Message from @Kingfish
Discord ID: 517413023988842517
@Bjorn - MD haven't read him in a long time but I'll definitely check out that link, thanks!
Whats to stop a team of people from going to some unregulated country in the middle of nowhere and making designer babies?
That's fine, but if it is a moral question what is your moral basis?
Why would designer babies be bad?
@Sam Anderson huh interesting
That is what selective breeding is
because apparently we wont know when to stop @MrBland - VA
I guess we'd have to regulate it really good
Honestly I don't have a single doctrine I derive my morals from, I'd guess it's mostly coming from a civic morality to ensure the health and security of my people
Selective breeding has inherent limits that gene editing does not
The diverse now demand access to the pale. Even if the pale find some way to carve out their own places, but remain within the law, the diverse will find some way to force their way inside. In other words, the Danegeld of the Civil Rights Movement, which was affirmative action, was not enough. It turns out Kipling was right about the Danegeld. Once you have paid the diverse, you never get rid of the diverse. FROM https://thezman.com/wordpress/
Selective breeding is a fantastic start
So the "good of the people" idea @Kingfish
@missliterallywho No prob, lol. Remember, NazLud (National Ludditism) is the final red pill <:usinnoodle:420778112226164736>: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC6Z_kdQoHw
In my opinion yes for the most part
selective breeding can't compete with gene editing
The world is so good at sticking to treaties and agreements, I'm sure everyone would abide by regulations on gene editing <:really:453005408064241674>
I think spirituality or religion is a powerful way to ensure these values in an intangible, socially cohesive concept, but they come from the society itself
My biggest complaint with "civic morality" is it's subjective nature.
Yes its subjective
@Bjorn - MD I am a passive Luddite, patiently waiting for the inevitable 🙏
What is good for the people will vary quite a bit from person to person
Sure
I prefer an objective morality.
And there will be times when the people are wrong
Well objective is rather debatable isn't it 😉
And then of course I'm biased by my view of the truth of the world.
We haven't yet mentioned that gene editing would have a huge barrier to entry 💰 💰 💰
Yeah that's fine, id argue your view is a pretty important one and has served our people well
We Europeans are molded by Europe. Europe gave us intellect and ambition. Gene editing is simply an extension of Europe’s nature, not contrary to it.
Our levantine merchant friends will likely use editing to obscure or hide their characteristic features.
y'all saw this, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=lAe8mxvV1fU
Heidegger thought that the nature of technology isn’t technological at all and I agree.
Jews would use this tech to rid themselves of their many diseases, becoming more of an eternal pest than they could ever be without it.
Gray Ayy lmaos are gene edited Soy Boy bugmen from the future. Change my mind.
Teeechnically, kids can't wear hats in school, 'cuz (non-White) gangs.
@Kingfish I find it interesting just how much world views color interpretations of "objective" facts
I remember a lesson I learned from an older teacher when I was young:
Clint Eastwood has a new racist, anti-Mestizo movie coming out, rt