Can CRISPR be used to increase IQ?

There are limits to neuroplasticity. You can't teach a dog to speak Spanish.

Here is what some /pol/tards are preaching now

>Democracy
>US flag
Is this supposed to be a joke?

ask /pol/

>We're not even sure which genes contribute to intelligence.
sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/human-speech-gene-can-speed-learning-mice
We have got a pretty good grasp on nigger genes, genes that impact learning, and how whites and non-chinese asians are genetically similar. Doesn't matter if we don't understand what we do, we can produce results.

All humans have the same set of genes, it's just that different people have different alleles for genes. Less than 2% of SNPs are restricted to any one population. There are no "nigger genes."

Then why niggers are more stupid and violent than humans?

>Neuroplasticity is too limited
what limitations

I assume you are not a nigger, but you seem pretty stupid compared to a human, so you are a counterexample to your own assumption

Did you post the wrong link? The word "intelligence" is never mentioned on that page

Subsaharan niggers are not humans. Look at any cladogram of human evolution.

Hmm, I googled that paper and I couldn't find that figure...
What is your explanation for that?

Here is an example: nature.com/articles/ng1435

But there are literally hundreds of papers with cladograms describing the human evolution and they are all basically congruent.

>nature.com/articles/ng1435
Did you even read this paper? It does not support the idea that race exists.. in fact quite the opposite.

Races, species, orders, kingdoms etc are all taxonomy, I'm talking about systematics, that is, the evolutionary relations of ancestrality between the populations.
I could call all the primates a race, or a species or whatever. That's just convention. The name of the taxon is irrelevant. I use the term species instead of race just to trigger sjws. Species and races do not exist in the essentialist pre-darwinian sense, they are just labels we can use on monophiletic groups.

*monophyletic

Intelligence is about reasoning. Reasoning is about how you think. How you think is about how you used to think.
If a nigger is already a nigger, it is too late for them to not turn into a nigger. However, if crispr is used on the offspring of a sub-human, then they will have greater intelligence than their genes dictate because the sub-human genes didn't influence their brain very much. However, it is only for a single generation.

>How you think is about how you used to think.
hahahahaha

In other words, the objective existence of races and species only make sense in a pre-darwinian framework.
On the other hand, you can test the hypothesis if a group is monophyletic, that is, if these individuals share a common and exclusive ancestor. So I believe in the objective existence of clades (monophyletic groups).

>he doesn't believe in neural pathways
For real? It's sorta the basis for all our theories on how learning actually works.

>nature.com/articles/ng1435
Variation at the population level

The average proportion of nucleotide differences between a randomly chosen pair of humans (i.e., average nucleotide diversity, or π) is consistently estimated to lie between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500 (refs. 9,10). This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees11,12, reflecting the recent origin of our species from a small founding population13. The π value for Homo sapiens can be put into perspective by considering that humans differ from chimpanzees at only 1 in 100 nucleotides, on average14,15.

There is difference enough to build cladograms. That's all that matters. You are thinking in pre-darwinian essentialist terms.

Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16,17. Approximately 85–90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10–15% of variation is found between them18,19,20 (Table 1). In other words, ∼90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ∼10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans.

and yet even a single gene can have a massive impact on an organism.

>All caucasoids have a common ancestor that is not in the ancestry of Africans
Not really

What about the one responsible for sickle cell anemia and malaria resistance? That is exclusive to blacks. What about all the genes responsible for increased melanin prodution? Racism is wrong, and everyone should be treated equally, but if you believe that black people and white people are nearly genetically identical you might legitimately be retarded.

They are though, we have 99% the same genes as chimpanzees ffs
sickle cell is just in a small population of Africans
they could just have more copies of the melanin gene, just like some people have more copies of the salivary amylase gene so they digest starches more easily

All Caucasoids, East Asians etc. have a common ancestor that is not in the ancestry of Subsaharan Africans. But of course, we also share a common ancestor with Subsaharan Africans that are not shared with the other primates. And so on.

*is not shared

>use crispr to increase number of neurons and the number of connections to other neurons in our brains
>become so intelligent that we all commit l commit suicide

99% in a near irrelevant number in the realm of genetics, I don't know why you would bring that up in this argument.
Denying facts that can be validated by the eye-test won't make you convince actual racists anytime soon.

Many studies show a positive correlation between high IQ and depression.

Hard to say; the neurons are mostly already in place and they’ve discovered that only a few new ones grow. It would be better on a fetus. Also Crispr and muh 95% accuracy, welcome to tumour town. It’s better suited to genetics in random animals where a few can die and no fucks are given

99% of similar genes or even a 100% similar doesn’t make things identical genetically. A often and largely ignored part by those kind of media stories is the regulation of those genes. How often one gene is active therefor how much product does it produce? Where is the gene active and the product localized for effect? What time in development is the gene product produced, etc.

But humans aren't dogs.
Though the point I concede on an individual level not on some arbitrary muh race level.

Yeah right, go try turn your local nigger into a just decent calculator good luck with that

SJWs really believe that a nigger with the same intellect of a Gauss or a Grothendieck is biologically possible.

>could be hundreds
Or it could be three, like what controls skin colouration.

even better reason to start looking deeper into epigenetics

but that could prove some rayciss stuff, oh no

IQ is the major feature considered in ranking races, /pol/ has no issue that some some groups are higher than whites. However features like aversion to violence and empathy are also considered. Also you state your argument as if /pol/ wants to move from the premise of differing genetic IQ to genocide, you wont find a single person there who actually promotes that beyond a joke. The whole argument is to preserve the white race from miscgenation with races with worse genetic abilities and to allow them freedom of association with themselves and no other if they so wish. Don't misrepresent arguments so lazily.

When you consider the increasing findings in eastern europe and greece of pre-lucy humanoids and the neanderthal breeding it is relatively true that we have different origins. Depending on how far back you go, obviously eventually there is a shared ancestor but it becomes irrelevant.

> arbritray
There are consistenly well documented differences in racial mental qualities and genes underlying it. It's a fallacious argument that because a large range exists intra-race, the racial boundaries are unimportant. There are exceptional cases of retardation in asians who have sub 50 iq, whereas some black populations have average 65. That does not negate the importance of the racial chasm which is founded on averages. Averages which dicate their abilities and dispositions for the most part.

Continued:

Your argument can be reworded to also state that because some men, say through genetic disease, have such little muscle mass or strength they are weaker than functionally all women, therefore there is no hard strength difference between men and women. Which is patently false. We have evidence in practice, biology, genetics and history stating men as a group are stronger than women. A large range within a set does not contradict another set with overlap being distinguishable and functionally different.

Using CRISPR for increasing IQ is a long way off yet. We don't have the specific SNPs for high intelligence, just general targets, and when we do there will probably be at minimum hundreds of changes that need to be made to make a noticeable difference. This would likely have to be done at the embryonic stage. It would be cool if you could just infect someone with a vector and change a handful of genes to increase IQ by 10 points, but that's hopeful thinking.

Instead the immediate future of eugenics is in preimplantation embryo selection. Fertilise 100 embryos via IVF, genotype them all, discard any with genetic problems and then select the 3 with the highest genotype for IQ. Doing this, with our current ability to identify intelligence genes with GWAS, we could increase the average IQ of a couples off-spring by about 10 IQ points, with a bonus that they'd be less likely to have diabetes, cancer, etc.

The real boost to all this is that we already do it, on a small scale, during IVF. It's not a big leap in terms of technology or morality to screen for intelligence. China will almost certainly be doing this in the next 5 years, if not already.
technologyreview.com/s/609204/eugenics-20-were-at-the-dawn-of-choosing-embryos-by-health-height-and-more/

Define race.
I can define men
I can define women.
Now define race. Do it.

Also there is a simple experiment you can do:

Take whatever race category you want.
Put them all through elite British boarding schools over a period of 50 years.

Then see what else affects mental ability.

Both race and species are pre-darwinian essentialist concepts.The right question is whether a group is monophyletic or not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly

>Now define race.
genetically distinct populations which leftists refuse to call sub-species/species.

I'd rather know if it can cure balding

>Can CRISPR be used to increase IQ?
idk but you can definitely use it to give the tree of life cancer

Yes, but who wants literal pubes for head hair?
You don't get robust follicles that react well to testosterone without them becoming pubic hair. There is a reason bald men still have pubic pubic hair, facial hair, and armpit hair.

That experiment has essentially been done for years through university admissions and preferential schooling, hasnt had such an impact.

You can look at government programmes at education aborigines, a total failure. Same with NA indians to a lesser extent.

A particular group of humans with genetic similarity and shared ancestry. Differing from other groups.

Easy. Also demonstrable in gene studies. Distinct ethnic groups objectively exist.

>Study multifactorial traits with GWAS
Lel

biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/18/190124
Just need a big enough sample size and the right computational approach. 6 years ago they didn't have any loci, today they have hundreds, a few more years and they'll be predicting your grades accurately when you're born.

Still doesn’t account for allele variation or genetic regulation differences. Upstream snp association isn’t as great as it sounds. Even your height example only has a meh correlation of 0.54. Environmental factors such as nutrition also contribute to height not solely genes. Gwas is trash

Brilliant.
Now can you define your race?

What are these groups?

>Even your height example only has a meh correlation of 0.54
lol, it's more than enough
>Environmental factors such as nutrition also contribute to height not solely genes
And? We're selecting embryos here. Society has done all it can to improve the environment of the stupid except perhaps forcibly taking children from their dumb parents and raising them in government creches.

>Then why niggers are more stupid and violent than humans?
because they grow up poor as shit, which leads to them getting in more fights and
bad nutrition

>However, it is only for a single generation.
they would spread their genes to the next would they not?

If you infect a male, maybe. But not using targeted CRISPR is asking for trouble.

Literally upside down worldview. Democracy above all.

>Democracy above all.
Democracy is a meme.

the evidence shows that democracy actually works pretty well when a population is well educated

You must be a literal nigger to be this stupid

>democracy
>ever good outside well-educated oligarchies

There's a reason most countries right now republics.

A dog also doesn't have vocal cords or a sufficient brain size to do either of those anyways.