Crispr Gene editing

Better to fix the inherent flaws.

>Natural evolution/selection
But we are not, man kind has been far removed from natural evolution. Arguably since the 1st hominid harnessed fire we have been unshackled from natural limits. Technology in general prevents us from needing to evolve.
Could even argue that learning how to properly gene edit is part of our natural evolution. All points dumped in INT.

Why not gene edit in some common sense to not be parasites on the only habitable planet we have?

...

>Could even argue that learning how to properly gene edit is part of our natural evolution

No because you are attempting to change the very tool that causes natural evolution. The most basic biological structure of the genes. Yes, there is potential of achieving impossible results but the risks and implications are at such a high stake that it would be the smarter and the more intellectual decision to not do gene editing. We have evolved with larger brains that let us think like no animal. Let's then see our mistakes not commit them with tools like gene editing. We know how to make fire but our brains also know not to touch or play with fire. This is the natural way of evolution and thinking.

>But we are not, man kind has been far removed from natural evolution. Arguably since the 1st hominid harnessed fire we have been unshackled from natural limits. Technology in general prevents us from needing to evolve.
You are so wrong. Evolution never stops you just need a bottle neck event to see which trait(s) were beneficial. Humans dont necessarily see the effects of natural selection but we havent stopped evolving

The tool that causes natural evolution is external stimulus. (and random mutation)
High risk/reward has never stopped humans from doing some awful things with both good and bad results.
There was legitimate concern nuclear testing would set the atmosphere on fire, but they did it anyway.

A change in a gene or gene expression to for a new trait is evolution. Natural selection decides whether that evolutionary trait was beneficial or not to the selective pressure

>(and random mutation)
mutation of what? Yes, genes. Also, why did you put the most important part of the sentence at the very end inside a bracket. It's like the sentence was designed to be covert.
Anyway,
>There was legitimate concern nuclear testing would set the atmosphere on fire, but they did it anyway.
Bad comparison. Nuclear testing technology is for energy production and does not inherently attempt to change the being that we are. We cannot compare apples to oranges. We do not understand fully what makes life, living yet. So we should not engage in practices that threaten our own existence in such intricate ways that can destroy our society as we know it. Again the risks are so high, it is more intellectual and wise to not attempt gene modification.

No we haven't, but we have limited its effects on us.
People are bigger now than 200 yrs ago, because of generally better standards of living, and that has affected us genetically.
But other than our brains, hands/thumbs, and our ability to just walk forever we have no other major specializations, like most other species.
Trunks, horns, 40 foot necks, pouches, jumping legs, etc.
Take the Black Death of old. It can't hit humans again because most everyone living now has a built in immunity, because those that don't all died then.
I'd bet Covid and its mutations will hit us over and over again because with medical science we are inhibiting a natural selection from removing those that could/should have fallen to it.

If we lived in a post-scarcity society, I'd be all for it, but as it is now it'd just extend the class divide even further.

This

We have no inherent value anyway, so why not go all out? Either we transcend mortal existence, or we perish and don’t realize it.

Attached: 710F045E-B8C9-4C2B-8A5A-73B2348AB4A0.jpg (500x640, 460.75K)

Sorry to disappoint you by not evolving a third arm. And yes a bottle neck event is needed to see if any newly evolved trait is beneficial for that situation/environment.

Technology opened the bottleneck, people with disabilities for example wouldn’t survive 20,000 years ago, but now they can live full lives and pass on their genes

Random mutation is the least active way to cause natural evolution. It is important, but has less mass effect on a population.
Constant predation of a population will cause more changes than a once in million mutation.

The nuke thing was a bout how dumb people are, not about evolution.
Though I agree the risks are high with editing. Which is why it should be heavily, heavily, researched before it gets implemented. Unfortunately since humans are dumb, some half-assed unproven 'product' will be rushed out.

That's not a bottleneck. That's just evolution. The bottleneck is form of natural selection. Which I agree, natural selection doesnt really exist for humans

ROLLERINO!

We cant evolve a third arm because there is no existing biological structure to generate one from.
Or, because the the gene that say to grow more than two limbs is buried so far back in our past as to might as well not exist.

Are you retarded?

Um you dont understand genes or gene expression do you?

Attached: images (35).jpg (261x193, 6.2K)

imgbox.com/FvIyPAa9

We can barely use this technology to edit a single gene effectively without the massive risk of off target effects.

We are a long damn way from designing a person to any greater extent than we do now through sexual selection.

What happens to the lab born that are defective until we get it right?

>lab grown meat

Its been awhile since school, but I think I've still got it.
The question there is if either of those arms are viable. The gene said 'grow another arm' and it did. However the other genes that say, grow another socket/clavicle/scapula/etc. did not get turned on.
This is a genetic birth defect, as a 'standard human' would not have this.