/brave new world/ when

/brave new world/ when

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/articles/ncomms15112
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

2540

when we all get a little more brave

STEMspeak is so cringy

Why? There is not a single word in those 3 lines that could be removed without decrease the information given

I don't know why I'm worried about mind reading, you would just hear the formless bleats of a functionally retarded pre-infant.

Anyways I think this will be used in humans in extreme conditions, like iron lungs or traction. The vision of vat upon vat of wired-up babies floating in surrogate fluid is pure science fiction and we'll only use that for humane things like farming veal.

I'm sure the natural corrective processes that liberal democracy enables will find an appropriate way to deal with the ethical dilemma arising from this ;)))

So this is a fake womb?

Yes, nature.com/articles/ncomms15112

Preterm infants of < 28 weeks are humans in extreme conditions

Ok retard

wew

right before /matrix/

t. English major who thinks scientific papers should be written in iambic pentameter

This is harsh, very harsh, and a few years ago I can't imagine myself speaking like this, but if such technology allows infants to live who otherwise would've died, and they grow up to reproduce, we may simply ultimately cause more suffering by letting them pass on their genes to more children who may be genetically messed up and lead struggling lives, or require the usage of more medicine and technology to birth them/support them throughout their lives, etc.

People think progress is cut-and-dry but for almost every "advancement", every way we try to outdo nature, she gets us back. For instance, even now the use of antibiotics -----> antibiotic resistance, practically real-time microevolution in bacteria population so they become more deadly; same with pesticides, the more resistant pests survive and breed more. Caesarean sections have decreased average hip size of women (thus leading to need for more C-sections) slowly, slightly, but surely over the past century and may continue to do so. Et cetera.

But you know what? I'm going to be entirely honest and say, if such a situation happened to me, and my SO had a child that couldn't be born except with this technology, and it wasn't ultra-expensive, and she wanted to do it --- I'd probably pounce on it because I'm selfish like everyone else, and would probably think just my mere using it or not using it would not have a great effect on the world.

:^)

>This is harsh, very harsh, and a few years ago I can't imagine myself speaking like this, but if such technology allows infants to live who otherwise would've died, and they grow up to reproduce, we may simply ultimately cause more suffering by letting them pass on their genes to more children who may be genetically messed up and lead struggling lives,
This is what civilisation does. Just look at all the asthmatic glasses wearing manlets around.

I have sympathy for this observation of a lot of society being dysgenic at face value but it helps to realise that there is really no such thing as dysgenics. Things either work or they don't. There is no cheating at life. Anything that exists has obviously earned the right, and anything that perishes does so because it needs to.

I cant wait to grow my own dinner in a zip lock bag! Vegetarians on suicide watch.

Eventually this will be the only way (((they))) can breed.

If genetic modification becomes available, legal, and not too expensive, you're delusional if you think people won't spend a ton of money on it trying to give their kid the best chance to succeed in life.

>there is no such thing as dysgenics
>anything that perishes does so because it needs to

What an ugly world view. I can't say that it is wrong, just ugly.

I think the idea that everything is exactly as it could be and should be to be quite comforting desu. Amor fati.

Forgive me for missing the joke, but is there a single referent of (((them)))?

Im not sure "needs to" is the correct phrase here. "Need" implies it has to happen for something else to happen. What do they "need" to die for? Increased fitness?
There are plently of perfectly fit, intelligent, and capable animals that die out of sheer circumstance. Look at the dinosaurs. It doesnt matter how fit you are if your fit or well adapted you are if youre hit by a meteor

Head over to /pol/, Unqualified Reservations, The Last Psychiatrist and Chateau Heartiste for your propedeutic redpilling and report back here after you've lurked for nine months.

>Need" implies it has to happen for something else to happen. What do they "need" to die for? Increased fitness?
They 'need' to as an inevitable result rather than towards a purpose. As in if you get pushed off a building you 'need' to fall down.

>There are plently of perfectly fit, intelligent, and capable animals that die out of sheer circumstance. Look at the dinosaurs. It doesnt matter how fit you are if your fit or well adapted you are if youre hit by a meteor
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Circumstance is part of fitness. If you're the type of cunt that gets killed by meteors you're obviously not fit to survive. It's all in the game, chance, circumstance, everything.

Yea but your falling example is a result, in your first statement it was a cause. You said "because it needs to"
I agree with your sentiment 100%, just the phrasing could put some people off. Nothing "needs" to die, they simply do. As the other user said, circumstance.

>tfw unironically want to live in Huxley's Brave New World

t. STEMfags that think reading infinite jest makes them Veeky Forums

neck yourselves

I guess this is true. A sort of "meta-Darwinism", because whatever survives survives, whatever doesn't, doesn't; if it's bad, it'll eventually show up and die out. I like it.

How repulsive. I think that we should destroy all evidence of such a process and kill everyone involved.

lol fuck you, you funny bastard.