/tech/ - Technology

101010

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(78.40 KB 500x738 altered_states.jpg)
Human experimentation should be legal? Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 03:45:32 [Preview] No. 11306
What do you think tech?
Should we be able to experiment with human genetic modification (CRISPR/Cas9)? Should we be experimenting with eugenics?
The child development should taken with neurogenic drugs, such as Dihexa and NSI-189? Psychedelic drugs, like Psilocybin? The effect of nutrition, as with the use of iodine, EPA/DHA and uridine?


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 05:16:49 [Preview] No. 11311 del
>>11306
Should only be legal for certified research facilities with willing participants who are fully briefed and aware of what can potentially be inflicted upon them.

Human experimentation is highly likely to already be occurring within secretive facets of the government and unknown research groups, it is simply a matter of ethics and human behavior: Is this inhumane? What feeling will this experimentation invoke within me?


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 09:45:20 [Preview] No. 11316 del
>>11306
It should be legal, but only if testing on the one thinking that it should be legal. And their childrens.

OP, basically, you're asking if it would be sweet to live in Brave New World.
Seriously.

Don't you have enough knowledge to understand that everything new is a meant to fuck with us? That is always bring great comfort, great promises, but always with another layer of surveillance, another layer of control hidden behind?

Seriously. I don't understand how can anyone make such a thread.
Just get to know Surrogacy. Just imagine being this children, whom only connection with its true origin is a receipt. Nearly tattooed with a barcode on his butt. And with said buyable, you're obviously disposable too.
It's the merchandization of human beings.

The real question OP is, do you think you should be treated the same as your dishwasher?
I'm not talking about someone else, I'm talking about YOU, and your (potential) childrens.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 11:28:18 [Preview] No. 11319 del
FOSS people needs to be a thing.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 18:07:01 [Preview] No. 11333 del
>>11316
The population of the earth is seven billion, SEVEN BILLION. Humans are expendable, and the sooner you idiots realize this is the sooner you can defeat those who oppress society and (possibly) usurp their positions from them.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 18:32:07 [Preview] No. 11335 del
>>11306
Biological testing? Drug experiments?

On a voluntarily basis, I'd say it's fine. But being mandatory? No fucking way!

Eugenics requires a massive social police state and immense anti-privacy measures to properly carry out. So by saying you support eugenics you basically are supporting a tyrannical police state. Even if you think it would "work out" OK, it doesn't change the fact you'd be making other people's lives miserable "for the common good"... and we all know what that leads to and it ain't a pretty outcome.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 19:05:19 [Preview] No. 11336 del
>>11311
>Is this inhumane?
Can you define what "humane" is?

>>11316
>And their childrens.
So the parents can force their children to do these things?

>you're asking if it would be sweet to live in Brave New World.
No, that's your conclusion. BnW is one possible future, not the only possible future.

>do you think you should be treated the same as your dishwasher?
This is not the real question, that's just your reduction of the argument, that everything evolving to genetic modification will have the same result as in WW2 and BnW. That's not necessarily the case.

>>11335
>So by saying you support eugenics you basically are supporting a tyrannical police state.
Not exactly too. See "libertarian eugenics" effort.


Ok, so what I've analysed is that the most common opinion here in /tech/ is based on NAP (Non-aggression principle) and SC (Social Contracts), but not in the anarcho-capitalism sense. Is that right?


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 20:12:20 [Preview] No. 11340 del
>>11333
You are expendable if you want. I'm not.

Is there true people falling for this over population bullshit?
Just a little bite of history: A genocide happened in france during the french revolution, and some of the ideas behind this is overpopulation. It was in the 17e century (others being that they were royalists, and that french revolution was not a revolution but a coup from the bourgeoisie against the nobles).
Anyway, we have today enough food to feed more than 10 billions people. We're not too much on this earth. Stop listening to globalists like Soros. They're the one bullshiting this. If we don't have enough space on earth, then we'll move on the moon, and so on. When wood was lacking because of the surplus of population of europe, we discovered coal.
Fusion is very soon, and we'll do very well, no worry.
The point that you don't seem to understand is that we are beginning to be too much, not for the earth, but for the good management of a unique world government.
Don't worry, with the next world war, we'll mostly all die. You included. You should first apply your ideas to yourself. Don't make children and suicide yourself.

>>>11316
>>And their childrens.
>So the parents can force their children to do these things?
That's not what I meant. I was meaning that your childrens will be applied the politics you're defending. If you have a "bad" (low IQ, down syndrome) childrens, then they'll be euthanised. You'll understand then why people actually keep their disabled/retarded childrens, even though they have the choice to kill him when young. It have already happened, in USA or in Sweden for exemple. They sterilised crazy people, disabled one or one with low IQ test. Eugenism will be even more monstruous, and direct.
A lot of people, analasing the future market, are saying that in a way, we'll either not be able to procreate, either chose to actually "buy" a fully engineered baby. But it's based on a lot of people buying babies, and so not making them.
We'll see.

>>you're asking if it would be sweet to live in Brave New World.
>No, that's your conclusion. BnW is one possible future, not the only possible future.
You did not read me. A reminder:
Don't you have enough knowledge to understand that everything new is a meant to fuck with us? That is always bring great comfort, great promises, but always with another layer of surveillance, another layer of control hidden behind?
There is only one possible futur, it's us fucked. It may not be Brave New World, nor 1984, but it will be the worste dystopian ever.

>>do you think you should be treated the same as your dishwasher?
>This is not the real question, that's just your reduction of the argument, that everything evolving to genetic modification will have the same result as in WW2 and BnW. That's not necessarily the case.
You don't chose. The "new" man WILL be a merchandise. The next market that is gonna explode is the market of genes, and the market of life. Just follow today's investments. AGAIN, just get to know surrogacy. Do you think that surrogacy is moral? Do you think that childrens being born today with a barcode on the foot is moral?
If you think it is, or it's just a little deviance, then seriously, I have no time to lose.

You seem to give your opinion a lot, out of nowhere.
Pass some IQ test please, and if the result is low, just apply what you're talking about, and suicide yourself. You should test your whole family, anyone you love. You'll understand that a human being have nothing to do with any IQ, nor any disability. It's just that people like you think that eugenism is normal, because like the retard upward talking about "disposable people", you're alienated, and too fucked in the head.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 20:24:52 [Preview] No. 11341 del
>>11340
You see, that is the problem with depopulation, cognitive dissonance takes place in most individuals, they desire a less populated planet, but themselves want to procreate and have a family.

Just because we have the capabilities to feed 10 billion humans doesn't mean we should, and what happens when that 10 billion turns into a 15 billion which turns into a 30 billion because population grows logarithmically? You will see the population growth primarily occurring in 3rd world countries, most notably by Muslims who's religion allows for polygamy and encourages multiple children, and a population as large as 10 billion would only survive because of our advanced technology, it is highly unlikely for this number to be reached normally, and the technology to allow it to reach this point requires massive amounts of resources.

But I digress, attempting to grasp concepts such as this when it incorporates so much information and requires great knowledge is difficult and leads to failure.


Anonymous 09/26/2017 (Tue) 20:51:45 [Preview] No. 11343 del
>>11340
Ok, all your wall of text can be simplified on these arguments:

1- Moral principles. Human life has a essential value and we should protect it.

2- Everything is made to be sold in contemporary society. Therefore the future will be the distopy of comercialisation of life by itself.

3- Intelligence cannot be quantified.


Now, my counter-arguments:

1- Humans are different from other animals that we already use as objects? On what exacly is based your ideas of "moral"? Your philosophical principles seems to be based on some kind of metaphysical essentialism, am I right?

2- Yes. That's the point of capitalism. If you refuse to accept this reality you'll soon be defending communism ideals. Unfortunately we can't give a hug on everyone and start to sing as in Wonderland.

3- I haven't even mentioned IQ. I do not agree with the current model of intelligence quantification. Actually, most of the scientists don't agree with this too, but use it as an intermediary method of research (like the Big Five, on psychology). Inteligence can't be quantified in an precise number, no, but it's clear that there's difference between people reasoning.
Them, the question on OP is:
- Should we advance and create a future where children can be super-intelligent, and not limited by our worst vestigial ancestry genes?
- Would this be feasible?
- What would be the consequences of that?

I'm not even quesitoning how we could do it.
People that have a metaphysical approach of seem this experience we call life will mostly be against it.
People that have a non-teleological physicallist approach will mostly polarize: some will say "do it" and "it's feasible, but we should take care of not hurting many people", while some others will have an anti-natalist view of it.
My purpose with this OP is to know better the basic philosophical views some people on /tech/ have.
I suggest everyone interested on it watching Gattaca and Psycho-Pass (first season only). These are great content to ignite the philosophical thinking on this subject.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 01:53:45 [Preview] No. 11355 del
(133.67 KB 600x800 Staubexplosion.jpg)
>>11306
The cat's out of the bag. Pandora's Box is opened. You can do stuff with CRISPR at home now with kits you can order online. Granted, the at-home kits don't allow you to modify human genes (it's yeast, actually), but it's a sign of how accessible and widespread this technology is becoming.

There will be (if there aren't already) clandestine labs doing human genetic engineering in places like China, Hong Kong and India. There will be mistakes; horrible monstrosities will be created along with those who have extra intelligence or athletic ability. Genetic plagues, spread by specially-engineered viruses, will become the new biowarfare.

The drug market will change a great deal. CRISPR has already allowed researchers to genetically engineer yeast to produce opioids and opioid precursors. When the technology escapes the lab, high-purity opioids will be ubiquitous and cheap. Any idiot who can brew beer will be able to brew opioids with a self-replicating organism. Rates of opioid addiction will skyrocket, but it won't matter, because people will have access to essentially unlimited quantities of high-purity dope.

CRISPR will also be used by the likes of ELF/ALF and anarcho-primitivists in an attempt to drastically reduce the human population of the earth. They'll engineer pathogens with heretofore-unseen levels of virulence and antibiotic/antiviral resistance. Billions will die, but drastic and draconian quarantine measures will still preserve a significant portion of the human population.

Enjoy yourself. It is later than you think.


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 19:48:18 [Preview] No. 11374 del
>>11341

Who is "we"? What right have you on anyone on this planet? If you're the president of you country, then you should decide according to your land. You have nothing to say about your neighbor. You're just pointing out how this is mainly a globalist propaganda. A global problem, "we", are the people no this earth, should do something.
At the end, you only have a right on yourself. If you think that it's a good idea to sterilise, or more brutally, create a third world war to massacre the entire world, then you should be interned.

The government is rogue, and only want us enslave. I say it clear and loud, you are a debil, if you think that anything that can produce modernity have any value, and is harmless.

>requires great knowledge
You're talking about concepts that you don't understand. Why are you talking then?

>>11343
>wall of text
..
>2- Everything is made to be sold in contemporary society. Therefore the future will be the distopy of comercialisation of life by itself.
I repeated two time my point, and you still ignore it. If you think that capitalism has flaws but is a "good enough" system, because everything else is worste, then seriously, I don't know what to do.
>3- Intelligence cannot be quantified.
I never said so. Intelligence, by its modern meaning, is purely material. Everything in modernity is taken by its material, quantified side, so logically the current understanding of intelligence is only tied to a quantifiable definition. What I'm saying is you can't measure the value of any human being, since he's not only material. I'm not even going with metaphysics in mind, but can you, at least, recognize rationalism?
A poor, HONEST and idiot have a bigger value than any extremely intelligent bankers who live on usury. You don't need any ideological baggage to understand this simple idea.
>1- Humans are different from other animals that we already use as objects?
We are superior, without any doubt. Not going on with spirituality, you can at least, recognize that we have reason (rationalism, at least a far superior reason), and they don't. It's base on our reason that we should respect them, and not treat them like object. But since we're in a extremly decadent world, in which material is the ultimate basis of everything (thanks Marx and its mason friends), some capitalists are doing so. They'll be punished eventually. I'm personally not responsible of any of these. It's not "we".
>Yes. That's the point of capitalism. If you refuse to accept this reality you'll soon be defending communism ideals
You don't understand. Both capitalism and communism are based on the same philosophy. The only difference is the mean of distribution of production. But it's based on the same modernity. Capitalism is worste than communism, because it's a sustainable system. Communism was too apparent in its monstrosity to remain, when capitalism is hidden.
>What would be the consequences of that?
Wait, is that not the point of the discussion? You're still at the beggining of thinking about the subject?...
>psychopass
>anime
ok


Anonymous 09/27/2017 (Wed) 20:23:40 [Preview] No. 11379 del
(71.00 KB 640x639 0.jpg)
>>11374
>thanks Marx and its mason friends
>Capitalism is worste than communism
>They'll be punished eventually. [karma or god punishment]
>Both capitalism and communism are based on the same philosophy.
ok.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply