Chinese scientist He Jiankui defends 'world's first gene-edited babies'

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
TexasFreedom said:
I have to disagree with the first part & agree completely with the second.

I don't think the world has trouble feeding people. There is plenty of food. And much of it is given free as charity. The world has a problem with dictators & communism/socialism.

For the second part, I've said repeatedly that people need ways to chose natural selection. Do something stupid, and die quickly. I'm not being mean. But you don't need barriers to stop people from falling off the Grand Canyon ledge. Bikers shouldn't be required to wear helmets. Make foolish choices, get deadly consequences.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say the problem was due to lack of food ;) the world has a problem with control of the food, the end results are the same
 
Last edited:
Human nature being what it is, I cannot trust to a good outcome. When scientist learned to split the atom, what was the first thing they built with this knowledge, a super bomb. Major innovation is funded by two groups ---- the government and corporations. Does anybody believe these two groups have humanities best interests at heart? Nope, didn't think so. The scientist might want to prevent diseases but the government is going to want super soldiers. The corporations are going to build in eternal life, that has to be renewed every ten years or so. The equality of life will just get even worse. Think about that my liberal friends. If you think pharmaceuticals are greedy and do price gouging, what do you think will happen when they can offer extended life, or offer almost eternal youth or any number of health benefits? Now if you can live 500 years, what kind of fortune could you amass? How about living 1000 years? The rich and powerful will just get richer and more powerful. Only old age or medical conditions have stopped many tyrants, think about Stalin living for a few hundred years. How about Gingberg sitting on the Supreme Court for a few hundred years? Take off the rose colored glasses and look at both sides. Those with the gold (or force of arms) make the rules. Let's not help them become eternal.
 
There's actually a so-so film that deals with perhaps the most likely outcome of the widespread use of this....

That traditionally bred children will become undesirable, perhaps even illegal, and that any opportunities would be based on the elitism of your genetic outcome.

The movie is called "Gattaca".

The film presents a biopunk vision of a future society driven by eugenics where potential children are conceived through genetic selection to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents.[3] The film centers on Vincent Freeman, played by Hawke, who was conceived outside the eugenics program and struggles to overcome genetic discrimination to realize his dream of traveling into space.

The film draws on concerns over reproductive technologies which facilitate eugenics, and the possible consequences of such technological developments for society. It also explores the idea of destiny and the ways in which it can and does govern lives. Characters in Gattaca continually battle both with society and with themselves to find their place in the world and who they are destined to be according to their genes.
Click to expand...

 
TexasFreedom said:
Brent,

Your last statement is exactly the problem with rose-colored-glasses liberal thoughts. They only look at the best case scenarios. The only way their 'solutions' work is with the bottomless wallets of gov't.

Yes, this might help a small percentage of babies. The hypocrisy there is outrageous given that libs are fine with killing 1/3rd of all babies, but I'll set that aside.

These genetic mutations can also have negative consequences. Let's say a virus mutates in an unexpected way after crossing these new 'genetics', producing a world-wide plague. What happens when a wacko doctor makes a half-human half-monkey hybrid to help PETA & USHS give animal 'rights'.

Liberals never look at any possibilities other than what they want to see. And they think the more they repeat their mantra, the more likely it will happen. "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." Anyone remember the state-run websites that crashed over and over and never worked for getting people signed up for Obamacare? How many people have been robbed/raped/killed by DACA 'children'?

Can anyone tell me of the last major liberal program that didn't end with disasters? Seriously, anyone?
Click to expand...
You know, for a person that professes to be a Christian, I never hear anything positive or compassionate from you. Sure some social programs are crap, and probably all have too much waste. Let’s face it, all government programs have too much waste and inefficiency. Take something like food stamps. Do you really believe we should just stop it? Yes, we would save huge amounts of money, but at at cost? Could you live with watching children starving because their parents are non functional? The whole point of being a Christian is to be Christ like. Do you really think Christ would turn away the poor coldly, or cut programs that had good intent originally to help others? We are a rich country, shouldn’t we be concerned with the welfare of other human beings? I’m not being naive and singing Kum by yah or anything here as I realize we can’t save everyone on the planet, but having some compassion is something Jesus taught. I just don’t think hatred and indifference towards others is a good example of how to be Christ like.
 
There is no doubt that this research has great potential for both good and bad. Human nature tends to be greedy, and that tends to dictate where most of the research would lean towards. I still say though that if I had a chance to cure a disease that my child has, of course I am going to try. Most of science can be used for either good or bad. I guess I always try to be optimistic about the good potential.
 
@Brent S

If Christians want to supply folks with free food, more power to them. They do not and should not be able to reach into my wallet and force me to feed them. That is the difference, you want to force your belief on others through force of arms (taxes) . I choose to allow each person to follow their personal dictates. That is why the government should get out of the charity business. Let the government focus on governing and let the charities focus on hand outs. That way everybody gets to follow their own beliefs. There is also the saying "Give a man a fish an you feed him for a day (welfare -- food stamps, etc.) but teach him (apprentice programs, trade schools, etc) to fish and you feed him for a life time. These folks that demand there be no remote connection to religions in government, are the same hypocrites that say the government needs to be more charitable. Separation of Church and state == Government governs and Church handles charity. Or even private organizations (concerned citizens) charities but NOT TAX MANDATED charity. As for Human rights, that is a myth made up by society. If you are lucky enough to be born (not aborted) that is were your real rights ended. Everything is either mandated by a force of arms or by sheer luck. Freedom is not a right, it is purchased by force of arms. Every thing that people claim is a human right is simply a concept that is enabled by force of arms. That is why governments always try to disarm their population so they can't easily fight back. Force of arms always determines what is a human rights, what is legal and what is not and who rules and who does not. N

I am not advocating for anarchy, that is just another form of governance requiring force of arms usage. All I am saying, is the government should get out of the charity business and allow those that really believe in it, to run it, not some bureaucrats.
 
I don't see this as either a lib or conservative thing. Eugenics is GOING to happen. That's really a given. How we DEAL with it, is another matter, and its one our children will have to face. I sincerely hope we DON'T go the Gattaca route, but I really don't see how we'll avoid it much. Thankfully I'll likely be long dead so I won't have to see it.
 
Nietzsche (Goverment) = Ubermensch (Eugenics)
Nietzsche kills god, creates Ubermensch, Ubermensch proclaims itself god

I see this happening before our eyes, today we see traditional Christian values attacked everyday in the news! Remove the faith, not only have you conquered man, his soul was also conquered ....thus Ubermensch brought hope to the conquered man.

Hell, maybe I'm just paranoid ;)
 
Maverick said:
Nietzsche (Goverment) = Ubermensch (Eugenics)
Nietzsche kills god, creates Ubermensch, Ubermensch proclaims itself god

I see this happening before our eyes, today we see traditional Christian values attacked everyday in the news! Remove the faith, not only have you conquered man, his soul was also conquered ....thus Ubermensch brought hope to the conquered man.

Hell, maybe I'm just paranoid ;)
Click to expand...


I am an agnostic and I don't think you are paranoid. Almost all men need faith to push forward in life. As stated, the government wants to be the replacement for mans belief in god.
 
Urbanprep said:
Human nature being what it is, I cannot trust to a good outcome. When scientist learned to split the atom, what was the first thing they built with this knowledge, a super bomb. Major innovation is funded by two groups ---- the government and corporations. Does anybody believe these two groups have humanities best interests at heart? Nope, didn't think so. The scientist might want to prevent diseases but the government is going to want super soldiers. The corporations are going to build in eternal life, that has to be renewed every ten years or so. The equality of life will just get even worse. Think about that my liberal friends. If you think pharmaceuticals are greedy and do price gouging, what do you think will happen when they can offer extended life, or offer almost eternal youth or any number of health benefits? Now if you can live 500 years, what kind of fortune could you amass? How about living 1000 years? The rich and powerful will just get richer and more powerful. Only old age or medical conditions have stopped many tyrants, think about Stalin living for a few hundred years. How about Gingberg sitting on the Supreme Court for a few hundred years? Take off the rose colored glasses and look at both sides. Those with the gold (or force of arms) make the rules. Let's not help them become eternal.
Click to expand...

UP, now I'm going to have nightmares about RBG living more than 2 years...

Brent S said:
You know, for a person that professes to be a Christian, I never hear anything positive or compassionate from you. Sure some social programs are crap, and probably all have too much waste. Let’s face it, all government programs have too much waste and inefficiency. Take something like food stamps. Do you really believe we should just stop it? Yes, we would save huge amounts of money, but at at cost? Could you live with watching children starving because their parents are non functional? The whole point of being a Christian is to be Christ like. Do you really think Christ would turn away the poor coldly, or cut programs that had good intent originally to help others? We are a rich country, shouldn’t we be concerned with the welfare of other human beings? I’m not being naive and singing Kum by yah or anything here as I realize we can’t save everyone on the planet, but having some compassion is something Jesus taught. I just don’t think hatred and indifference towards others is a good example of how to be Christ like.
Click to expand...

Brent, UP said it well but I'll say in my own words. You seem to think gov't is the only source of charity. I've said this before, there is genuine charity and there is force 'charity' (also known as theft). I am a huge fan of genuine charity. When someone contributes their own time, talent and treasure to help others. Just Tuesday I spent about $50 of my own $ and about 3 hours of my time to help someone in need. I didn't need a gov't program to do this.

Brent, let's go back in time. For the first 150 years in this country, starvation wasn't much of a problem, no more than today. And there was zero forced charity (gov't theft/redistribution) in effect. How do you explain that? Please tell me why we need these gov't programs, any of them.

100 years ago there were people in need and there were a few freeloaders (but very few). Churches and charities took care of the first group. In fact better than every gov't program combined today does. There were very few freeloaders because small individual charities were careful, identified it, and cut those people off. Freeloaders learned that they had to take care of themselves, and eventually did. I believe that is far more compassionate than what we have today.

Brent, a second question. Why do you insist on stealing from individuals and have gov't decide who to redistribute that wealth? It encourages freeloading and abuse. How is that good for anyone? I think my method is far more compassionate than anything you're supporting.
 
It wasn’t that long ago I would have said ya’ll are out of your fxxken minds, accusing ya’ll of being on some type of sci-fi acid trip

Just goes to show I know nothing of the future but what I do know of today scares the shit out of me regarding the future! I guess sci-fi and sci-re (science reality) are truly co-dependency.

Stephen Hawking once said science fiction is useful both for stimulating the imagination and for defusing fear of the future. He may be right for the majority of people but not all the people, for me it doesn’t defuse the fears, science reality emulates science fiction and if that is true, I’ve seen some really creeped out sci-fi’s. So ya’ll can buy into this ‘science working for humanity’ crap, I don’t!
 
I was always puzzled by Hawkings' fear of aliens.

In numerous specials, he's on record saying our calling cards were huge mistakes. I beg to differ. To me, logically, any species capable of interstellar travel would not be warlike.

War here, is always for one reason....control of resources. Sure, you can argue religion, etc. but those were simply justifications to the populace for the real goal of resource control.

An interstellar species has basically unlimited resources at their disposal from all the worlds they can get to. So there's simply no motivation for war. Indeed, it would be counterproductive to wage it, when you could go elsewhere and get it with no contest.
 
Gazrok said:
I was always puzzled by Hawkings' fear of aliens.

In numerous specials, he's on record saying our calling cards were huge mistakes. I beg to differ. To me, logically, any species capable of interstellar travel would not be warlike.

War here, is always for one reason....control of resources. Sure, you can argue religion, etc. but those were simply justifications to the populace for the real goal of resource control.

An interstellar species has basically unlimited resources at their disposal from all the worlds they can get to. So there's simply no motivation for war. Indeed, it would be counterproductive to wage it, when you could go elsewhere and get it with no contest.
Click to expand...


Playing devil's advocate. Why farm a planet with your own people, when you have an entire planer full of slaves to do the digging? You take the resources where you can find them and if there are available slaves to do the work, so much the better. Would we consider or worry about a colony of ants sitting atop a gold mine? Just because you have developed superior technology does not mean you have developed a warm fuzzy outlook on less developed critters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Must Read UNHERD.coms article about Andy Ngo's exposure of antifa.
Replies
2
Views
948
Helen Back
H
DrJenner
Video by Dr. Ryan Cole
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
DrJenner
DrJenner
R
Arkansas Intelligence Summary 31 JAN 2022
Replies
4
Views
1K
GeorgiaPeachie
G
B
BBC Article on CLIMATE DOOMERS
Replies
6
Views
437
KateMTx
KateMTx
B
Must Read Coronavirus has mutated into more aggressive disease, say scientists
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
DrHenley
DrHenley

Latest posts

Back
Top