like a UPS truck driving through a special ed classroom

 

-----signature-----

You quoted one section, talking about how people might be opposed to his proposals due to a status quo bias. Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by that, but people form a status quo bias when they are presented with a novel idea, and form their conception of the 'status quo' based on the first conditions they are presented with, and not based on any rational conceptualization. Status quo bias is a very real thing, based on behavioural economics.

Any rational individual (which you are clearly not) could easily puzzle out that any benefits that could possibly arise from artificial selection would be far too late to actually help towards preventing climate change. Rational individuals would see clearly that this is not a policy statement, and is instead exploratory science.

But you don't believe in climate change, and are just looking for something to blame on liberals, so I can see how you might misunderstand what was written in this article. You saw climate change and gene modification in the same article and drew your own conclusions, regardless of what was actually written.

 

-----signature-----

Screw eugenics, lets talk about cybernetics

I don't know about you guys but since I was 10 or so years old, the time when Starcraft entered my life and changed it completely, I've always wanted to become a ghost

Everyone is insulting BT, but most of you I am now beginning to realize are incredibly stupid and a danger to those people around you


Did you even read the bloody article ? its madness, this guy is the modern equivalent of Doctor Mengele

Read this you fools.......


Isn't it ethically problematic to allow parents to make these kinds of irreversible choices for their children?

Liao: That's a really good question. First, I think it's useful to distinguish between selection and modification. With selection you don't really have the issue of irreversible choices because the embryo selected can't complain that she could have been otherwise---if the parents had selected a different embryo, she wouldn't have existed at all. In the case of modification, that issue could certainly arise, but even then I think it's important to step back and ask why we are looking at these solutions in the first place. The reason we are even considering these solutions is to prevent climate change, which is a really serious problem, and which might affect the well being of millions of people including the child. And so in that context, if on balance human engineering is going to promote the well being of that particular child, then you might be able to justify the solution to the child.


edit: BT was right, this is eugenics, what the hell ? Why are insane evil people like this given public money to study and then do their evil research with ?

i don't see how you can find this humorous ....

Right now, it's a research paper. You say the word eugenics as if simply uttering it makes your entire argument.

What exactly is your issue, or are you just frothing at the mouth?

 

-----signature-----

Eugenics has always found its most enthusiastic supporters amongst the "progressive"

 

-----signature-----

So you and BT have no idea what scientific amorality is, huh? Go figure. Or reading comprehension. Note "in that context" and "might".

 

-----signature-----

I quoted the relevant section .... the section where his ideas should be accepted and those who do not must have some irrational bias ... just like Gore sold his ideas

 

-----signature-----

The only people who should be subjected to any eugenics program are those who propose or support such a eugenics program.


It is seriously the dumbest idea ever, and advocating it is prima facie evidence that your genes are not up to standards.

 

-----signature-----