Show us your PhDs in computer science and neurology and maybe anyone will listen to you. Otherwise you're just another reckless jackass on the Internet who has drunk the media-brewed AI/autonomous car kool-aid. Meanwhile I and people like me who have been workin in high-tech our entire professional careers talk to people who actually know what's going on, and know how little they actually know, and how much all this is being rushed along and hyped to death when there's actually little reality to any of it. Be my guest, though, and blindfold yourself and strap yourself in to a so-called 'self driving car'; we'll just call it 'evolution in action'.
Oh, and by the way: when a troll calls someone else a troll, they're not taken seriously, so don't even bother. Go back to 4chan, kid.
This isn't chess.
This isn't an elevator, that goes up and down in a very limited space.
This isn't a train on a track.
This isn't an airplane (which, by the way, are still required to have qualified pilots).
This isn't Hondas' Asimo or any other robot that just walks or rolls around.
This is something that can go at highways speeds, in ANY direction, out in public, where there are people walking around, riding bicycles, or motorcycles, or skateboards, or driving other vehicles in it's vicinity.
You cannot equate this to anything else, and like too many other people who are not technically qualified to be making judgements or decisions on the subject, you just plain don't understand that this is not in any way, shape, or form, ready to be let loose in the world, and will not be allowed to do so for DECADES, and only a fool would step into a box on wheels with nothing but a seat and no controls and allow it to do as it pleases. YOU and other fools can do so if you like -- and the rest of us will call it 'evolution in action'. Also enjoy your media-brewed 'AI' / 'autonomous self driving car' kool-aid, because this is all hype and little reality.
o Stand by the side of the road
o Wait for a so-called 'driverless car' to approach
o Walk out into the middle of the road holding up a big 'ROAD CLOSED' sign
o LOL
Drivers for Uber needn't worry. So-called 'self-driving, autonomous cars' are not going to be allowed on the roads without a fully educated, trained, qualified, tested, and insured human driver at the full set of traditional vehicle controls, not anytime soon, and there is no such thing as human-level 'artificial intelligence', since we only have some half-baked theories as to how some aspects of our own consciousness and cognition work as of yet, let alone being able to write software to duplicate it, and any so-called 'AI' we have right now are, while clever bits of programming that mimick some aspects of human thought and behavior, are a far cry from being equal or better than a human mind. So no worries.
So-called 'self-driving, autonomous cars' will still not be anywhere near ready for day-to-day public use in five years. Period. Even if by some unbelievable miracle they were, you'd have to be fucked in the head to step into the back seat of a motor vehicle that has no human driver safeguarding your life.
Motor vehicles will always continue to be required to have a full set of manual controls for a human operator, and a fully and properly trained, tested, licensed, and insured human operator will always be required to be behind the wheel at all times.I've said it countless times before, and I'll continue to say it. Until IF and WHEN we have so-called 'artificial intelligence' that is at LEAST the equal in all ways to the human mind, so-called 'machine intelligence' will NOT be allowed sole control of a motor vehicle, there will ALWAYS need to be a human in control at all times. We don't even have a CLUE yet how our own consciousness and self-awareness works, just some half-baked theories, and some half-baked, if clever, software that mimicks some few aspects of how cognition works. If you believe otherwise about any of this then you're sadly misinformed and have been drinking the same kool-aid that the media has been drinking. Bottom line: Don't surrender your drivers license yet, you're still going to need it for the rest of your life.
Considering how much so-called 'smartphone' security resembles a colander more than it does a locked box, seems to me that compromising and taking control of even millions of them to use for such an attack would be relatively trivial to execute.
Welcome, citizens, to the Age of Mass Censorship! Are you triggered constantly by rude, boorish people on the Internet who post rude, boorish things about politics, race, and religion? Does getting all stirred up and being so thoughtlessly yanked out of your comfort zone just plain ruin your endlessly happy, unnaturally positive, SSRI-induced mood? Is hearing about people all over the world and just down the street from you being oppressed, harassed, beaten, cheated, and killed just too much of a downer for you, and curdle the milk in your tea? Well fear not, citizens, now you can just block out all that nasty thought-provoking content with the click of a mouse button! Imagine the serenity of never having to deal with the Real World ever again! Refugees? Deleted! Protestors? Deleted! Terrorism? Deleted! Mass shootings? Deleted! Race-related police shootings? Deleted! Oppressive regimes bombing their own citizens? Deleted! Injustice in your own back yard? Deleted!
Just use those and it's not a problem. "Noah.Boddy@some_throwaway_email.com" can register something like that just as easily as anyone else.
On an tangentially associated subject, anyone know who owns 'somewhere.org' or 'nowhere.org'? I've always wanted email accounts for real at either of those domains.
Humans are not 'made' at all, we evolved, and we're still in the process of evolving. This holds true whether life on Earth was a spontaneous phenomenon or not. Also, creationists are disqualified from this entire conversation due to being in diametric opposition to the entire premise.
If anyone can prove that, and trace it back to whatever race is responsible, then we have something to discuss, otherwise it's just hearsay and speculation. I'm talking about, say, an alien, starfaring race, bringing back the remains of a probe we sent, and confronting us about it..
If there are in fact other spacefaring civilizations out there in our galaxy, what would they think of us willy-nilly tossing our biologicals at random planets? Would they think we're smart and forward-thinking, or would they look at it as arrogant, self-centered, thoughtless, or hostile? Here on Earth (well, at least here in the U.S.) we expect Environment Impact studies done before real estate is developed, because we've learned that not doing so may cause us to do more harm than good. Why shouldn't we adopt the same policy with regard to exoplanets? Observe-and-report first, then consider carefully whether we do anything to 'develop' anything.
Consider the following: 1. Are we really so arrogant as to think that even if we managed to send a human being to an exoplanet capable of sustaining life, that we'd be able to determine with 100% accuracy whether it's lifeless or not? Rhetorical question, the answer is no, and we sure as hell can't send a so-called 'AI' (which we really don't have anyway) that could do any better than a human being could anyway. 2. The lifeless-or-not question aside, how can we be sure that this planet we send it to isn't real estate claimed by some other spacefaring race? Another rhetorical question, because again we can't. We might be invading someone else's property with our unwanted microbes. 3. Even the previous rhetorical questions are rhetorical; it would take hundreds and hundreds of years for any probe to reach any exoplanet we currently know of, and it would take an incredible amount of time after that to receive any sort of data back from the probe indicating it's arrived and seen and done anything there. At the rate we're going, in a few hundred years no one might even be here to receive any such signal, let alone remember how to receive it; at the rate we're going we might be living in a post-apocalyptic world like in Mad Max, sans Charlize Theron of course. 4. The best thing we should do, if we're going to do anything like this at all, is to just send a probe to an exoplanet to observe and report, just like the other probes we've been sending out for decades into our own planetary system. The fact of the matter is, the observations we've made of exoplanets thus far from light-years away are not going to be as accurate or detailed as close-up observations from a probe. Besides, if there are other civilizations out there and perhaps they own one of the planets we're planning on visiting, aren't they more likely to look kindly on it (and us) if it turns out the device we send is obviously there only to look and listen, not drop off something potentially offensive or destructive? If there are in fact other civilizations out there, we can't know how they'd regard some alien spacecraft entering their space with, upon examining it, the intent to drop off some sort of biologicals. They might consider it an attack, and rightly so. Better to not interfere. Besides, we have a lot to learn about our Galaxy and Universe yet, we've hardly even begun to scratch the surface. We've also go a long ways to go before we'd be able to build any craft that would survive such a journey anyway, and in fact having lots of time to debate the subject would also be a good thing, while other space-related technologies are being developed, like the new engine that doesn't require any reaction mass; if it in fact works as advertised, and can be scaled up and refined, then it would be perfectly suited for such a long journey, and in fact would shorten the transit time considerably.
If Facebook is now considered to be a 'mainstay of democratic society' then we don't HAVE a 'democratic society' at all, all we have is a 'walled garden/authoritarian dictatorship'. Facebook does not represent or even listen much at all to what it's users have to say; they are a RESOURCE that Facebook uses to produce PRODUCTS (namely, personal data, which is sold to advertisers, and likely funneled into U.S. Federal Government servers, for use by the intelligence community). Facebook does whatever Facebook wants, and only grudgingly changes it's mind if the cattle (er, I mean users) get too upset about it (because any good farmer knows that Bessie doesn't produce as much milk when she's upset). The only piece of the dictatorial puzzle that's missing for Facebook, is for Facebook use to be mandatory under penalty of law.
There is no 'closing the analog hole', not so long as human beings have ears to hear sounds with. At some point the digital signal must be converted to baseband audio that can be connected to some sort of amplifier connected to a speaker, to create sound waves that the human ear can hear. From the output of the DAC forward, it's all analog, and the RIAA can suck it because there's nothing they can do to prevent that. If anything moving to all-digital will likely make it easier to pirate audio, because now someone will just create a purely digital device that masquerades as an 'approved' device, and copies digital audio directly. Even without that, which is a less-trivial work-around, all anyone has to do is tap into the baseband audio output of whatever device Apple supplies you with. It'll almost have to have the same headphone port they're trying so hard to get rid of, because they'll lose customers if they can't use whatever headphones they want, and if they can't connect their iPhone to a stereo amplifier for room-filling music. So one way or another there will always be baseband audio, and nothing Apple or the RIAA or anyone else can do will prevent that, short of re-engineering human beings so they're born without ears to hear with. So, everyone needs to stop worrying about this. When they decide to not provide any audio of any kind, or (in some distant, extremely dystopian future) manage to require licensing of all audio equipment, then you can worry and be upset about it. Having to use a dongle of some sort isn't anywhere near as bad as some things they could have decided to do.
Yeah sure thing buddy, natural selection has just done such a TERRIBLE job before now. People like you make me laugh ruefully; you make it sound like we've been dying by the billions every year since the dawn of time because we can't muck around with our own genes. Meanwhile you have NO idea what you're talking about. The sadly funny thing is you're also the kind of person who will protest the arrogance of science if it all goes terribly wrong, and will probably get religion and start praying to God for deliverance if everything went totally to shit and humanity was doomed. Good thing people like you aren't in charge of deciding what is and is not allowed when it comes to complex subjects like this, we'd have borked ourselves good by now.
Or, say, a virus that is spread by mosquitos initially, that causes little to no symptoms in the person being bitten, but that then can easily spread to, say, pregnant women, whose fetuses' brains and other neurological functions fail to develop properly? I think it might already be too late, friend.
What no one seems to infer is that I am advocating for very, very cautious exploration of this technology, rather than just jumping in feet-first, like was done with GMO foods. I for one do not believe GMO foods were researched long or hard enough before being pressured to being taken to the marketplace. Now of course it's too late to do anything about that, it's already proliferating through the food chain, and we'll just have to wait and see if in 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now, something bad happens because of that. If some human-genome equivalent of Monsanto, for instance, somehow rushes through modifications of human genes, and manages to get it legalized? Who knows what will happen. Or, as someone else proposed, some country like China (or who knows who) just decides to rush ahead themselves, to gain an advantage over the rest of the world, and screw the long-term consequences? They could, as you say, create some disease that we can't cope with. As-is we don't fully grasp what all our genes do yet; it would be foolish in the extreme to start mucking with them without really knowing what does what. As previously stated, this is not Amateur Night-level stuff we're talking about. Anyone having the ability to easily edit our genetic code is scary to say the least.
You're right: I don't know what anyone knows. Neither do you. However: You insulted me, and I told you to Fuck Off. You wholly and fully deserved that, and furthermore if you don't like that, you can shove it up your ass.
Oh and by the way? All anyone HAS on this subject is rhetoric. We don't have a hundred years of experience directly editing the human genome, so nobody can say they're an 'expert' on the subject without looking foolish. Certainly some internet jackass like you can't claim to know more than anyone else, and therefore anything YOU have to say IN FAVOR OF the practice is laughable; I on the other hand am advocating for CAUTION in the extreme, which is reasonable and logical. So once again: You can shove it up your ass.
Further, if another nation edits genes and becomes a military threat, or even an economic threat, because of it, then the USA may fill obligated to "keep up with the edited Joneses" and participate also.
Sadly, you are probably right. Some governement like in China, that doesn't really seem to value human life as much as other countries do, would probably just dive right in, try to make a 'super soldier' or somesuch, in a bid to grab more power in the world. Nevermind the possible consequences. Then other countries will follow suit so they don't get gobbled up. Next thing you know? Maybe extinction-level event, brought on by genetic editing that fucks up a few generations down the road.
Trial and error served humanity well up to this point, there is no reason to expect that it won't work in this case.
Oh look, another fucktard who can't see past his own nose. I suggest you take up juggling running chainsaws then. Don't bother practicing with balls or sticks or anything less than running chainsaws, otherwise you're just giving in to FUD and are a cowardly pussy. Just jump right in with the runnign chainsaws; what could possibly go wrong? You're yet another one who just proves my point for me in all-too spectacular fashion: you have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to realize your knowledge and wisdom are insufficient.
If the prospect itself is too scary, you can go back to living in trees, or just crawl back into the ocean if the who prospect of life on land was a bit much as well.
Fuck you, asshole. Know what you sound like? You sound like some fucktarded teenage boy, mouthing off to his father, when being told that $SOMETHING he's going to do is fucktardedly stupid and that he should just stop. All you or anyone else who responds like that is doing, is proving my point for me. You don't have the knowledge to know you don't have enough knowledge, you don't have the wisdom to know your wisdom is insufficient, therefore you scoff at anyone and everyone who tells you to slow the hell down.
We do not have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be directly editing out genome. Just like with so many other technologies, we rush into using them, not thinking far enough ahead, and not paying enough attention to what can go wrong. We barely have scratched the surface of how life even works, let alone even having a fraction of a percent of knowledge of what our own genes, in their totallity, actualy do, yet we already want to 'edit' them, just because we can.. Never mind the possible consequences. Never mind the countless cautionary tales that have been written over the decades, we're more than willing to just push ahead, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. Never mind that the consequences could be dire for the entire human race.
I'll say it again, louder, for the benefit of the usual internet idiots who can't be bothered to read: We DO NOT have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be editing our own genome! Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
All you need is to vote for the guy who will tax the rich with NO EXEMPTIONS
Okay, now you're talking about REAL science fiction, since no such political animal exists, or at least doesn't exist for long, because the rich will fund the candidates that will do things the way THEY want them done, and pay more to discredit and destroy the candidates that don't. You want to change the status quo? Maybe it's time to get the guillotine out again.
Slashdot Mirror
Show us your PhDs in computer science and neurology and maybe anyone will listen to you. Otherwise you're just another reckless jackass on the Internet who has drunk the media-brewed AI/autonomous car kool-aid. Meanwhile I and people like me who have been workin in high-tech our entire professional careers talk to people who actually know what's going on, and know how little they actually know, and how much all this is being rushed along and hyped to death when there's actually little reality to any of it. Be my guest, though, and blindfold yourself and strap yourself in to a so-called 'self driving car'; we'll just call it 'evolution in action'.
Oh, and by the way: when a troll calls someone else a troll, they're not taken seriously, so don't even bother. Go back to 4chan, kid.
This isn't chess.
This isn't an elevator, that goes up and down in a very limited space.
This isn't a train on a track.
This isn't an airplane (which, by the way, are still required to have qualified pilots).
This isn't Hondas' Asimo or any other robot that just walks or rolls around.
This is something that can go at highways speeds, in ANY direction, out in public, where there are people walking around, riding bicycles, or motorcycles, or skateboards, or driving other vehicles in it's vicinity.
You cannot equate this to anything else, and like too many other people who are not technically qualified to be making judgements or decisions on the subject, you just plain don't understand that this is not in any way, shape, or form, ready to be let loose in the world, and will not be allowed to do so for DECADES, and only a fool would step into a box on wheels with nothing but a seat and no controls and allow it to do as it pleases. YOU and other fools can do so if you like -- and the rest of us will call it 'evolution in action'. Also enjoy your media-brewed 'AI' / 'autonomous self driving car' kool-aid, because this is all hype and little reality.
o Stand by the side of the road
o Wait for a so-called 'driverless car' to approach
o Walk out into the middle of the road holding up a big 'ROAD CLOSED' sign
o LOL
Will work every time.
You don't realize exactly how little you understand of the subject, do you? Read this and this.
Drivers for Uber needn't worry. So-called 'self-driving, autonomous cars' are not going to be allowed on the roads without a fully educated, trained, qualified, tested, and insured human driver at the full set of traditional vehicle controls, not anytime soon, and there is no such thing as human-level 'artificial intelligence', since we only have some half-baked theories as to how some aspects of our own consciousness and cognition work as of yet, let alone being able to write software to duplicate it, and any so-called 'AI' we have right now are, while clever bits of programming that mimick some aspects of human thought and behavior, are a far cry from being equal or better than a human mind. So no worries.
BULLSHIT.
So-called 'self-driving, autonomous cars' will still not be anywhere near ready for day-to-day public use in five years. Period. Even if by some unbelievable miracle they were, you'd have to be fucked in the head to step into the back seat of a motor vehicle that has no human driver safeguarding your life.
Motor vehicles will always continue to be required to have a full set of manual controls for a human operator, and a fully and properly trained, tested, licensed, and insured human operator will always be required to be behind the wheel at all times. I've said it countless times before, and I'll continue to say it. Until IF and WHEN we have so-called 'artificial intelligence' that is at LEAST the equal in all ways to the human mind, so-called 'machine intelligence' will NOT be allowed sole control of a motor vehicle, there will ALWAYS need to be a human in control at all times. We don't even have a CLUE yet how our own consciousness and self-awareness works, just some half-baked theories, and some half-baked, if clever, software that mimicks some few aspects of how cognition works. If you believe otherwise about any of this then you're sadly misinformed and have been drinking the same kool-aid that the media has been drinking. Bottom line: Don't surrender your drivers license yet, you're still going to need it for the rest of your life.
Considering how much so-called 'smartphone' security resembles a colander more than it does a locked box, seems to me that compromising and taking control of even millions of them to use for such an attack would be relatively trivial to execute.
Welcome, citizens, to the Age of Mass Censorship! Are you triggered constantly by rude, boorish people on the Internet who post rude, boorish things about politics, race, and religion? Does getting all stirred up and being so thoughtlessly yanked out of your comfort zone just plain ruin your endlessly happy, unnaturally positive, SSRI-induced mood? Is hearing about people all over the world and just down the street from you being oppressed, harassed, beaten, cheated, and killed just too much of a downer for you, and curdle the milk in your tea? Well fear not, citizens, now you can just block out all that nasty thought-provoking content with the click of a mouse button! Imagine the serenity of never having to deal with the Real World ever again! Refugees? Deleted! Protestors? Deleted! Terrorism? Deleted! Mass shootings? Deleted! Race-related police shootings? Deleted! Oppressive regimes bombing their own citizens? Deleted! Injustice in your own back yard? Deleted!
Just use those and it's not a problem. "Noah.Boddy@some_throwaway_email.com" can register something like that just as easily as anyone else.
On an tangentially associated subject, anyone know who owns 'somewhere.org' or 'nowhere.org'? I've always wanted email accounts for real at either of those domains.
Humans are not 'made' at all, we evolved, and we're still in the process of evolving. This holds true whether life on Earth was a spontaneous phenomenon or not. Also, creationists are disqualified from this entire conversation due to being in diametric opposition to the entire premise.
Please restrict your low-quality bait to 4chan.
If anyone can prove that, and trace it back to whatever race is responsible, then we have something to discuss, otherwise it's just hearsay and speculation. I'm talking about, say, an alien, starfaring race, bringing back the remains of a probe we sent, and confronting us about it..
If there are in fact other spacefaring civilizations out there in our galaxy, what would they think of us willy-nilly tossing our biologicals at random planets? Would they think we're smart and forward-thinking, or would they look at it as arrogant, self-centered, thoughtless, or hostile? Here on Earth (well, at least here in the U.S.) we expect Environment Impact studies done before real estate is developed, because we've learned that not doing so may cause us to do more harm than good. Why shouldn't we adopt the same policy with regard to exoplanets? Observe-and-report first, then consider carefully whether we do anything to 'develop' anything.
Consider the following:
1. Are we really so arrogant as to think that even if we managed to send a human being to an exoplanet capable of sustaining life, that we'd be able to determine with 100% accuracy whether it's lifeless or not? Rhetorical question, the answer is no, and we sure as hell can't send a so-called 'AI' (which we really don't have anyway) that could do any better than a human being could anyway.
2. The lifeless-or-not question aside, how can we be sure that this planet we send it to isn't real estate claimed by some other spacefaring race? Another rhetorical question, because again we can't. We might be invading someone else's property with our unwanted microbes.
3. Even the previous rhetorical questions are rhetorical; it would take hundreds and hundreds of years for any probe to reach any exoplanet we currently know of, and it would take an incredible amount of time after that to receive any sort of data back from the probe indicating it's arrived and seen and done anything there. At the rate we're going, in a few hundred years no one might even be here to receive any such signal, let alone remember how to receive it; at the rate we're going we might be living in a post-apocalyptic world like in Mad Max, sans Charlize Theron of course.
4. The best thing we should do, if we're going to do anything like this at all, is to just send a probe to an exoplanet to observe and report, just like the other probes we've been sending out for decades into our own planetary system. The fact of the matter is, the observations we've made of exoplanets thus far from light-years away are not going to be as accurate or detailed as close-up observations from a probe. Besides, if there are other civilizations out there and perhaps they own one of the planets we're planning on visiting, aren't they more likely to look kindly on it (and us) if it turns out the device we send is obviously there only to look and listen, not drop off something potentially offensive or destructive? If there are in fact other civilizations out there, we can't know how they'd regard some alien spacecraft entering their space with, upon examining it, the intent to drop off some sort of biologicals. They might consider it an attack, and rightly so. Better to not interfere. Besides, we have a lot to learn about our Galaxy and Universe yet, we've hardly even begun to scratch the surface. We've also go a long ways to go before we'd be able to build any craft that would survive such a journey anyway, and in fact having lots of time to debate the subject would also be a good thing, while other space-related technologies are being developed, like the new engine that doesn't require any reaction mass; if it in fact works as advertised, and can be scaled up and refined, then it would be perfectly suited for such a long journey, and in fact would shorten the transit time considerably.
If Facebook is now considered to be a 'mainstay of democratic society' then we don't HAVE a 'democratic society' at all, all we have is a 'walled garden/authoritarian dictatorship'. Facebook does not represent or even listen much at all to what it's users have to say; they are a RESOURCE that Facebook uses to produce PRODUCTS (namely, personal data, which is sold to advertisers, and likely funneled into U.S. Federal Government servers, for use by the intelligence community). Facebook does whatever Facebook wants, and only grudgingly changes it's mind if the cattle (er, I mean users) get too upset about it (because any good farmer knows that Bessie doesn't produce as much milk when she's upset). The only piece of the dictatorial puzzle that's missing for Facebook, is for Facebook use to be mandatory under penalty of law.
There is no 'closing the analog hole', not so long as human beings have ears to hear sounds with. At some point the digital signal must be converted to baseband audio that can be connected to some sort of amplifier connected to a speaker, to create sound waves that the human ear can hear. From the output of the DAC forward, it's all analog, and the RIAA can suck it because there's nothing they can do to prevent that. If anything moving to all-digital will likely make it easier to pirate audio, because now someone will just create a purely digital device that masquerades as an 'approved' device, and copies digital audio directly. Even without that, which is a less-trivial work-around, all anyone has to do is tap into the baseband audio output of whatever device Apple supplies you with. It'll almost have to have the same headphone port they're trying so hard to get rid of, because they'll lose customers if they can't use whatever headphones they want, and if they can't connect their iPhone to a stereo amplifier for room-filling music. So one way or another there will always be baseband audio, and nothing Apple or the RIAA or anyone else can do will prevent that, short of re-engineering human beings so they're born without ears to hear with. So, everyone needs to stop worrying about this. When they decide to not provide any audio of any kind, or (in some distant, extremely dystopian future) manage to require licensing of all audio equipment, then you can worry and be upset about it. Having to use a dongle of some sort isn't anywhere near as bad as some things they could have decided to do.
Yeah sure thing buddy, natural selection has just done such a TERRIBLE job before now. People like you make me laugh ruefully; you make it sound like we've been dying by the billions every year since the dawn of time because we can't muck around with our own genes. Meanwhile you have NO idea what you're talking about. The sadly funny thing is you're also the kind of person who will protest the arrogance of science if it all goes terribly wrong, and will probably get religion and start praying to God for deliverance if everything went totally to shit and humanity was doomed. Good thing people like you aren't in charge of deciding what is and is not allowed when it comes to complex subjects like this, we'd have borked ourselves good by now.
Or, say, a virus that is spread by mosquitos initially, that causes little to no symptoms in the person being bitten, but that then can easily spread to, say, pregnant women, whose fetuses' brains and other neurological functions fail to develop properly? I think it might already be too late, friend.
What no one seems to infer is that I am advocating for very, very cautious exploration of this technology, rather than just jumping in feet-first, like was done with GMO foods. I for one do not believe GMO foods were researched long or hard enough before being pressured to being taken to the marketplace. Now of course it's too late to do anything about that, it's already proliferating through the food chain, and we'll just have to wait and see if in 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now, something bad happens because of that. If some human-genome equivalent of Monsanto, for instance, somehow rushes through modifications of human genes, and manages to get it legalized? Who knows what will happen. Or, as someone else proposed, some country like China (or who knows who) just decides to rush ahead themselves, to gain an advantage over the rest of the world, and screw the long-term consequences? They could, as you say, create some disease that we can't cope with. As-is we don't fully grasp what all our genes do yet; it would be foolish in the extreme to start mucking with them without really knowing what does what. As previously stated, this is not Amateur Night-level stuff we're talking about. Anyone having the ability to easily edit our genetic code is scary to say the least.
You're right: I don't know what anyone knows. Neither do you. However: You insulted me, and I told you to Fuck Off. You wholly and fully deserved that, and furthermore if you don't like that, you can shove it up your ass.
Oh and by the way? All anyone HAS on this subject is rhetoric. We don't have a hundred years of experience directly editing the human genome, so nobody can say they're an 'expert' on the subject without looking foolish. Certainly some internet jackass like you can't claim to know more than anyone else, and therefore anything YOU have to say IN FAVOR OF the practice is laughable; I on the other hand am advocating for CAUTION in the extreme, which is reasonable and logical. So once again: You can shove it up your ass.
Further, if another nation edits genes and becomes a military threat, or even an economic threat, because of it, then the USA may fill obligated to "keep up with the edited Joneses" and participate also.
Sadly, you are probably right. Some governement like in China, that doesn't really seem to value human life as much as other countries do, would probably just dive right in, try to make a 'super soldier' or somesuch, in a bid to grab more power in the world. Nevermind the possible consequences. Then other countries will follow suit so they don't get gobbled up. Next thing you know? Maybe extinction-level event, brought on by genetic editing that fucks up a few generations down the road.
Experience, of course, comes from making bad choices.
Your 'bad choices' might very well lead to an extiction-level event for humanity.
Trial and error served humanity well up to this point, there is no reason to expect that it won't work in this case.
Oh look, another fucktard who can't see past his own nose. I suggest you take up juggling running chainsaws then. Don't bother practicing with balls or sticks or anything less than running chainsaws, otherwise you're just giving in to FUD and are a cowardly pussy. Just jump right in with the runnign chainsaws; what could possibly go wrong? You're yet another one who just proves my point for me in all-too spectacular fashion: you have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to realize your knowledge and wisdom are insufficient.
If the prospect itself is too scary, you can go back to living in trees, or just crawl back into the ocean if the who prospect of life on land was a bit much as well.
Fuck you, asshole. Know what you sound like? You sound like some fucktarded teenage boy, mouthing off to his father, when being told that $SOMETHING he's going to do is fucktardedly stupid and that he should just stop. All you or anyone else who responds like that is doing, is proving my point for me. You don't have the knowledge to know you don't have enough knowledge, you don't have the wisdom to know your wisdom is insufficient, therefore you scoff at anyone and everyone who tells you to slow the hell down.
We do not have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be directly editing out genome. Just like with so many other technologies, we rush into using them, not thinking far enough ahead, and not paying enough attention to what can go wrong. We barely have scratched the surface of how life even works, let alone even having a fraction of a percent of knowledge of what our own genes, in their totallity, actualy do, yet we already want to 'edit' them, just because we can.. Never mind the possible consequences. Never mind the countless cautionary tales that have been written over the decades, we're more than willing to just push ahead, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. Never mind that the consequences could be dire for the entire human race.
I'll say it again, louder, for the benefit of the usual internet idiots who can't be bothered to read:
We DO NOT have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be editing our own genome! Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
All you need is to vote for the guy who will tax the rich with NO EXEMPTIONS
Okay, now you're talking about REAL science fiction, since no such political animal exists, or at least doesn't exist for long, because the rich will fund the candidates that will do things the way THEY want them done, and pay more to discredit and destroy the candidates that don't. You want to change the status quo? Maybe it's time to get the guillotine out again.