So once evolved plant babies become a thing, and you start having people with genetic makeups optimized for things like:
Then what will we do with them after the revolution? We'll be confronted with the reality of genetic determinism, and we'll have to start deciding what genes are compatible with a full communist society and which ones would be considered anti social.
I don't think we can live in a world with people designed to be cops and capitalists.
Sociopaths can find job of their dreams by working on firing squads and GULAG security. Also cybernetic implants and genetic therapy can change people after birth.
...
...
This might be a little moderate, but I think we should only use gene therapy on the unborn to get rid of, you know, debilitating diseases and shit like that. If the kid grows up and wants to replace his dick with a nanomachine vagina, that's a different story, but I don't feel like I have the authority to make that kind of decision for a child.
I just want to die.
I see absolutely no problem with that tbqh.
its gonna happen somewhere
...
Sounds like you're bitter over bad experiences with your cat
Are you implying I fucked the cat I don't have?
dun goofd
Why be reborn when you can just go back?
telegraph.co.uk
>mfw I will probably never reverse you age backwards to be be a shota that gets fugged by a thicc milf to fulfill that size difference fetish of mine
The fuck is wrong with all of you?
Nigga I have nothing against that at all, as unfortunate as it may be, humans are currently heading into a direction where we're finding ways to enhance ourselves without mutilating our bodies. I'm not sure if I'm ok with living in this kind of world ;_;
GENEJACKS FOR ALL
The one problem with this is you can't have genes that account for an enormous amount of environmental variables that shape how the brain reacts to stress. Ffs even gravity and wind resistance play a role in that. Everything from friction coefficients to Reynold's number in fluid swimming.
The problem is that genes are kind of a blank slate, even if you don't like it. They can influence in xyz way, but largely DNA is a series of long strained mistakes over the past 3 billion years.
It's not really relevant, but there's a lot of junk that just doesn't mean anything in genetics, but what does mean something can make us, us, in a variety of ways.
But what happens after, how the brain develops through puberty onward, relies on factors that could contribute or not contribute to the development of the mind in every conceivable variable, way, and fashion, in 3 dimensional space.
Some accident in the inner ear could cause the most perfect inner ear to lose balance causing a lack of coordination which could result in, well, a bunch of shit that's just as meaningless as genes but could contribute to the brain in whatever negative or positive way. Say for instance, because maybe the inner ear is less developed because of exposure to some chemical at newborn age, or injury, he doesn't have the awareness of ideas of physics in that class he/she was supposed to excel in because his/her understanding of space in a 3 dimensional world is different from their classmates. In fact if we use this example, we're all off by our understanding of these things by whatever number.
The thing of it is, that's one example, but an enormous amount of stresses and variables, often times exacerbated by chemical means, can shape the brain just as the health of any "perfect" organ.
An Olympic Swimmer could die of a stroke younger for a billion reasons.
==The question you should ask yourself is, in a world where everyone is designed to be perfect, how can competition occur, and when it does, how does that factor into the results of the "product" that is a world of designer children. When difference occurs in this "product" what will the people responsible know exactly what was to blame for the problem? The answer is in so many ways we don't understand how the brain works, we don't understand exactly what factors can cause problems in what a designer child might have.
There would be no way of knowing why people who still be "flawed".
...
You are being myopic. If you truly believe in equality among humans (egalitarianism) then you must reject genetic determinism and find the idea of genetically engineered babies to be a dead end. This is because according to your worldview, our minds are not preordained from our genes, and are capable of more than that. Call it emergence, and the ability of evolution and biology to surprise us and ultimately upset the powers that be.
Your take on things, with a few tweaks to the subjects used, sounds identical to the argument pol makes when they say that black people can't be productive members of our society. The only difference is between existing people and bioengineered ones.
How long before we harvest power from pods of people?
just the process begins under capitalism doesn't mean it has to continue after change to another system
and I don't see it happening anytime soon, maybe it's just me.
don't have after you tried to fuck it*
This is why the real genetic revolution won't come until we can transplant memories into a genetically altered clones, kill the brain of the original (so it's like falling asleep and waking up on the other side of a room but with a futa cock) and ensure the ability to reclone the original body if the person wishes to return.
I fucking hate when cats refuse me sex.
Has anyone ever thought of the idea that "you" don't actually live, but instead it's a vessel that "thinks" it's you. This is why I'm not so supportive of "living forever through transplanted memories", the only things that I could think that might keep "you" alive forever are methods that would involve reversing the aging process, or very gradually replacing your brain cells with some kind of nanotech stuff
Well, it wouldn't be a vessel that thinks, so much as an inevitably imperfect neural copy of your brain in a body with differing chemestry and hormones. Even if the differences were only minor, one would "awaken" with slight changes in behavior and opinion derived from man made alterations, as opposed to natural occurrences that one learns from and adapts to. Either way, if someone wants to do something like this, why not? The question to ask oneself would be "Am I content to resume my life in not just an altered body, but with an altered mind?"
But the thing is that I don't think you understand what I'm having a problem with: my problem with this method is that, sure, you technically live forever, but "YOU" are dead, and that's where I'm coming in with my 2 cents; why bother about immortality if "YOU" are dead, and some cloned vessel is merely given the information from your brain to "act" like you? In other words, the only way to truly "live" forever is by the methods I mentioned above, or have a brain transplant altogether (which I forgot to add)
The problem is it would be like copying a program. For example, a browser on one computer is technically the same program on another computer, but it's not. Not really. It just does the same thing. Technically, "You" are a process that begins in the womb and ends at death. If you didn't kill the old brain, for example, there would be two programs running concurrently, neither or which would have direct access to the other, but which would process information similarly. Are they both "you"? Do you mean the process or the program?
I always have trouble explaining these cloning scenarios and how I try to get this message across, so this metaphor is actually really good, so I'll use it to help me explain this, so thanks.
Before I begin clarifying my problem with this, let's make the scenario clear by giving it the condition that a clone can only be "reborn" when the original dies
In the context of this scenario, as well as my earlier explanations, "you" is the "original/first program"
The way I see this scenario, I have problems with how the scenario handles both the process and the program. To me, "true" immortality as we usually like to see it is when the original program manages to surpass the process, but only the original program. I just don't think people like realize that the original program wouldn't be "moved to" another PC (body), but merely "copied and pasted", where the copied program would be activated once the original program's process is over.
In other words: FUCK THAT SCENARIO NIGGER IF I WANNA LIVE FOREVER I WANNA LIVE
I have considered this. Copy/pasteing does not preserve the original instance of consciousness. To preserve the original instance of consciousness, you would have to find some way of "expanding" the original instance of consciousness to the new body it's supposed to inhabit while that consciousness is still going. Then you would have to retract that consciousness from the old body.
Well, okay. The process that is "you" would BE the original program active, or in-process. My point was that another instance of the program would be a new process. So i guess you agree that "you" is the process?
This would work.
Maybe the process is killed when you fall asleep, and the you that is you now isn't the you that you were yesterday.
No one would be doing genetic engineering if it didn't have big impacts in real life. So obviously it can't be a dead end.
If a family has the money to make their kid super smart and attractive, they're going to do it 100% of the time. Problem is it's going to be only capitalists who will have the money.
It's already starting in China.
You're really close, but I feel you're only partially seeing the full scale of why this would be a problem, but your worsing also helped clarify this at the same time
The problem requires you to see as having two separate parts of themselves: memories/intelligence and a consciousness (or a soul for you spiritualists out there). Again, the problem with copying everything from your brain onto a clone to extend your life is dumb because "you" are not actually alive anymore
This is self evident if you were to imagine a occurrence where your intelligence/memories were copied and put into a clone, but the clone was activated prematurely, making your clone alive while "you" are alive, too. This is not "living forever", because despite the fact that "you" and your clone have the same intelligence/memories, both of you have separate consciousness.
Again, the only way that you could achieve "true immortality" is by
>Very slowly replacing your brain with some kind of nanotech augmentation a la Deus Ex (admittedly, this logic probably requires knowing the Theseus Paradox en.wikipedia.org
To really hammer it home, here's this video: youtu.be
Holla Forums still hasnt read any fucking books I guess
Not quite.
Yang pls go
It'll be fine. Since what porky defines what makes a good soldier or cop is arbitrary and not based on science.
Let's say you make a solider super fast and strong. If he's strong then his commander why the fuck would he obey orders.
Maybe you think making said soilder dumb would solve the problem. This ain't the 1800s even cannon fodder needs to have an under graduate education to effectively use today's weapons systems.
There was a study done by the military that high school graduates fired 30 percent more misses than soilders with at least some college.
People will become. Cops and soilders for the same reason they always have, they are violent and are alienated from the MoP.
Don't fool yourself about soilders not being as violent as cops. I worked as a military contractor for 10 years, believe me they may not want to be violent like cops but they won't hesitate to kill either
As I already mentioned, minds are emergent phenomena. They can't be engineered away at the atomic level.
More or less you are your physical brain. Anything that isn't that specific lump of neurons and glial cells isn't "you" but a copy.