It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World's first GM babies born

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
They need to work at overcoming the flaws and can create long living, healthy, young, beautiful and intelligent people. But to live like this you also need advanced civilizations like the Venus Project, equality, no group of corporate goons running things, and telepathy.

This can be heaven or hell depending on who is doing what, and why.

The annanuki were divided by clones and genetics, some became very ruthless, warriors that naturally dominate and exploit others, for example.

We live here, and we know who is in control of this. And so its not good for that reason.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Even if they end up with super human babies, they will probably use them in the army as super soldiers to shock and awe other nations...
)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I say it's about damn time. We've been sitting on technology that could vastly improve the quality of life for our entire species while politicians with no understanding go back and forth about "ethics."



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by definity
 


If some Christians believe in a creator and creationism, then how would it be sacrilege for man to imitate the creator?

After all, there are folks who believe that WE are the product of genetic manipulation by a higher-evolved species.

Where's the taboo part? We should not exist as well, no?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
This is cool #. Gene therapy to remove heredetory and/or genetic diseases from unborn children? Hell yeah. The possibilities are endless. Booh yah.


And naturally, as with great power, great knowledge comes with great responsibility.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Disease etc, is natures way of population control. We are going to have a hell of a population problem in 100 years or so


Then again, like most state of the art "medical technology", it's going to be for rich people only, they are the only ones that can afford such luxuries.

On a personal note, I am against this kind of tinkering with nature. It always has unforseen consequences..... Look at GMO crops, now we think it's a great idea to make GMO animals and humans.....



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



They need to work at overcoming the flaws and can create long living, healthy, young, beautiful and intelligent people. But to live like this you also need advanced civilizations like the Venus Project, equality, no group of corporate goons running things, and telepathy.


What?

Why?

Enabling periodic telomerasse with a better system of purging cellular mutations outside the meiotic process (meaning tweaking the existing or creating a secondary immune system specifically to target cancer and rogue cell groups) would accomplish the same (though certain parts of the maturity process are based on the timely degeneration of telomeres to activate and/or suppress various protein transcripts - so this would have to be accounted for to allow for properly maturing organisms).

There's really no reason why, with the proper research and modification, children two generations from now should ever have to worry about aging (and it will likely be possible to make it retrograde with retrovirus distribution to existing generations).

Politics and economics came about for two reasons - reproduction and resources. I won't bore you with a long lecture about the Red Queen's Hypothesis and how it applies to sex and evolutionary psychology... but the basics are that human psychology revolves around the propagation of your genetics (the body is a vessel for DNA - not the other way around). Our behavior has been fine-tuned through the processes of natural and sexual selection to have the greatest chances of seeing our DNA propagated to future generations (indeed - males exist because the DNA contained within the Y chromosome, a genetic mutation, staged a coupe in the past and attempted to propagate in such a manner as to lead to all organisms being born as males. It was another mutation that led to the ejection of this code into its own chromosome that ultimately defined the formation of a new type of organism and paved the way for the formation of sexes as we see them expressed in mammals).

You don't really need advanced civilizations. Though it certainly comes in handy to have the power to seek resources to something approaching an infinitum. Humans are still largely developed to procreate within their first twenty years of being - and to do so very intensely while the fertility is there. Incidentally - that would also be the ideal physical age to suspend an organism (for physical performance, looks, etc - people look good to us in their youth because that's when they are sexually viable - particularly women, who have a more narrow range of viable ages). Non-terminating generations that continue to reproduce at rates once only sustained for about half of a generation pose interesting logistical problems.

The limiting factor wouldn't be that of human empathy or the ambitions of individuals. It would be the limitation of resources. Vast as they may be (and we haven't even approached peak capacity on our planet, yet) - the planet does have limited resources (even 'renewable' sources have a limited per annum capacity). Such a situation would certainly strain political and other relations.

But from the perspective of a species that could engineer large artificial habitats in space and possibly travel between stars.... the prospect of living indefinitely and being able to reproduce while doing so is not at all a problem.

The issue is that we're currently rather bound to the limits of our gravity well.


The annanuki were divided by clones and genetics, some became very ruthless, warriors that naturally dominate and exploit others, for example.


That's the natural order of anything. The only reason a hive-mind works is because the hive is mostly a clone of the queen with no reproductive potential. The hive -is- the gene to be propagated. That is subjugation and domination of the individual....

Or... it redefines the concept of an individual. The only thing that can really be considered an individual is the queen of a hive (and perhaps the males). Everything else is merely an extension of that single individual. The worker ant is no more an individual than your finger is (your cells have accepted a mortal line of reproduction so that germ cells can propagate their source genetic code in another organism - not unlike how a hive accepts mortality to ensure the 'royal' descendants that are genetically viable can propagate their source genetic code).

Since hives still go to war with each other - it's difficult to stand on the argument that telepathy will create a harmonious society on the whole. It might work to create a hive-mind... but that works only within that hive (and probably only if they are clones with no reproductive viability).



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


It's not nature's way when a lot of diseases are man-made solely for the purpose of population control.

That is wrong no matter how you slice it.

People should NOT have to sit by helplessly while their loved ones die from a disease that would have never come about if not for those with such an agenda.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Why do you need a better world. Because this one is slavery, run by evil slavers. You could never expect them to tailor body suits for you, they don't have the same goals as humanity does.

Because long living youthful enhanced people require systems of equality, progression, and telepathy. They don't bring too many children in the world and yet ensure all are living equally. while at the same time retain their freedoms. They are equal and free, and mature enough to strive to be hero's. There is no homeless, no starving, no forcing anyone, but all are responsible and strive to do their best, because they are grown up.

You can't put grown up technologies into the hands of mean greedy little slaver children.

Savvy?
edit on 29-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I don't want my food GM, now we have to deal with freakin humans too?!

Well, the government sure as hell wont do anything about it. We can't get the corn we eat labeled if its GM, I guess getting all GM humans tattooed is out as well.

This is just another reason I refuse to bring any more kids into this world. The ones I have now run the risk of breeding with non-natural humans. This world and the people in it make me sick.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Good point, but that falls under tinkering with nature though. Obviously I am against biological warfare for sure. But on the flip side, we got the same companies being paid to make the crap, then being paid again to "cure" and "treat" it. What a sham.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


It was only a matter of time. They had already crossed sheep and spiders and developed a kind of super kevlar.

When they say three parents what makes everyone think it is all human parents? My conjecture only but it seems like the direction gene splicing was heading and trying to build that super weapon, maybe even a human with wings, who knows what kinds of evils they had dreamed up and tried to cook up in a lab.

This isn't as simple as cloning as I am reasonably sure that has been going on since Dolly. This is something sinister since every new technology is developed for weapons first.


just sayin and hopefully wrong but there isn't a whole lot of morality in the world anymore.

Like unto the days of Noah and I hope I'm wrong but why bother to combine three humans when two worked well since the beginning of time?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Actually this is way before Dolly, I did a thread a while back about cloning, and an experiment with a monkey and how they brought him back to life.

Monkey+Frankenstein. When Fiction Turns Into Fact!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Disclaimer: The vid is a bit graphic but important.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


eliminate flaws?

So when does the plan evolve to eliminating the rest of us "inferiors"?

Considering depopulation agendas seem to be making the rounds then why exactly are they even trying to create life?

I doubt it is for our benefit...



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



Why do you need a better world. Because this one is slavery, run by evil slavers. You could never expect them to tailor body suits for you, they don't have the same goals as humanity does.


And what goals does Humanity have?

Last I checked - the only "universal" goal was to metabolize and produce successful offspring. Everything else is an extrapolation of that concept or extra-curricular.

Genetic engineering, interestingly enough, seems to be more directly related to the goal of reproduction (successful offspring) than perhaps any other scientific development in the history of our species.

I fail to see the other goals that could be considered universal to humanity.


Because long living youthful enhanced people require systems of equality, progression, and telepathy.


Do you not understand how to answer the question: "Why?"

You have already stated this.

What is equality? Why is it necessary for a system of "long living" and youthful individuals?

That is to say: In what manner is it impractical for women and men to live a thousand years under a patriarchal society resembling the traditional structure of India's?


They don't bring too many children in the world and yet ensure all are living equally. while at the same time retain their freedoms. They are equal and free, and mature enough to strive to be hero's. There is no homeless, no starving, no forcing anyone, but all are responsible and strive to do their best, because they are grown up.


You're making baseless claims.

If I have freedom, how can I be an equal? Someone who uses their freedom to become exceptionally adept at video games is not equal to someone who chooses to become adept at engineering (all other factors of nature and nurture being equal). They are different - and the skill possessed by both could be said to be "different but equal" ... but which ultimately has more value?

And therein lies the problem.

Entertainment is valuable. Indeed - our very intelligence is the result of runaway sexual selection for creative and entertaining companions. The typical comparison is to the Peacocks' tail feathers. The tail is of no survival benefit (in fact, it's possibly a detriment). Similarly - the growth of our intelligence came at considerable metabolic strain; the increase in intelligence that took place over hundreds of thousands of years was never substantial enough to make a difference in inter-species or extra-species competition. Women, due to genetic and social pressures - selected male partners for creativity and 'interesting' mental characteristics.

Suppose one could read out of that and into some scriptures and make the comment that Eve really did partake of the fruit from the tree of knowledge (I admit - I'm reading out of and into that considerably - mostly for the sake of conversation).

But - at the same time - we cannot deny what we have become. Entertainment is no longer sufficient to provide for offspring. It requires resources garnered through trade of goods and/or services. Because different people inherently place different values upon different services and goods - it's impossible to create a system of truly equal individuals.


You can't put grown up technologies into the hands of mean greedy little slaver children.


Yet more emotional rhetoric.

The problem is that peace is naturally unsustainable. A tribe that denounces violence and the use of weapons works only so long as no one utilizes violence and/or picks up a weapon. Societies are inherently faced with the option of 'dominate rogue individuals or be dominated by rogue individuals.'

The likening of crime to cancer is not at all without merit. Cancer exists because a single cell mutates and replicates at a speed beyond which the body can destroy. These cells consume resources and choke out functional cells - ultimately leading to the death of the organism (and its own destruction).

Society is no different. Either you take up arms against rogues that will consume the resources you have allotted for your own people/interests ... or you get consumed and become something else.

There's really no other option.

To suggest an alien species does things differently is to deny the chaotic nature of large systems.


Savvy?


Children always liken their parents to deities of limitless knowledge and ability until they, themselves, begin to enter adulthood.

You're right at about your teens. Avidly arguing ideals you haven't had a chance to live and believing you know it all. Give yourself a few more lifetimes - reality will begin to dawn on you.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
As a futurist, I can't help but think this is cool. Maybe I'm alone in that sentiment, but I'm all for scientific advancement of our species. It's a new form of evolution.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 



eliminate flaws?


Such as the ones that lead to degenerative neural tissues, sickle-cell anemia, G6PD, cystic fibrosis, etc.


So when does the plan evolve to eliminating the rest of us "inferiors"?


There are two mechanisms for doing this. Retroviral infection is one of the most prolific in movies and various entertainment plot lines. Using retroviruses, one could target ranges of the population to replace segments of genetic code. Albeit doing this successfully to living organisms is a bit tricky and not at all a seamless procedure.

More realistically, lines of code in genetically modified humans would be designed to be "parasitic" in nature. These types of genes already exist in nature - the phenomena would merely be exploited to a specific end. Code sequences would, essentially, inhibit particular proteins and/or lines of code introduced by mated partners.

This could, effectively, mean that you are able to reproduce with a " Mark-One Human" and the offspring will have all the traits of "Mark-Two Humans" - having suppressed and/or eliminated targeted segments of DNA.

This is the most practical route, as you are using the human sexual process to transmute the species in a retroviral manner.

Undoubtedly - some mutation along the way would negate the process and likely lead to a true division of the human species. Though that would only happen if said mutation was reproductively viable and offspring survived to father and/or mother that species (our own mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA shows us that, while billions of people lived before us - some 95% of the population stems from 33 main matriarchal clans (which can each be traced back through each other to a "mitochondrial eve"). Which means thousands of others died out, completely.


Considering depopulation agendas seem to be making the rounds then why exactly are they even trying to create life?


Who is they?

Perhaps it is us attempting to create an advantage against they? Why can we not have crafty scientists?


I doubt it is for our benefit...


Obviously.

Unless your employer could demote you back to conception, I don't really see how this technology could benefit any currently living individual it hasn't already influenced.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT3
 

I hated hte movie Gattaca. He put every life at risk on the ship just to prove something. You saw it in the movie when he couldn't pass hte physical tests and was out of breath. If he had passed out or lost concentration or something during the mission for whatever reason then it could have endangered others. The criteria of the mission would have been designed around the physical capabilities and/or constraints of the crew (with some leg room). By faking the tests he's sabotaging the safety measures and making a joke of himself. I'm not debating about the premise of the movie that genetic engineering will lead to a world where those who're not genetically engineered are more often poor and discriminated against, but the way the movie communicated it was ineffective.

Beyond that, there's very little about our modern world that's natural. There're few places in the world that're not touched by man or influenced by man in some way. We routinely do things to our bodies and our environment that're risky. We use thousands of chemicals that're not fully tested to determine their effects on biology. Our life on this planet is a vast experiment. Genetic engineering would change nothing, it would just be another experiment to add to our resume.

IMHO, complaining about genetic engineering is like throwing rocks from a glass house. Did you know people once stirred liquid mercury without any protection? Did you know coal power plants used to pump out volumes more of dirt and grime that spilled into the city and filled peoples lungs with carcinogens and every manner of irritant. They used coal for a lot of things. Factories would routinely dump sh** into the river, whatever it was, and there wasn't anybody back then to stop them. There're lots of examples in our history of how our life on this planet is an experiment. This doesn't allow us to act willfully irresponsible, but our expectations will always be limited by our knowledge. Since we'll never have perfect knowledge, we'll always be doing these experiments. To put it another way, at some point genetic engineering will be so cheap and available that people will do it regardless of whether we have complete knowledge or not. The benefits will be seen as worth the risks.
edit on 29-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Well.. it doesn't only lead to bad things. It will probably lead to great things. Unfortunately the people created in the program have no choice in the matter and therefore there are definitely ethical problems.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 

I was premature and when doctors "saved" me they gave me no choice.

I wasn't given a choice whether to enter this life or not.

I came into this life in debt and am always paying.

I didn't choose to have christianity slammed down my throat as a kid.

Etc.

Bottom line, if enough people think genetic engineering is beneficial, it's a GO.
edit on 29-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join