We have already genetically engineered cows to not produce fat but instead just produce muscle.
It isn't an ideal mod for most humans because they look like roid freaks. But it shows how the modification is already within our technological grasp.
I believe what they did was turned off a single gene that produces the fat. The gene was first discovered in dogs I think. Some of them had randomly mutated this gene being off and thus looked like insane body builder dogs. Their genome was studied and we found what had happened. Then we applied it to cows to see if the cattle industry wanted cows that only produced meat. No fat. ONLY lean meat and lots of it.
You might as well give that line of argument up. People in big cities think it is practical to fuck with the automotive industry or gas supply because they have a lot of mass transit.
People that live outside the cities need cars, trucks, etc. Need them. Their communities don't work without them.
And here you might reply "so what, fuck them"... the problem with that is that you need them. They're providing you food, raw materials... and really too many things to go into right now.
So no. We're not doing away with the automobile. Ever. No. *gets out newspaper and rolls it up* Don't make me smack you on the nose;)
This anti automobile argument is unworkable. Just drop it.
That's at best speculative. We have a better knowledge of extinction rates today then we can possibly extrapolate from the fossil record. Not all species for example are captured in the fossil record and even if they were we haven't found them all.
So you don't know with great accuracy how great the background excintinction rate is until you look at this period in the fossil record of a few million years in the future. Then you can compare the detectable species from the record that no longer exist with previous eras.
The other issue with your theory is that it is based on Drake Equation.
The basic concept is that you take take the you take the current number of stars in your area of the galaxy and extrapolate that by comparing density and volume to the rest of the galaxy to get the number of stars.
Then you assume a probability for planets
Then you assume probability for the number of planets.
Then you assume a probability for the number of worlds with liquid water.
Then you assume a probability of the right chemistry for life.
Then you assume a probability for whether life will evolve.
Then you assume a probability for whether that life will become complex.
Then you assume a probability for if the life will be intelligent.
Then you assume a probability for if the intelligent life will form some kind of civilization.
Then you assume a probability for the life to form a starfaring interstellar civilization.
Did you see what happened about a million times in there?
Anyway, Drake's equation is not valid science but it is frequently used by environmental activists. What they'll do is they'll pick an acre of land... often one under development... they're building a parking lot on it or something. And then they'll cite every species that doesn't live there anymore after the parking lot to be extinct IN THAT AREA. Then they'll assume how much of that happens, then they'll assume how many species die out because of X Y and Z, etc. It's Drake's equation and its bullshit.
Because I'm sure you're going to call bullshit on me... allow me to name drop someone respectable that agrees with me: http://www.s8int.com/crichton....
Its a fun speech. Whether you agree or not you should be entertained.
The point is that you're relying largely on the opinion of lobbyists and activists for your information. They're not reliable because they're inherently biased.
So the whole extinction thing is one I don't especially buy. Are some species going extinct? Sure, welcome to planet earth. That's what the world calls Tuesday. It happens all the time. Niches close and open and species either adapt or die.
There are a lot of species that are interacting with humanity for example because we create a lot of niches. Our cities are full of pigeons and rats and various insects that feed upon our leavings. And while you probably don't think these species are cute and cuddly, they are adaptable. Don't see nature the way a child sees it. Look at nature the way that NATURE looks at it. All nature cares about is whether you propagate your genes. The dodo was a loser. The spectrum of pathogens that are the common cold are winners.
Now maybe you'll say "I don't like the kinds of life that are adapting and I'd like to make them less gross, filthy, and generally nasty. Okay. How do we do that?
The first thing we have to appreciate is that these are species that WANT to integrate with humanity. These guys as unwanted as they are... are the animals that wish to sign on with humanity. They want into our supply network. Okay, lets make that symbiotic instead of parasitic. Just as people integrated dogs, cats, cows, chickens, etc into our world we can integrate pigeons, rats, crows, cockroaches, etc into the system as well. And in some cases that might mean some genet
First, I'm not faulting the food companies from trying to make food tasty. That's fucking dumb.
Second, this only really addresses highly processed foods and there are a lot of fat people that don't eat that stuff.
Third, it doesn't take high math to figure out that humans like sugars and fats. Chiefs have been doing that for time out of mind. Look at a lot of traditional cooking and the stuff you feed to the rich and powerful was all about dense fruit sauces and heavy creams and fatty gravies and stuff.
I'm not interested in giving an outlet for hatred of corporations in this issue since it is a distraction.
The corps are dangerous not in that they are evil but rather that they are myopic. That said, they're extremely useful and our society... or any conceivable society of relative prosperity would be impossible without them. I believe that solving problems is easier if you're really rich. And I think solving problems if you're really poor is really hard.
So I'm going to protect our wealth as a general hedge against unforeseen nonsense because if we're rich we can deal with most problems a great deal more easily.
The anti corporate, anti capitalist thing has grown tiresome. A lot of that crap started as a psyops attack on the US from the USSR. Literally. You can cite the soviet archives which are public record at this point.
Its tiresome. The USSR is gone. Capitalism won. Let it go.
You're conflating being purely logical with being more intelligent. I didn't say that.
As to innovation and drum circles. That is your opinion. My opinion is a matter of record and it is not disingenuous. You you say we've done bad things? What? I assume this is environmental stuff? That's massively over hyped. To the contrary, the most technologically advanced societies have superior environmental conditions than do more primitive societies. The deforestation in Africa for example is driven by a lack of fertilizer and fuel. If they had an electrical grid and could afford fertilizer, they'd not need to do that.
As to your theory that humans will suddenly stagnate before we do the things you don't like or all kill ourselves. Does that not seem just a little convenient to you? Why didn't we do it earlier?
I'm sure we will stagnate at times. Possibly for thousands of years. Its happened before and it will happen again. We will know dark ages. And the legends, surviving records, pockets of civilization, etc will seed the next golden age. Progress will continue.
You want to believe we're all going to kill ourselves because we're "unclean" and don't abide by your little religion? Believe what you like.
Every religion has their judgement day, their Ragnarok, their whatever. Yours is little more than the same old tired boogyman supposed to cow the peasants into submission and fear.
I am not afraid your fantasies. I don't take your religion any more seriously than I take any other. In fact, religions are often useful. They're good for controlling people. The pity with your little faith is that it is largely controlled by a group of genocidal maniacs. I've listened to the environmental lectures that end with "oh yeah and we have 5 billion too many humans and here is how we get rid of them." And I'm supposed to hear that and find it reasonable.
Yours is the faith of doom and self destruction. Have no patience or respect for it.
Which is why spell checkers are considered the masters of the english language.
You're conflating an engineering question with an artistic and aesthetic one.
First off, there are a lot of genes that are known to just fuck up the human body and have no value otherwise.
You know there is such a thing as genetic disorders right? This is how we're going to get genetic engineering through people like you. We're going to help the sick. You're easily manipulated by emotion and pathos. So we're going to show you some sick children. Are you going to let little timmy die or are you going to let a gene theopist tweak his genes to save his life?
See? Even when I'm honest about it you know you're fucked. You can't stop this.
That sort of thing will not be stopped. Then you're going to get billionaires and vane people asking for longer life and bigger tits. Are you going to be able to stop that? Even if you try in one country you'll just drive the market over seas. Will a billionaire set up a genetics lab outside your territory to extend his own life? Yep.
Will some bimbo fly around the world to get her genes tweaked so her skin is wrinkle free and her tits stand up? Yep.
And once the trailblazers clear the way, the rest of society will ask "why not me?"... and it just goes from there.
You cannot stop it.
All you can do is waste the time of those that would make it happen faster. But you CANNOT stop it.
So complain and equivocate all you like... its happening. The only decision is if you want it to happen slowly over time where you have some control over how it is introduced... Or if you'd prefer for it to happen in unpredictable bursts where you have no control what so ever.
Choose. Those are your two options. I know you want a third one. You don't have one. Sorry. This is reality.
No one said we could engineer complex life from scratch in the next ten years. To say we are outdoing billions of years of evolution, we'd have to make an original work. No one is doing that. So your comparison is invalid.
That's the comparison you just made. Which is stupid and a strawman.
So you can go fuck yourself just from that comment. Sideways with a rake is preferred.;)
But moving on, the actual thing I'm talking about is EDITING an existing work. Correcting spelling errors... grammatical errors... possibly changing the ending of a chapter or two.
Most of this will be flipping switches. Certain genes are set to default to 0 and we want them to default to 1 some genes are set to 1 and we want them default to 0. Nearly all of it is that.
Now shit for brains... come at me with another pathetic strawman. I'm positively hard with anticipation... I'm sitting here with a raging fever... the walls are weaving in and out... melting around me... and I'm still smarter than you. In a nobler age, people like you would serve as my foot rest.
Fair point, you'd have to trigger a lot of things.
One thing I'd like to include in that would be bone mineralization.
This is a big thing in martial arts. They spend a lot of time hitting things. All the time. And it has an effect on their bones. Their bones get harder. A lot harder. And that means when they actually start hitting things in fights, it hurts people more because they're getting hit with harder bones. Also the person hitting them gets hurt less by the impacts because their bones are a great deal stronger.
We have many examples of people that have issues with bone mineralization. Women mostly... mostly older women. Old men get issues with it too. Anyway, while I take your point, I'd just say that of course you'd include those tweaks as well.
Basically trigger all the stress related genes so the body defaults to a healthy norm. And going super human with it is not unreasonable either.
What? If we could be trusted to do it ethically we wouldn't need it?
How does that make any sense?
We wouldn't need regeneration, longer life, higher intelligence, greater health... if we were ehtical?
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
See, this is why I have so little patience for hippy dippy Luddites. You're not rational.
Would we not need fire if we were ethical? Would we not need the wheel if we were ethical? Would we not need antibiotics if we were ethical?
I really regret the retirement of the old Stocks. The sort of stupidity coming out of your mouth should be answered by locking in the middle of the public square and letting children draw dicks on your forehead. This is just absurdly stupid.
I guess it relates to intelligence but I've seen some very intelligent people that had some massive blind spots when it came to ideology. So that is probably unavoidable without even more extensive engineering.
Something the evolutionary psychologists say is that there is a reason we are rational about reality but not rational about government and society.
It has to do with gene propagation. If you're not rational about reality you'll die when you try to eat rocks or something. If you're rational about society then you might question the king or the dogma of your time and that could lead to gene death.
So we've been bred to be rational on reality and irrational on society. Your society... like most... has some irrational aspects to it.
I'm personally a cynic... I don't really have a society. Pros and cons to that. But one of the pros is that I don't slavishly buy into dogma that isn't of my own making.
As to your suggestion that I could be a fascist... So your next move is to trigger Godwin's law?
Good work, fuckwit. *laughs*
God... I don't know whether to be impressed with how well I peg people off the bat or if I should be depressed that you people are so fucking predictable.
There you go. You know a lot more about this specific incident than I do, but I still predicted accurately that there were some unstated hijinks involved. I should note again, that I didn't claim the British were believers in Win-Win. This is an American belief... The British empire believed in the more traditional "win-lose" system.
The reason America believes in Win Win is not just altruism but what we think of long term wisdom. First, when people lose they are rarely destroyed. Which means they are left resentful and become long term enemies because you've slighted them again and again.
Next, nations inside your influence web should profit and be strong while countries outside your influence web should be weak. If we're constantly fucking over everyone that listens to us then those inside our influence web will be weaker than those that do not listen to us. That is our allies have to profit to stay strong.
Third, you don't want to balance your entire hegemony on ONE thing. The fear of military reprisals works only so long as you have the military force to back up that position. Lets say you get into a big war such as happened to the British empire in WW1 and WW2. What happened to their empire? It fell apart because the primary thing holding together... the British image of invincibility... was gone. We want powers to stay with us for as many reasons as possible. Like us if possible. Like our culture. Profit from our trade. Like our technology. Anything and everything at once.
Its like a table with at least a dozen legs. Take one away for a time and the table still stands. A table with one leg cannot survive having that leg removed.
As to what you didn't know and now know... now you know.:)
As to things happening because I say so... no... The sun is going to rise in the east because if you understand the forces at play you know it will. You also know it will set in the west.
It doesn't do it because I say so. It does it because if you know what you're talking about you know it is inevitable.
There is an advantage to doing it. You're afraid of new technologies that likely were in scifi horror movies that spooked you. And so you and people like you will be afraid of it. Just like the people that thought atom bombs would ignite the atmosphere.
You're wrong. The tech will be exploited and employed. The only thing slowing it down is people like you and you can't stop it. You can only slow it down. And will the next generation that comes after have the same fears? Probably not. Which means when you die... it will accelerate in its exploitation and employment.
You cannot stop it. Not because I say but because YOU CANNOT STOP IT.
As to us being done, yes... you're not rational so I have no opportunity to reason with you. Your position is based on ideology and dogma. I don't respect it and give it no quarter.
As to fruits, if you talk to body builders they'll explain to you that there is actually a huge difference. No one has more empericial evidence of how food and exercise effects the body than the body building community. True, their objective is to get huge not healthy. But that doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.
Something that they are very big into for example are "all fruit" diets. Not permanently. They shift diets around a lot to break through size barriers. If they stop getting bigger they consult their community and shift what they're doing... and that will work for awhile and then they often have to do something else.
As to too many calories, that's fine... the type of calories however are also relevant. I don't think I ever implied that we don't eat too much.
In fact, in my first post I said that we eat too much. So who do you think you're enlightening with that comment? You're preaching to the converted.
Necessity, inevitability, normalization, familiarization, and the abandoning of antiquated beliefs that are no longer relevant in a new context.
So here you think YOUR beliefs are going to survive which are far more the status quo than mine. And your position is based mostly on the false belief that you can stop it, that it isn't normal, that you're not familiar with it in your daily life, that that you are still holding to your moral and ethical codes even as it becomes obvious that they're becoming obsolete.
I'm afraid not. Your view will give way to mine just as surely as people lost the belief that taking pictures of people stole their souls.
You have a problem with gene engineering? That view will become quaint. And largely ignored when it can be and reviled when it imposes or slows down the development of the technology.
Modern mouse right now fed food linked to the human food chain RIGHT NOW... versus some hermetically sealed mouse eating hydroponically grown whatever.
And while you're at it, have some of the mice in one temperature environment and some others in another temperature environment.
I do actually. I call him "bingo"... and he does appear in most places I post eventually.
Have you never been trolled? Anyway, Bingo follows me around and makes really stupid hostile comments. And I'll call him bingo and he doesn't even react to that anymore. If it were a different guy he'd say 'why are you calling me bingo" or something. He did that the first couple times and he just takes it in stride now.:)
No they're not because you don't have to hire as many of them.
This is something you learn very quickly in development or any kind of skill. Pros cost more per hour but they're a LOT faster. First they don't fuck around trying to figure out how shit works. They already know. Second, they know a lot of tricks and short cuts to speed up production. Third... ever seen a master painter work? He doesn't make mistakes. The paint goes where he wants it to go and no where else. It looks exactly the way he wants it to look. The first time. Every time.
Someone that knows what they're doing with security is the same way. There's no fucking around. There's no need for a huge IT staff so all the fucking chimps and try to randomly type in a Shakespearean sonnet. He doesn't need any of that. He just does what has to happen the first time. He's fast. He's efficient. And he's effective.
Masters have cons. They expect respect. You start mouthing off to a master in his field about his field and he's going to cut your legs off.
But if you want it done right, you hire one of those guys and be glad to have them. To economize you put some lower skilled techs under him to be his assistants and they learn his trade over time.
It is a tried and true system for vocational skill transfer.
Stop for a moment and rise above the flow of time. See out 10,000... 100,000 years. You honestly think someone isn't going to do this?
Come now.
And who does it first will largely depend on whether relatively law abiding democratic societies pull the trigger and do it first.
Look at the Soviets or the Nazis or the Imperial japanese. They weren't even that long ago and each had a certain technical proficiency and gave not so many fucks about what YOU happened to think about it.
The Nazis were doing eugenics. The Imperial japanese were using prisoners of war for germ warfare experiments... and the list of nonsense the soviets got up could and does have many books written about it.
If we do it, and we do it ethically... then we can usher this technology into the human sphere in a positive and non-destructive way.
But if you try to stop it then all you're doing is leaving it for those that won't care to do it instead.
But it will happen.
Once you understand that it will happen... once you truly process that reality... your perspective on the issue can't help but change.
Slashdot Mirror
why do you care? I haven't eaten trans fat in decades and I haven't even been trying.
What has transfat in it that you want?
We have already genetically engineered cows to not produce fat but instead just produce muscle.
It isn't an ideal mod for most humans because they look like roid freaks. But it shows how the modification is already within our technological grasp.
I believe what they did was turned off a single gene that produces the fat. The gene was first discovered in dogs I think. Some of them had randomly mutated this gene being off and thus looked like insane body builder dogs. Their genome was studied and we found what had happened. Then we applied it to cows to see if the cattle industry wanted cows that only produced meat. No fat. ONLY lean meat and lots of it.
that's an interesting observation. I think that should be examined. Possibly nicotine could be introduced as a supplement.
You might as well give that line of argument up. People in big cities think it is practical to fuck with the automotive industry or gas supply because they have a lot of mass transit.
People that live outside the cities need cars, trucks, etc. Need them. Their communities don't work without them.
And here you might reply "so what, fuck them"... the problem with that is that you need them. They're providing you food, raw materials... and really too many things to go into right now.
So no. We're not doing away with the automobile. Ever. No. *gets out newspaper and rolls it up* Don't make me smack you on the nose ;)
This anti automobile argument is unworkable. Just drop it.
How much starch was in the diet and what were the portions like and how much exercise did the people get?
Conflating "gym" with exercise implies that that is the only way you can get exercise. That's clearly silly.
That's at best speculative. We have a better knowledge of extinction rates today then we can possibly extrapolate from the fossil record. Not all species for example are captured in the fossil record and even if they were we haven't found them all.
So you don't know with great accuracy how great the background excintinction rate is until you look at this period in the fossil record of a few million years in the future. Then you can compare the detectable species from the record that no longer exist with previous eras.
The other issue with your theory is that it is based on Drake Equation.
This is drake's equation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The basic concept is that you take take the you take the current number of stars in your area of the galaxy and extrapolate that by comparing density and volume to the rest of the galaxy to get the number of stars.
Then you assume a probability for planets
Then you assume probability for the number of planets.
Then you assume a probability for the number of worlds with liquid water.
Then you assume a probability of the right chemistry for life.
Then you assume a probability for whether life will evolve.
Then you assume a probability for whether that life will become complex.
Then you assume a probability for if the life will be intelligent.
Then you assume a probability for if the intelligent life will form some kind of civilization.
Then you assume a probability for the life to form a starfaring interstellar civilization.
Did you see what happened about a million times in there?
Anyway, Drake's equation is not valid science but it is frequently used by environmental activists. What they'll do is they'll pick an acre of land... often one under development... they're building a parking lot on it or something. And then they'll cite every species that doesn't live there anymore after the parking lot to be extinct IN THAT AREA. Then they'll assume how much of that happens, then they'll assume how many species die out because of X Y and Z, etc. It's Drake's equation and its bullshit.
Because I'm sure you're going to call bullshit on me... allow me to name drop someone respectable that agrees with me:
http://www.s8int.com/crichton....
Its a fun speech. Whether you agree or not you should be entertained.
The point is that you're relying largely on the opinion of lobbyists and activists for your information. They're not reliable because they're inherently biased.
So the whole extinction thing is one I don't especially buy. Are some species going extinct? Sure, welcome to planet earth. That's what the world calls Tuesday. It happens all the time. Niches close and open and species either adapt or die.
There are a lot of species that are interacting with humanity for example because we create a lot of niches. Our cities are full of pigeons and rats and various insects that feed upon our leavings. And while you probably don't think these species are cute and cuddly, they are adaptable. Don't see nature the way a child sees it. Look at nature the way that NATURE looks at it. All nature cares about is whether you propagate your genes. The dodo was a loser. The spectrum of pathogens that are the common cold are winners.
Now maybe you'll say "I don't like the kinds of life that are adapting and I'd like to make them less gross, filthy, and generally nasty. Okay. How do we do that?
The first thing we have to appreciate is that these are species that WANT to integrate with humanity. These guys as unwanted as they are... are the animals that wish to sign on with humanity. They want into our supply network. Okay, lets make that symbiotic instead of parasitic. Just as people integrated dogs, cats, cows, chickens, etc into our world we can integrate pigeons, rats, crows, cockroaches, etc into the system as well. And in some cases that might mean some genet
First, I'm not faulting the food companies from trying to make food tasty. That's fucking dumb.
Second, this only really addresses highly processed foods and there are a lot of fat people that don't eat that stuff.
Third, it doesn't take high math to figure out that humans like sugars and fats. Chiefs have been doing that for time out of mind. Look at a lot of traditional cooking and the stuff you feed to the rich and powerful was all about dense fruit sauces and heavy creams and fatty gravies and stuff.
I'm not interested in giving an outlet for hatred of corporations in this issue since it is a distraction.
The corps are dangerous not in that they are evil but rather that they are myopic. That said, they're extremely useful and our society... or any conceivable society of relative prosperity would be impossible without them. I believe that solving problems is easier if you're really rich. And I think solving problems if you're really poor is really hard.
So I'm going to protect our wealth as a general hedge against unforeseen nonsense because if we're rich we can deal with most problems a great deal more easily.
The anti corporate, anti capitalist thing has grown tiresome. A lot of that crap started as a psyops attack on the US from the USSR. Literally. You can cite the soviet archives which are public record at this point.
Its tiresome. The USSR is gone. Capitalism won. Let it go.
In opposite land that would be a very firm argument.
Since we're not in opposite land, that comment means nothing.
Make a complete and falsifiable argument please.
You're conflating being purely logical with being more intelligent. I didn't say that.
As to innovation and drum circles. That is your opinion. My opinion is a matter of record and it is not disingenuous. You you say we've done bad things? What? I assume this is environmental stuff? That's massively over hyped. To the contrary, the most technologically advanced societies have superior environmental conditions than do more primitive societies. The deforestation in Africa for example is driven by a lack of fertilizer and fuel. If they had an electrical grid and could afford fertilizer, they'd not need to do that.
As to your theory that humans will suddenly stagnate before we do the things you don't like or all kill ourselves. Does that not seem just a little convenient to you? Why didn't we do it earlier?
I'm sure we will stagnate at times. Possibly for thousands of years. Its happened before and it will happen again. We will know dark ages. And the legends, surviving records, pockets of civilization, etc will seed the next golden age. Progress will continue.
You want to believe we're all going to kill ourselves because we're "unclean" and don't abide by your little religion? Believe what you like.
Every religion has their judgement day, their Ragnarok, their whatever. Yours is little more than the same old tired boogyman supposed to cow the peasants into submission and fear.
I am not afraid your fantasies. I don't take your religion any more seriously than I take any other. In fact, religions are often useful. They're good for controlling people. The pity with your little faith is that it is largely controlled by a group of genocidal maniacs. I've listened to the environmental lectures that end with "oh yeah and we have 5 billion too many humans and here is how we get rid of them." And I'm supposed to hear that and find it reasonable.
Yours is the faith of doom and self destruction. Have no patience or respect for it.
Which is why spell checkers are considered the masters of the english language.
You're conflating an engineering question with an artistic and aesthetic one.
First off, there are a lot of genes that are known to just fuck up the human body and have no value otherwise.
You know there is such a thing as genetic disorders right? This is how we're going to get genetic engineering through people like you. We're going to help the sick. You're easily manipulated by emotion and pathos. So we're going to show you some sick children. Are you going to let little timmy die or are you going to let a gene theopist tweak his genes to save his life?
See? Even when I'm honest about it you know you're fucked. You can't stop this.
That sort of thing will not be stopped. Then you're going to get billionaires and vane people asking for longer life and bigger tits. Are you going to be able to stop that? Even if you try in one country you'll just drive the market over seas. Will a billionaire set up a genetics lab outside your territory to extend his own life? Yep.
Will some bimbo fly around the world to get her genes tweaked so her skin is wrinkle free and her tits stand up? Yep.
And once the trailblazers clear the way, the rest of society will ask "why not me?"... and it just goes from there.
You cannot stop it.
All you can do is waste the time of those that would make it happen faster. But you CANNOT stop it.
So complain and equivocate all you like... its happening. The only decision is if you want it to happen slowly over time where you have some control over how it is introduced... Or if you'd prefer for it to happen in unpredictable bursts where you have no control what so ever.
Choose. Those are your two options. I know you want a third one. You don't have one. Sorry. This is reality.
Nope. I have little patience for hippy dippy Luddite dogma. Its retrograde stupidity with nothing behind it.
No one said we could engineer complex life from scratch in the next ten years. To say we are outdoing billions of years of evolution, we'd have to make an original work. No one is doing that. So your comparison is invalid.
That's the comparison you just made. Which is stupid and a strawman.
So you can go fuck yourself just from that comment. Sideways with a rake is preferred. ;)
But moving on, the actual thing I'm talking about is EDITING an existing work. Correcting spelling errors... grammatical errors... possibly changing the ending of a chapter or two.
Most of this will be flipping switches. Certain genes are set to default to 0 and we want them to default to 1 some genes are set to 1 and we want them default to 0. Nearly all of it is that.
Now shit for brains... come at me with another pathetic strawman. I'm positively hard with anticipation... I'm sitting here with a raging fever... the walls are weaving in and out... melting around me... and I'm still smarter than you. In a nobler age, people like you would serve as my foot rest.
Fuck off.
Fair point, you'd have to trigger a lot of things.
One thing I'd like to include in that would be bone mineralization.
This is a big thing in martial arts. They spend a lot of time hitting things. All the time. And it has an effect on their bones. Their bones get harder. A lot harder. And that means when they actually start hitting things in fights, it hurts people more because they're getting hit with harder bones. Also the person hitting them gets hurt less by the impacts because their bones are a great deal stronger.
We have many examples of people that have issues with bone mineralization. Women mostly... mostly older women. Old men get issues with it too. Anyway, while I take your point, I'd just say that of course you'd include those tweaks as well.
Basically trigger all the stress related genes so the body defaults to a healthy norm. And going super human with it is not unreasonable either.
What? If we could be trusted to do it ethically we wouldn't need it?
How does that make any sense?
We wouldn't need regeneration, longer life, higher intelligence, greater health... if we were ehtical?
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
See, this is why I have so little patience for hippy dippy Luddites. You're not rational.
Would we not need fire if we were ethical?
Would we not need the wheel if we were ethical?
Would we not need antibiotics if we were ethical?
I really regret the retirement of the old Stocks. The sort of stupidity coming out of your mouth should be answered by locking in the middle of the public square and letting children draw dicks on your forehead. This is just absurdly stupid.
I guess it relates to intelligence but I've seen some very intelligent people that had some massive blind spots when it came to ideology. So that is probably unavoidable without even more extensive engineering.
Something the evolutionary psychologists say is that there is a reason we are rational about reality but not rational about government and society.
It has to do with gene propagation. If you're not rational about reality you'll die when you try to eat rocks or something. If you're rational about society then you might question the king or the dogma of your time and that could lead to gene death.
So we've been bred to be rational on reality and irrational on society. Your society... like most... has some irrational aspects to it.
I'm personally a cynic... I don't really have a society. Pros and cons to that. But one of the pros is that I don't slavishly buy into dogma that isn't of my own making.
As to your suggestion that I could be a fascist... So your next move is to trigger Godwin's law?
Good work, fuckwit. *laughs*
God... I don't know whether to be impressed with how well I peg people off the bat or if I should be depressed that you people are so fucking predictable.
There you go. You know a lot more about this specific incident than I do, but I still predicted accurately that there were some unstated hijinks involved. I should note again, that I didn't claim the British were believers in Win-Win. This is an American belief... The British empire believed in the more traditional "win-lose" system.
The reason America believes in Win Win is not just altruism but what we think of long term wisdom. First, when people lose they are rarely destroyed. Which means they are left resentful and become long term enemies because you've slighted them again and again.
Next, nations inside your influence web should profit and be strong while countries outside your influence web should be weak. If we're constantly fucking over everyone that listens to us then those inside our influence web will be weaker than those that do not listen to us. That is our allies have to profit to stay strong.
Third, you don't want to balance your entire hegemony on ONE thing. The fear of military reprisals works only so long as you have the military force to back up that position. Lets say you get into a big war such as happened to the British empire in WW1 and WW2. What happened to their empire? It fell apart because the primary thing holding together... the British image of invincibility... was gone. We want powers to stay with us for as many reasons as possible. Like us if possible. Like our culture. Profit from our trade. Like our technology. Anything and everything at once.
Its like a table with at least a dozen legs. Take one away for a time and the table still stands. A table with one leg cannot survive having that leg removed.
As to what you didn't know and now know... now you know. :)
As to things happening because I say so... no... The sun is going to rise in the east because if you understand the forces at play you know it will. You also know it will set in the west.
It doesn't do it because I say so. It does it because if you know what you're talking about you know it is inevitable.
There is an advantage to doing it. You're afraid of new technologies that likely were in scifi horror movies that spooked you. And so you and people like you will be afraid of it. Just like the people that thought atom bombs would ignite the atmosphere.
You're wrong. The tech will be exploited and employed. The only thing slowing it down is people like you and you can't stop it. You can only slow it down. And will the next generation that comes after have the same fears? Probably not. Which means when you die... it will accelerate in its exploitation and employment.
You cannot stop it. Not because I say but because YOU CANNOT STOP IT.
As to us being done, yes... you're not rational so I have no opportunity to reason with you. Your position is based on ideology and dogma. I don't respect it and give it no quarter.
The asians eat less and exercise more.
As to fruits, if you talk to body builders they'll explain to you that there is actually a huge difference. No one has more empericial evidence of how food and exercise effects the body than the body building community. True, their objective is to get huge not healthy. But that doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about.
Something that they are very big into for example are "all fruit" diets. Not permanently. They shift diets around a lot to break through size barriers. If they stop getting bigger they consult their community and shift what they're doing... and that will work for awhile and then they often have to do something else.
As to too many calories, that's fine... the type of calories however are also relevant. I don't think I ever implied that we don't eat too much.
In fact, in my first post I said that we eat too much. So who do you think you're enlightening with that comment? You're preaching to the converted.
*giggles*
Indeed. And what controls such changes in ethics?
Necessity, inevitability, normalization, familiarization, and the abandoning of antiquated beliefs that are no longer relevant in a new context.
So here you think YOUR beliefs are going to survive which are far more the status quo than mine. And your position is based mostly on the false belief that you can stop it, that it isn't normal, that you're not familiar with it in your daily life, that that you are still holding to your moral and ethical codes even as it becomes obvious that they're becoming obsolete.
I'm afraid not. Your view will give way to mine just as surely as people lost the belief that taking pictures of people stole their souls.
You have a problem with gene engineering? That view will become quaint. And largely ignored when it can be and reviled when it imposes or slows down the development of the technology.
You can't stop it.
Nope.
Modern mouse right now fed food linked to the human food chain RIGHT NOW... versus some hermetically sealed mouse eating hydroponically grown whatever.
And while you're at it, have some of the mice in one temperature environment and some others in another temperature environment.
everyone. Especially your mother.
I do actually. I call him "bingo"... and he does appear in most places I post eventually.
Have you never been trolled? Anyway, Bingo follows me around and makes really stupid hostile comments. And I'll call him bingo and he doesn't even react to that anymore. If it were a different guy he'd say 'why are you calling me bingo" or something. He did that the first couple times and he just takes it in stride now. :)
Anyway, trolls exist. Saying otherwise is silly.
Its not so simple as the "evil corporations"...
No they're not because you don't have to hire as many of them.
This is something you learn very quickly in development or any kind of skill. Pros cost more per hour but they're a LOT faster. First they don't fuck around trying to figure out how shit works. They already know. Second, they know a lot of tricks and short cuts to speed up production. Third... ever seen a master painter work? He doesn't make mistakes. The paint goes where he wants it to go and no where else. It looks exactly the way he wants it to look. The first time. Every time.
Someone that knows what they're doing with security is the same way. There's no fucking around. There's no need for a huge IT staff so all the fucking chimps and try to randomly type in a Shakespearean sonnet. He doesn't need any of that. He just does what has to happen the first time. He's fast. He's efficient. And he's effective.
Masters have cons. They expect respect. You start mouthing off to a master in his field about his field and he's going to cut your legs off.
But if you want it done right, you hire one of those guys and be glad to have them. To economize you put some lower skilled techs under him to be his assistants and they learn his trade over time.
It is a tried and true system for vocational skill transfer.
yep... again, it is going to happen.
Stop for a moment and rise above the flow of time. See out 10,000... 100,000 years. You honestly think someone isn't going to do this?
Come now.
And who does it first will largely depend on whether relatively law abiding democratic societies pull the trigger and do it first.
Look at the Soviets or the Nazis or the Imperial japanese. They weren't even that long ago and each had a certain technical proficiency and gave not so many fucks about what YOU happened to think about it.
The Nazis were doing eugenics. The Imperial japanese were using prisoners of war for germ warfare experiments... and the list of nonsense the soviets got up could and does have many books written about it.
If we do it, and we do it ethically... then we can usher this technology into the human sphere in a positive and non-destructive way.
But if you try to stop it then all you're doing is leaving it for those that won't care to do it instead.
But it will happen.
Once you understand that it will happen... once you truly process that reality... your perspective on the issue can't help but change.
Because people being inherently fit and healthy is objectively good.
That's why.
And that isn't uniformly possible without extensive gene mods on a good portion of the population.
Look, you don't want to get gene modded? That's your business. Do what you want.
I've little patience for the technophobia perspective on the fucking internet.