Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNice guesstimate.
Millions of years.
"These techniques are being perfected through experiments on plants and animals, and as scientists continue to uncover the secrets of the human genome, we are progressing towards this tempting, futuristic world. Engineered organisms, such as glow-in-the-dark cats, abnormally muscular cows, and insect-resistant corn, have already been successfully developed, and designer babies may be next (Simmons)." - See more at: http://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/prospect-designer-babies-it-inevitable#sthash.wF9trjYp.dpuf
You're just not flattering the notion of private research and Atlas Shrugged's method of taking geniuses fresh out of school and having them sequence.
Originally posted by Oneness
Nice guesstimate."These techniques are being perfected through experiments on plants and animals, and as scientists continue to uncover the secrets of the human genome, we are progressing towards this tempting, futuristic world. Engineered organisms, such as glow-in-the-dark cats, abnormally muscular cows, and insect-resistant corn, have already been successfully developed, and designer babies may be next (Simmons)." - See more at: http://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/prospect-designer-babies-it-inevitable#sthash.wF9trjYp.dpuf
You're just not flattering the notion of private research and Atlas Shrugged's method of taking geniuses fresh out of school and having them sequence.
Your conclusions are way, way premature.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
I post ideas, not hypotheses.
This allows me to touch a greater range of subjects and actually I learn quite a bit more from my ideas which are deduced from the many, many other ideas and hypotheses out there and often when I come out here I get quite a bit of sources from other members that tell a similar tale.
This feedback gives me confidence in my ability to reason.
Originally posted by Oneness
Perhaps. Perhaps not.I post ideas, not hypotheses.
This allows me to touch a greater range of subjects and actually I learn quite a bit more from my ideas which are deduced from the many, many other ideas and hypotheses out there and often when I come out here I get quite a bit of sources from other members that tell a similar tale.
This feedback gives me confidence in my ability to reason.
But you misrepresent the truth.
It is a suggestion that it could be a possible truth.
If it were a hypothesis (hypothetical truth), then I would be suggesting that it is a possible truth, and then I'd have to find conclusive objective evidence that it was true in order for this hypothesis to be validated.
But I'd rather hypothesize on which stocks will prove most successful and beneficial for my investments.
I read and find the syntax on real hypotheses so I can piece together conclusions like this one. I'm interested in painting a scientifically literate picture of the world and expressing it through my ideas.
I'm more interested on why the idea in and of itself is unscientific than if I'm being unscientific. In other words, I don't want anyone arguing motives or if it can be kept secret. I want people arguing on the possibility of it being developed sooner through private research than by the scientific community given enough resources and effort.
The cause for my belief that it could be achieved more quickly through private funding is that the Rothchilds as a family will pay smart fresh young minds more than the government would for public research on designer babies, and provide for them better facilities and more time to get things right.
From my understanding the scientific community is already on the verge of making a breakthrough, as that article has us building cats that glow in the dark and making statements such as "near-future" for humans.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNot only did misinterpret my motives in creating this thread, but you ignored me when I tried to explain what my motives are in these kinds of threads.
Your welcome. I'm glad to be of service.
Go live off in your own little world then, don't read or watch anything just because it isn't true.
I'm sure you watch movies, don't you? Don't do that, their depiction aren't entirely true.
Most people just link articles, Digi and myself go deeper in discussions.
Shakyamunison just read Digi's response in which there's no way to know for sure without credible sources, said, "Yeah but you don't know if it's true." So I responded, "You're right, I don't." So then she said, "Ahah! So you **** you and your thread I win!!"
I know what she does, she reads the responses of individuals she deems smarter than herself and tries the synthesis their arguments into her own.
She does it on the lounge, she does it here. She tries to apply critical arguments, but I don't for argumentation, I care for discussion. Digi is trained to make argumentative cases, he's even admitted to earning a teaching degree on the college level.
I don't mind you attacking the plausibility of it, I mind you asking me to pull evidence of an event that I never claimed was true. Because what I'm looking for is an argument as to why it's not plausible or further evidence for plausibility that I was unaware of.
There isn't much of a discussion to be had. You've basically stated the premise of Gattaca and asked "What if it's real?" Throw in a large sprinkling of conspiracy and paranoia and you've got yourself a topic not capable of progressing far.
"It's not real, it hasn't happened yet" we reply.
"Friggin might have. And us Normies are f*cked if it has" you counter.
Now where?
Is there a reason why you think it's impractical?
You should address the issue of privately funded endeavors having far fewer limits than government funded. In fact, the only limitations of something funded by multiple families of billionaires is the limitations of modern technology. Private groups may well be far ahead scientifically in very, very specific areas such as this.