we won't forget Amerindian genocide. You will go back to europe.

You are just fucking stupid.

The rate of genetic disease in population decreases with PGD and embryo screening, just like with down's syndrome screening.

The idea that the PGD could cause a genetic disease is nonsense. Editing could cause a genetic disease but it would be highly unlikely and is not a thing yet.

It's basically turd ideas from a shit brain. To imagine hypothetical scenario where a doctor intentionally gives you a genetic disease and the subsequent lawsuit.

It's not an important thing to think about. Remember, you have to compare it to the baseline genetic disease rate of natural births. In comparison almost any PGD screening process will result in less genetic disease, even if you select for complex traits.

Is going to a doctor over a serious health concern a good idea?

the doctor could pull out a gun and shoots you in the head. So I'm not really on board with this whole going to the doctor thing.

see, a bullet going through your head is a really big problem. So it's a really bad idea to go to a doctor.

>I can just make up an outlandish rare scenario that implies bad intent and crazy incentives to make something seem bad and I call this a valid argument

>but what if PGD makes the baby a fucking 50 IQ drooling retard?
>but what if every human becomes a clone and a single disease wipes us out
>but what if..

There never were armenian genocide because nothing before holocaust can be called genocide.

Irrelevant. Amerindian genocide will never ever be forgotten. You are on Amerindian land. Time to face the facts. Go back to europe.

Excess dopamine is correlated with increased IQ;

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24417771/
>We found significant effects of the genotype on the full-scale IQ, verbal IQ, and performance IQ, in patients with schizophrenia. IQ was lower in individuals with the C/C genotype than those with T carriers
>[...] implying that the T carriers may have higher TH activities and retain higher levels of catecholamines in the brain.

Excess dopamine leads to more willpower, not less. So people with low dopamine are depressed, submissive and stupid, and people with high dopamine are happy, dominant and intelligent;

>hedweb.com/hedethic/hedonist.htm
>0.4 Life In Dopaminergic Overdrive
>An important point to stress in the discussion to follow is that many dopamine-driven states of euphoria can actually enhance motivated, goal-directed behaviour in general. Enhanced dopamine function makes one's motivation to act stronger, not weaker. Hyper-dopaminergic states tend also to increase the range of activities an organism finds worth pursuing

I maintain a catalog of alleles I desire;

>pastebin.com/75jvaszD

Someday, I hope to be the person described by that genome and have twenty babies. I think we're at the dawn of genetic self-definition, and that a new species is emerging defined by such genetic self-selection;

>reoxy.org/gc.htm
>The first step is discovering that genetic causes exist for human problems
>his is a big breakthrough—resisted, of course, by Stage 12 Socialist Demo-poll cultures. Genetic determination focuses on gene-pool statistics and caste-differentiation, thus minimizing the importance of hive managers. Stage 12 Socialist-Welfare cultures insist that the collective super-hive (the state) is responsible for everything

Notice how liberals oppose genetic engineering? It's because someone who can do GM is more than smart enough to run a government and conduct themselves in society, and they don't need a state.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105016
>Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians
>Acknowledging the low depth of coverage, we determined the most likely phylogenetic affiliation of the MA-1 Y chromosome to a basal lineage of haplogroup R

So;

>You are on Amerindian land. Time to face the facts. Go back to europe

Facts are; America was reached first by whites. Face that fact, and go back to Asia.

>gib land back to tribes so they can keep genocide each other with sticks

the possible problem with genetic engineering/selection is on a civilizational level, where you meddle with forces you don't understand due to shortsightedness

for an example, what if you wanted to reduce the level of schizophrenia in the population, so you select against all embryos with those genes, but it turns out that those genes are not only linked to schizophrenia, but also artistry, so now by applying that on a mass scale you've stunted your population in unforseen ways? (if you are a retard, feel free to replace schizophrenia and artist with autism and scientist)
That's why genetic engineering is dangerous, not on a individual level because the worst thing that you could do is just fuck up someones life, but on the societal level, where you don't have any spares.

>However there is a reason that we haven't evolved to all be 7ft superhumans with high IQs, huge penises
Yes, we didn't have enough food. Now we do, look at the americans. The reason many people are ugly is because ugly people exists and they breed just like pretty people do, that's all there is to it. Beautiful people don't produce more offspring than ugly people, they are just more desired, so ugly people will continue existing. The rest of your post is pure shit.

Yeah I'm sure the 190 IQ society full of geniuses is going to wish they had 100 IQ and some mental illnesses.

Makes a ton of sense.

> E.g. higher IGF1 -> cell proliferation -> lower quality of cells + faster aging + higher cancer risk. Taller people have a higher risk of cancer. Taller people live shorter lives
The thing is, this is a pretty established fact too. Manlets, despite us making fun of them, are ironically genetically superior in many ways.
Not only that, but using genes that correlate with IQ, which is already a pretty noisy/bad indicator of intelligence, should make anybody with an IQ above 100 wary of such "science".
You're probably better off looking for alleles that correlate with having a phd in math.
What if GMOs give us all ebola in 60 years?
The problem with that mindset is that for many diseases scientists have a pretty good idea what exactly goes wrong.
For example, most cases of cystic fibrosis are caused by a chloride channel getting degraded because it doesn't fold properly. Therefore curing cystic fibrosis will not magically eliminate all art.
There are other diseases that for sure are much more complex, but the principle still applies.
The only thing you should be worried about is normies misusing the technology to get tall, blonde, blue-eyed boys.

You know a sure-fire way to increase dopamine? Jerking off. And the best way of jerking off is anal orgasms.

temporarily floods your brain with dopamine, which desensitizes you to it

Precisely this. You're meddling with powers you cannot possibly comprehend.

Ok then, a buttplug to provide a constant low level dosage of dopamine. In the future everyone will be issued with buttplugs by the government.

eugenics is whatever, i don't think anyone really has any qualms with it tbqh, in fact it's already practiced to some extent (research negative euthanasia rates with respect to downs syndrome babies)

eugenics got a bad name because beta 0.1 was essentially "People that have the same skin color as me are the best, and all the rest should stop breeding"

And version 0.2 was "gas the kikes, race war now" so it's in need of a bit of rebranding.

>Cuck Western countries ban genetic engineering
>Meanwhile Asia breeds 10,000 IQ super-humans

Really makes you think

> within 3 or 4 centimeters
Needs more precision before it's useful. I can predict your height by looking at your same sex parent. I am impressed either way, and this sets precedent for cooler predictions obvi.

Ignoring the positive correlation between intelligence and mental illness. Do we want healthy geniuses? Yes. Is on the right track, since changing a single gene can cause a ripple effect through several of an organism's systems? Yes.

>for an example, what if you wanted to reduce the level of schizophrenia in the population, so you select against all embryos with those genes, but it turns out that those genes are not only linked to schizophrenia, but also artistry, so now by applying that on a mass scale you've stunted your population in unforseen ways?

The genes code for proteins and enzymes that work together to synthesize and regulate neurotransmitters in the body.

'Schizophrenia' is a softer, less scientific concept than 'elevated dopamine.' We can't genetically engineer for or against schizophrenia - we can, however, genetically engineer for elevated or lowered dopamine levels.

As I cited in , elevated dopamine is correlated with increased IQ - however, the theory that dopamine causes schizophrenia is long-standing. So;

DA+ = Schizophrenia+,

and;

DA- = Schizophrenia-.

However, other theories suggest that lowered dopamine levels lead to schizophrenia. On top of that, metabolism of Dopamine to Dopa-quinone via the Dopamine Transporter kills DA neurons with oxidative damage.

I don't like the logic the rest of humanity is using here at all. I fear we're going to use this technology to turn ourselves into an ant hive.

In the article;

>diabetes, late-life osteoporosis, schizophrenia, and dwarfism

All these traits are metabolically linked. Low Bone Mineral Density causes osteoporosis and dwarfism, and the genes that effect BMD also effect neurotransmitter levels.

>Manlets, despite us making fun of them, are ironically genetically superior in many ways

Exactly - high BMD = Tall = Aging = Low Dopamine = Low IQ. The smartest people on Earth are short East Asians. We need to be breeding for proportional dwarfism, general neoteny, DA+ and MAOA/B- and DAT-.

Instead, everyone wants to become a bunch of miserable meatheads on GABA-agonists. A throng of tall cattle using facebook.

>'Schizophrenia' is a softer, less scientific concept than 'elevated dopamine.'

What a crock of shit. This is literally you:

>"Spinning out of control and exploding" is a softer, less scientific concept than "elevated combustion chamber pressure" and "higher specific impulse" We can't engineer against exploding.

> genetically engineering for lower dopamine levels
That sounds like a dumpster fire of depression or ADHD waiting to happen.

This is the crux of the problem, they are telling me they can accurately know exactly what genes to edit and ensure that none of them have any negative interactions. Yet they freely admit they can't even accurately predict height? What a joke. This technology needs to be left the fuck alone until we understand it a lot better than we do.

You want Eugenics? Good, shows you have a brain, so let's do it right, with positive Eugenics.

>Offer large lump sum payment for sterilisation
>Sterilise convicted criminals and sex offenders
>Create lists of genetically compatible partners based off desireable and undesirable traits
>Offer incentives such as tax breaks and housing benefits for those who reproduce and raise children with those they are compatible with

Congratulations, over the course of several generations you will have dramatically improved the genetic stock of all humanity.

Why is Veeky Forums so shit at bio? Math and physics they seem to get but any time someone brings up biology it's like walking into a 9th grade science class.

Because most anons on here are maths autists, so biology is too hard.

This argument is pointless. Again, you are comparing it to random chance. Violent dumb people are born every day. Schizophrenics are born every day. The requirements for genius IQ are extremely rare.

You would almost naturally overcome any negative trend by simply screening known genetic diseases.

So yes, some percentage of the higher IQ babies will have mental illness compared to a dumb population. Even then, the fact you eliminate and screen so many diseases counteracts it.

It's like the vaccine argument, yes it's a risk you take when getting vaccinated that something bad could happen but having a world free of small pox makes it a good tradeoff.

You can't fucking use IDEAL situations and say "X can go wrong". It must be reasonably weighed against the natural chances for bad outcomes.

In this case, as the OP article talks about, almost the entire focus is on eliminating known genetic disease. In this case it's pretty hard to imagine it will lead to unforeseen results when the foreseen result would be incredibly horrible.

If you wanted to make your population tall. Hypothetically. Having any predictive ability on embryos would be enough to significantly increase overall height.

I'm not sure what method would be faster on a population. Can you post a fucking idea for moving a society to a higher height that is more practical than embryo screening and selection?

Maybe some short people concentration camps? Hmm?

Or maybe this is an incredibly awe inspiring capability for humanity and even slight predictive power combined with screening of disease would already be a monumental incredible revolution.

Almost nonsense.

None of this matters. Just get a huge dataset and let a machine predict it and parents pick what they want. Such human intuition and biology insight is counter productive ultimately.

>ensure none of them have any negative interactions

Good thing we did this for the billions of humans alive today.

Again

10 random embryos - select 1 using any sort of function
1 random embryo - no selection

It's pretty hard if you follow any scientific reasoning at all to do worse than the 1 random embryo.

>10 embryos
>2 of them seem to share slightly more patterns with healthy and intelligent people of the same general ethnicity
>1 has an obvious genetic disease known to cost hundred of thousands of dollars
So you choose one of the two associated with success.

vs

>1 randomly selected embryo
no choice

Tell me which of these scenarios is going to be better over a society?

>reached
Wrong. All archeology remnants demonstrate siberian origin.

Try again, subhuman, America belongs to Amerindians.
Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians are superior to europeans. Deal with it, subhuman.

Always remember the first rule of alchemy, everything one does has equal/opposite reaction

uh... if there is to be any sensible definition for either strong or intelligent, it includes capacity to change, darwin be tryin' to play us, or maybe he played himself?

>machine learning
>"a predictor that behaved flawlessly"
I call popsci bullshit

>option B has 35% chance of you getting out alive
I wish you actually had to choose between these 2, a brainlet who understands not even the most basic statistics doesn't deserve to live.

manlet coping at its finest

>The problem with that mindset is that for many diseases scientists have a pretty good idea what exactly goes wrong.
I'm not saying you shouldn't meddle with genetics, I'm saying what the most dangerous problem is. And yeah, cystic fibrosis might be simple, but people heterozygous for the allele might have a slight resistance to certain diseases, which should give you the merest glimpse into how retardedly complex biological systems are. First it will be just simple changes, sure, but then in the following decades and centuries they will push for more and more modification. The world is already full of retards who complain over aspects of humanity, first they'll come for cystic fibrosis, then they'll come for autism, then they'll come for "criminals", then they'll just outright come for "being mean". You will have to be extremely cautious and wise when this thing gets going.

Europeans are closer to the source of all humanity that is africa. Amerindians went far, and their genes grew weak in response.

I'm just kidding, you are a silly troll and shall be ignored henceforth.

Tall people selection? Your prediction has an accuracy level, but nothing beats the 100% accuracy that is actually choosing tall people to breed (with other tall people).

Why are we doing this again, by the way? Tall people occupies more space, it seems like choosing for tallness is inconveniencing ourselves for little reason. It's not like we have to scare off the wolves anymore, there's nothing to tallness but troubles down the line. And more expenses, can't forget that.

Wrong.
>1 bubonic something disease wipes out 40% of eurangutans
>20+% manages to kill 90% Amerindians
Amerindians have better resistance ans survivality against diseases compared to europeans. Amerindian superiority is a historical fact. We also know that amerindians had a higher development rate ans we will never EVER forget the Amerindian genocide.

Deal with it, subhuman.

I'm venezuelan you imbecile, I couldn't trace my own ancestry with a map, but it includes people from at least 3 continents.

Also I was baited, but it's not like there are actually interesting things to talk about in Veeky Forums, it's always the same "why me not smart", "why equation goes up", "why gravity is fall" and "is eugenics time yet?"

Would it hust that much to have a decent biology discussion once in a while? I've learned more biology on Veeky Forums, for goodness's sake!

>inb4 everybody starts shitting out white blone chilluns

>inb4 everyone starts shitting out furries

I just made an observation how America belongs to Amerindians. Then some chimp tried to compare technological potential from both sides, so I reminded him how Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans, finally another monkey claimed that Amerindians had weak genes, so I proceeded to explain how Amerindians have demonstrated a superior resistance against a literal epidemic cataclysm for centuries.

How is this wrong?

...

Irrelevant. Amerindians had a higher technological and civic development rate compared to europeans. Try again, monkey.

>10000 IQ humans
>humans
You are sort of close with your predictions...

>that list of all those SNPs

is this what autism is truly like? it's too late to edit your genome to be a perfect human, just so you know

the advantage of this technology is for people who haven't been born yet

youtube.com/watch?v=Tf6_IpzuvyQ
biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/18/190124

It's an example.

Associative mating already occurs. Again, it doesn't compare to eugenic 2.0 solutions involving genetic manipulation or selection. Your attempts to make your society taller will fail in comparison to one done via eugenics 2.0 spectacularly. Even if you do get a few more tall outliers the overall height will not be effected.

TALL is just a random thing, I am only using it as example. The obvious replacement is IQ.

Compared to the standard model predictions of zero state energy, he IS pretty close.

this indian poster is just trying to get the thread closed.

only have to open A door.

Maybe he(?) just wants to rile up somebody just because, in any case is that a big loss?

It's pretty simple actually. Amerindians have demonstrated a higher technological and civic development rate compared to europeans. All archeological remnants have shown that Amerindians reached early bronze age civilization in almost half the time europeans made it. How is this even a question?

You are right of course that genetics is very non linear and by messing with one thing you are potentially messing with a bunch of unrelated stuff on the way. But it is hard to say how it will work out at this stage, companies may charge for individual alterations for known genes, in which case it is unlikely that alterations would affect a large percentage of the population. Or maybe companies won't disclose the genes they know alter some phenotype they discovered, so competition between companies also wouldn't allow for a genetic change of a large percentage of the population.

Let me try again to explain.

You have a genetic engineer in charge of making your baby. He has no idea what he is doing. He randomly picks shit from your wife and from you. He puts it all together like a fucking maniac and says "here is your baby, hope nothing is wrong with it".

COMPARE WITH

A doctor who is educated and has enormous statistical evidence behind him that will take your baby and score it compared to the results of million+ sample size examples from your ethnicity. He will then score the embryos and avoid obvious disease and polygenic risk factors for serious disease. He can also maybe select ones that seem more like the more successful people out of the statistically analyzed samples.


Which baby do you want to implant? The random (NATURAL BIRTH) or scientifically analyzed one?

Do you guys not understand.

The natural birth system is literally the crazy fucking genetic engineering throwing shit together and not giving a fuck if there is a genetic disease.

The chance of a weird effect is not lower in a natural birth. If there is some gene in the mother that has a chance to interact badly due to very complex effects it is just as likely to happen in the natural birth as if you select a good embryo.

You are all just playing devils advocate and not accurately understanding what is happening. Random Natural Birth is not a safe thing. It doesn't care if a baby has genetic disease and dies at 2 years old. It is just random.

If you believe in science at all, you would understand why this makes sense. How long does it take a log cabin to appear in a forest as compared to some sort of intelligence working on it?

I'm not denying that schizophrenia is a valid diagnosis - I'm just saying that speaking of 'schizophrenia alleles' isn't very useful, and/but we can select for dopamine synthesis.

We can't 100% assure that someone does or does not have schizophrenia - but we can be 100% sure of elevating or lowering dopamine synthesis, or the synthesis of any other neurotransmitter, protein or enzyme.

Depression and ADHD, or psychosis and OCD - you decide.

GM isn't so much about unintended side-effects, as it is about concrete forks in the road where to gain one trait (Height) you gain another trait (Cancer.)

Personally, I choose shortness, psychosis and OCD.

>Wrong. All archeology remnants demonstrate siberian origin

The whites and yelloww both came from Siberia. The whites came first, then the yellows.

>Try again, subhuman, America belongs to Amerindians

And the first Amerindians were white. Coincidently, the Paiute record genociding a race of redheads they call the Si-Te-Cah, and the name 'Anasazi' means 'enemies' today, the yellows claim these enemies as their ancestors ('Ancestral Puebloans.')

Red men genocided white men, and took our land.

>is this what autism is truly like?

Yes.

>it's too late to edit your genome to be a perfect human, just so you know

My body is composed of cells within an extracellular matrix. The ECM has nothing to with genetics and can be flushed. The cells can be extracted while still functioning, and injected into a new ECM.

Since most of my organs are unnecessary, most of my cells can be tossed as well. So, we need to genetically modify the neurons and support cells of the nervous system. These neurons are already constantly replenished - we didn't think the brain had an immune system, but it does, so you place the brain into a tank on immune suppressants.

Next, just start pumping the neurons with your desired genome into the brain mush. Once 99% of your old cells are dead, you pump the mush into a brain bioscaffold.

While all this was happening, you were gestating a fetus grown with your ideal genome. The brain has been prevented from forming and the cranial cavity filled with endogenous fluid, so while it's still a fetus you stick your new brain into's it's skull.

Then, all you need is to allow babby to form. Enjoy your new body.

>the advantage of this technology is for people who haven't been born yet

Imagine the entire world as an extracellulr matrix. A sperm and an ovum are just two cells that survive the death of their original colony.

Sexual reproduction is already a form of immortality, and we now have the potential to record and pass down even more information to the next generation;

>elifesciences.org/articles/03896
>These results point to the nucleus of neurons as the potential locus of the engram in Aplysia

>nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272

>pged.org/genetic-modification-genome-editing-and-crispr/
>Adeno-Associated Viral (AAV) vectors have also been used for somatic genome editing in adult mouse liver

I think I'll wake up.

Wrong again. Amerindian ancestors from 25000BC are central asians and siberians.
All archeological evidence demonstrates America belongs to Amerindians. Try again, chimpo.

You don't get ADHD, you're born with it, you cretin

>smartass scientific pun with something totally unrelated
I wish reddit left this site forever.

the thing is in statistics, and particularly in statistic algorithms ("machine learning") having something to behave "flawlessly" is impossible, there will always be classification error.

>The ECM has nothing to with genetics
kek

>However there is a reason that we haven't evolved to all be 7ft superhumans

Because we were always constrained by natural conditions; oxygen avaliability, nutrient absortion, fasting periods, predator selection... all of these factor are meaningless in the modern life and the traits that were created to counteract them have become more of a liability than anything else, in fact, for being "civiliced animals" we are pretty much half evolved; our worst memory is the one that deals in the long run, impulsivity is far more negative than beneficial, our ability to plan is still limited to 2D interpretaion of 3D. evem our reactions to thermal pain are still much slower than any other pain stimulus.

And we are not even talking about how unfit is humanity for space exploration.

The reality is that we are not constrained anymore by evolutive pressures and we are starting to understand the underlying mechanism of our very own nature and how to alter them, since nature is too slow these eugenics efforts are a neccesity and since all life happens under civilization those that manage to achieve it will outcompete and substitute the unfit species simply because civilization is our new ecological niche and no two species can share the same space without one moving out to the fringes or being exterminated.

Wrong. Your reward center can either be deficient at birth due to genetics or by lifestyle, trauma, ect.

Then it's not fucking ADHD you moron.

>Amerindian ancestors from 25000BC are central asians and siberians

Read the paper;

>Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians
>This suggests that populations related to contemporary western Eurasians had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought
>Furthermore, we estimate that 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population
>This presents little time for the formation of a diverged Native American gene pool that could have contributed ancestry to MA-1, suggesting gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into Native American ancestors

The whites who lived in the Americas lived in Siberia before they moved.

>All archeological evidence demonstrates America belongs to Amerindians

It belonged to people with caucasian skull shape before it belonged to people with mongoloid skull shape. Modern native Americans have at most 38% contribution from MA-1 - modern Europeans are pure descendents of the white Siberian population.

Yellows took Asia from us, too.

As in, the ECM can be flushed - we don't have save it because it contains DNA we want. We can make a new ECM according to the genome.

good thing natural births have zero mistakes.

Because match can be abstracted to a level where you can pretty much isolate interactions very well or only look at a small sub sample of interactions without it having much of a negative effect.

In biology, this is never really possible and the huge number of processes that are complex and interrelate is staggering to mathematically trained minds (similar to how they apparently don't understand that in engineering it comes down to the thing working and that you don't have to be super abstract about everything).

>We can make a new ECM according to the genome.
not exactly. the ecm is built alongside the division of cells and the alongside the growth of the organism. some ecm structures or patterns will never be rebuilt, they are no longer 'accessible'.

>different ancestors
Irrelevant. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. How is this hard to get?

We will never forget Amerindian genocide. Time to go back to europe, subhuman.

>different ancestors
>Irrelevant

It is relevant. Yellows genocided whites in the Americas and Asia, and thousands of years later whites came and took their land back.

Australia belongs to us too;

>m.pnas.org/content/113/25/6892.full
>The haplogroups observed for WLH4 were S2 and V3c
>The haplogroups observed for WLH3a were H15a1, U5a, and H1. WLH3b showed haplogroups H40b, H1, and H3

There were two different tests, and in both the only haplogroup detected that wasn't a contaminant was V3c - a European mtDNA haplogroup. Modern Australian males also display Y-haplogroups I and R;

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917718/#!po=32.8947
>Previous analysis of AuR mtDNA11,12 showed that 37 individuals are likely to have ancient Australian maternal origin with deep-rooting mtDNA lineages (haplogroups M42a and b, P4b and S1a), with one mtDNA of probable European origin (haplogroup U5).
>However, five of these Y chromosomes clearly fall into European haplogroups (R1b1 and I)

Why does this pattern of ancient white people being replaced by browns, blacks and yellows? Why should I respect your race, if you won't respect mine?

>We will never forget Amerindian genocide. Time to go back to europe, subhuman

But it's OK when you do it? Amerindians never even invented steel - the Haya people of south Africa even managed that;

>uh.edu/engines/epi385.htm
>The Haya people make carbon steel in ancient Africa

But R1b is found in sub-Saharan males today, so whites may have invented steel there in ancient times and been replaced;

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3069156/bin/1017511108_sapp.pdf
>pp8 - Khomani San - R1b1b2a1a: 10% (2)

Thankfully, I've reconstructed an ideal genome and will assure that my bloodline won't be blacked;

>pastebin.com/75jvaszD

Pre-Columbian Americans had electroplating. They were white as snow, and this is our land, not yours.

So you agree with european replacement?

Extinction is part of nature. I'm going to keep my bloodline white, and non-violently help others to keep theirs white with education.

Somehow, whites have survived for 40,000+ years. This makes me feel very confident that me and a few other people could preserve the white race and found new white nations in the future.

To be honest, I think Earth is the native habitat of browns and blacks, and space is the native habitat of whites and yellows.

So you agree with european replacement. It's pretty simple. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. As your genocidal subhuman race genocided Amerindians we won't forget such events.

Amerindian superiority is a historical fact.

The indian poster is trying to bait /pol/ type replies to shut down the thread. Stop taking the bait you stupid fucks.

cbsnews.com/news/playing-god-crispr-dna-genetic-ethics/