and robotic exoskeletons amplify strength far beyond what even the best genetic engineering can do.

The biggest problem with this is the sheer amount that is still unknown about the human genome. The "human genome project" didn't map the entire genome. They didn't map it because it was "redundant". That is, over 90% of the human genome is repetition with slight changes. The problem is that changing this part of the genome still has an effect. In short, they're messing with things they don't understand with this.

and this somehow implies they'll never understand it?
No. It doesn't and I didn't say that they never will. I'm saying it's not understood now and that things that aren't understood are best left alone until you do understand them.
Being able to pick which egg and which sperm are used is fine, but straight up genetic engineering should be avoided. The reason is that when things appear naturally, they usually occur together. (example being speech and how it requires vocal cords, the ability to control breathing, etc) Someone could easily make a mistake and then the child would be left with the problem for their whole life.

you seem to be implying that we're going to be using children as lab rats. this is incorrect, because we're going to be using lab rats as lab rats. more specifically, knockout mice.

knockout mice are mice which have had one gene disabled, or one change made to their genome, to figure out how it affects them, and by extension, what that gene does, and what processes it is involved in.

the idea that people would experiment on their own children is fucking absurd. as i read your post its becoming harder to respect you intellectually.... Just ... No, I'm saying that if you're going to do genetic engineering, don't make mistakes. Include everything that needs to be included and consider how it will effect other genes and the all around consequences of the trait being changed. For example, making cells immune to division related aging could cause an increase in cancer due to such cells no longer dividing their dna to the point of destruction. (I'm aware this example isn't perfect, fill in the blanks if need be)

Also, humans are animals do have significant differences between them. Animals pound for pound are generally much stronger. A 100 pound chimp can be stronger than a 300 pound linebacker... When testing on animals that has to be kept in mind. The differences in dna may be slight, but they have extreme consequences. So long as there is no opportunity to fuck something up, there shouldn't be a problem. But if you go for targeting single genes, you're asking for a problem.

you know, i really hate to have to say this, but you dont have a fucking clue what you're talking about. none of what you're saying has any semblance to actual genetics.

DNA isnt magic. its a molecule. its not hard to understand if you're not retarded.

genes work by encoding for proteins. genetics in its current form, is about understanding those proteins. proteins are best understood as macromolecular machines. they do stuff. they control the production of other molecules in the cell.

you know what you spend 99% of your time learning about when u study genetics? proteins. DNA is a 1 hour lecture and you're done. the proteins are the real meat of the subject. more specifically, how the proteins work together to build living organisms, and how different proteins affect how those organisms operate.A molecule with hundreds of billions of atoms. Only a complete moron would think that something with a hundred billion atoms was something "not hard to understand". Seriously? Easy to understand? Sure, it takes a processor over a hundred seconds just to COUNT the atoms. Yeah, totally simple. It's not like there are supercomputers built for this or anything. Pencil and paper? Totally fine...

You completely ignore the fact that I'm talking about the differences between humans and other animals and go off on how DNA makes proteins. In fact, you don't even go into that. No, you just reword exactly what I said and ignore my point entirely.

I mean, great you understand how proteins work. Wonderful. You want to respond to my point of start a flame war?

I do oppose aesthetic changes both genetic and surgical(unless something else happened like getting your face smashed with a hammer, then I can see why a surgical change would be required). well, at least you're consistent. The reason is, if someone isn't healthy, you can usually tell, having evolved to do so. Basically, someone with aesthetic changes would basically lie to potential mates. Not something that's fun to deal with. Looks perfectly healthy. Dies from cancer. have you ever heard of cosmetics? make up? fake tan?

do you have any idea how retarded it is to oppose people using genetics to improve themselves, when billions of dollars are spent every year by people to try and fake that they're improving themselves?I'm sorry, all I said is that I oppose faking it. I didn't say they couldn't improve themselves, all I said is that they shouldn't fake it. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. I'm really sorry, I haven't said what you thought I said.


The nice thing about having cruel fate decide things is that it doesn't have human error. there is no "nice thing" about having cruel fate decide things. seriously, what the fuck have you been smoking? Please put opposition to a point I'm making after my point, not before. It'd be nice if you would kindly read the whole post before responding, not just get angry and type at every point where you stop reading. Or, barring that, at least don't stop your angry reading in the middle of a sentence. It doesn't mess up. actually, yes it does, all the goddamn time, and its fucking brutal to see what happens to people when "cruel fate" decides to fuck them over.Cruel fate will do what cruel fate does. It does not mess up. This means it will always be cruel. If it did mess up, that'd be a good thing, because people would get out unscathed. What's in your head to think that cruel fate messing up or escaping death is a bad thing?

Sure, it can be a dick, but still, it doesn't get forced to work late hours and accidentally blotch the manipulation of someone's genes. i honestly cannot comprehend your point of view. from what i can tell, you're saying "its okay if tragedies happen as long as there is nobody to blame! we should do nothing to try and prevent disasters that arent caused by human error!"How the fuck did you get that out of what I said? I'm saying that the one nice thing about fate is that it doesn't have human error. No, I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm saying, with fate it's not something you could avoid. With humans there's blame and it's someone's fault. Know how bad it is when someone gets away with something?
Wouldn't that be a kick in the teeth? you know whats a kick in the teeth? being dealt a shitty hand by "cruel fate".What's worse is being given a defective child because someone was forced to work late hours at the local baby mill.

But yeah, picking which sperm and which egg/s, no problem. Modifying single genes... you'd better be damn sure you know what you're doing.

One argument to how little we know is that apparently plants have the equivalent of a nervous system. they have hormone based control systems. if you had studied biology you'd know that.I have a biology textbook. You have google. Congratulations us. But you claim that a venus flytrap uses hormones to close around a fly. It's very hard to take you seriously here. You honestly believe that hormones have that fast a response time in something that doesn't even have blood. Sure, let's ignore the blatant electrical signals traveling in the plant. You're a moron to think that plant hormones are fast enough to trap a fly. Research the topic first, don't just take the first result off google.

It's not known to be as complex as in animals, but it controls things like their touch response and reacting to light. Additionally, plants have been observed to use quantum teleportation in photosynthesis, moving electrons to where they need to go. It's an automatic process, not one directly controlled by the plant, but still. DNA using quantum effects? Surely creatures able to communicate with eachother in this manner would have some advantage. Notably the "something is wrong" response. seriously dude, tell me what you've been smoking, it sounds like its some pretty potent shit.It's mostly nitrogen, but be careful though, the oxygen in it is used in the smoking of every drug ever made. Some strong shit, very addictive. Once you've had it you can't live without it.

It's the same reason immortality by having your brain uploaded into a supercomputer is not all it's cracked up to be. Your senses of "someone is watching me" go away. Until science figures out literally everything about a gene, it should not so much as touch it. Supposedly science doesn't even know why enzymes work the way they do. Scientists are still wondering it's the shape of the molecule or some catalytic reaction. the theory behind enzymes is WELL UNDERSTOOD. i dont know who the fuck you've been listening to, but i advise that you stop listening to them.So why all the enzyme folding research? The theory is quite simple and is understood, doesn't mean you understand how it works. Like gravity, "things attract other things". Still no confirmation on how they do it. You could say gravitons but we haven't found any yet. That is, they don't show up in the particle accelerators. "Spacetime bending. duh" Doesn't explain why it leads to attraction, just have the rubber sheet analogy and that has quite the flaw in it.