Crazy Rusky has a point. It could be used for good in the hands of someone with good intentions. You could edit out hereditary diseases, save children's lives. However, medicine and tech in the hands of these billionaires is never going to be in the best interest of the people at large.
Find me a willing American farmer who WANTS to grow CRISPR bred beef
Not an american farmer, but it would be interesting for me to use CRISPR for making my livestock better. Say, make it invulnerable for the shit government/corporations could use to kill it. Or convert them to a breed with better output.
I see nothing bad in using technology in the way I want with complete understanding of what I am doing. That is completely different from the situation when that technology used by some third-party satanic elite bastards to make you compliant and controlled.
CRISPR is just a technology. The question is who use it and for what purpose. We change genes when doing controlled selection and other stuff. CRISPR is just a method to do the same thing faster. If you have an example of some cool and delisious variety of berries, but can't obtain seeds (or they extremely expensive, or prohibited by government), using CRISPR you could make that delicious variety from your regular berries without long selection process. Find dfiferencies between your berries DNA and delicious berries DNA, then use CRISPR to do replacements.
Throw out some decent way to resist to NWO just because NWO use it to fuck you, does not look sane for me. I'll prefer to fuck NWO with it.
We don't need gene editing. It is 100% unnecessary.
So, how to create a winterproof variety of lemons? You can't do it without changing lemon genes. The question is only in how you will do it - by natural selection, by random gamma-rays shooting or by direct editing.
All that smokescreens around genetic is just a smokescreen. This thing is similar to computer programming - you have a "program" written as DNA code. Different parts do different things. That's all. As you know exactly how it works, you are free to do anything you want.
Ethic questions about human gene editing also not as simple as you think. Of course when some elite bastards want to change your DNA with murky goals that is absolutely unacceptible. Or when they want to grow dumb brainless clones to replace us. But from the other side it is a question of what making us those who we are. If it is DNA - than it is unacceptible to interfere with our DNA. Changing DNA we will become something different. But if it is something else and we are spiritual beings in the vessels of our bodies, then who cares if we change our vessel in the way we want? As long as it is our own decision, it should be OK. Of course there will be some dumbfucks that will grow horns and tails, but most people will use this ability to fix errors or for other utilitarian things. Nowdays we already have few freaks who do some weird and disgusting things with their bodies. But nobody think that fixing teeth or repairing wounds is something satanic.
Even moving to theological things, it is not as simple as it seems. If God create us and give us an ability to change ouselves, may be He do it with purpose. And since God create us by His own likeness, it means that we have the right not only use life, but change it too. And may be even create it, in the likeness of God. Also, f.e., humanity become taller, and it is genetic thing. Yes, our genes changing making us taller. Is it against God or is it along His plan? I think it is up to us - use that ability or not and how to use it.
Shortly it depends on who and with what purpose doing that "scary" gene editing. And it does not matter how they do it. CRISPR - is about "how", not about "who" or "with what purposes".
Question everything. It could be at least interesting.
Cherries and melons too. But there are varians perfectly growing in high latitudes selectioned more than 50 years ago.
There are no any reasons to not to have lemons that grow in high latitudes. The question is only will you spend decades if not centuries to achieve necessary gene changes, or will it be hours to make it.
We can't be patient about having certain things during seasonal periods so, lets break nature apart and hope the consequences are tolerable.
You just touched one of the biggest rabbit holes. Do you understand that current climate is completely unnatural for our planet? Earth should be green from pole to pole with modrate warm climate under greenhouse effect with 1200ppm of CO2 in atmosphere, as it was hundreds millions of years in eocene, f.e. You keep temperature and humidity in your home exactly at average temperature and humidity of eocene. To grow perfect crop you have to copy eocene climete up to that 1200 ppm CO2.
So, trying to prevent "climate change" you break nature apart, not by creating lemons that could survive the -20°C.
There is no long term study to show gene editing consequences
And there is no such studies because they don't care. When you want to use something for your purpose, I think you study the consequences first, and then use that something with wisdom. Not like them. That is the difference. That is why technology should be taken away from elites.
If you want to use GMO foods as an example, do you know how many variants have come and gone by experiment and failed and poisoned soil and animals and insects. Monsanto has a horrible history of having to decontaminate soil from having tested different strains.
Because Monsanto don't care about things you will care about. That is why Monsanto using gene editing is bad and you using gene editing is good. You care. You will figure out how things works and will not use something you don't know about even if it promise billions in profit. You and Monsanto have completely opposite goals.
Again, it is only a question of who is using technology and for what.
You use internet to share your thoughts with friends and to get answers for your questions. They use internet to create sheeple. Does that make internet bad?
Meanwhile, about GMO. I hate GMO not because it is GMO. Being an engineer I perfectly understand that every apple or beef we grow and eat for centuries are literally genetically modified by selection process. If you ever tried to eat wild apples you know what I'm talking about. And I don't even know if there somwhere still exist a genetically unmodified wild cow.
I hate GMO and strongly against it because it is their GMO. Nobody knows what they really changed, for what purposes except profit and what real side effects could be. That is the danger of GMO, not the GMO itself.
Whose genetic program and for what purpose? That is the key question.
When it is completely up to you, say, you want to have a renewable teeth (just new one grow if something wrong with old) and you have exact map of what nucleotide sequence responsible for and change one that responsible for growing new tooth instead old one - what is the problem? It is your decision, you do it by yourself and no corporation could insert something unintended into your DNA. You just get always perfect teeth and will never have to pay dentist. Why could it be something wrong?
I'd rather care about teeth I have so I don't learn vanity in my life and just stop caring due disposable nature of my body.
I would not mind be able to repair shit I break due being idiot, which I admittedly am, but I'd rather not mess with my stock settings.
Of course there is speculative part of "what if accident", but then, I need material to learn on and from experience, making mistakes and dealing with consequences is path to improve.
Reasonable, me, probably, too. At least to the moment I will get a full and complete documentation on every possible setting. But why make a taboo from it? Bad guys (? transgender inhumans?) don't care about your taboos and will do that in any case.
I need material to learn on and from experience, making mistakes and dealing with consequences is path to improve.
This. Older civilisation - more consequences to deal with. You will have to deal with consequences of gene editing usage. For now, you already have to deal with consequences of mRNA gene editing. And how you will fix it if you deny gene editing technology as whole?
It is not taboo for me. Let me expand a bit on what I tried to express. If I can comprehend what given process does, I can estimate by myself consequences and risk to reward ratio (if any). For example they come up with some new whatever radio or any EM based tech , say some scanning techniques (like MRI) . I have provable skillset to asses what I'm dealing with before I go for this process, without need to trust 3rd party.
Also I have a problem with trusting things like that tech for a reason. I have to assume authority or so called expert in something that may be determinal for my well-being. By doing so I unintentionally turn off drive to know it, because "there is some one doing this 4433 years and knows better". As result I'm building my understanding of reality on somebody's else word (possibly agenda).
You don't need authority or expert to trust. Really, there are no things in the world that sane person could not comprehend.
As for the discussed CRISPR technology there is nothing complex at all. Special proteine split DNA and compare one strand with provided short RNA If RNA is complement to splitted part of DNA this proteine cuts/change nucleotide/whatever at that position. It is some kind of text search function in programming. You have a word, you have a text, you search a word in a text, if found, do something with text at that position - replace a word, letter or delete something. Simple, isn't it, if you get rid of all that biomedical slang?
The problem with that extremely simple thing is that to do something sensible you have to know exactly what you want to change and what will be the result. And that is the problem.
Really, things are not complex too. DNA is a program. 3 pairs of nucleotides (codons) progam an aminoacid. Some codons program stop or start condition for reader. Proteins built from aminoacids, so sequence of codons from start to stop encode a protein. And so on. The problem is that nearly nobody really try to reverse engineer that programming language and system. Most just do random changes in the hope to get the needed result.
It is like some webmonkey, trying to get modern fancy web2.0 site at the deadline insert random pieces of code into some big project using Ctrl+V Ctrl+C (CRISPR) without any understanding how all that things work and what he is doing in the hope to get something that will look like needed website and will be paid by emplyer. Obviously, the result is awful for end user, but profitable for webmonkey and employer.
Sane programmer will study how computer works, how it execute code and what that code do, and then will change exactly what he need. But nobody do that. Evetually, there are no books "gene editing for beginners" or "complete apple DNA documentation".
That is the problem with gene editing, not your inability to understand how things work.
So happens you are talking to programmer.
Changing one line of code in such a complex mechanism as body... I went ahead of myself, changing ONE instruction, within line of code, of something as complex, is ULTIMATELY risky. Take Linux kernel. No, take windows, everybody is using this shit. If there is one programmer there that will risk one line of code, assuming cross references, differences in hardware system are running on, and all possible hardware events, response of drivers for devices relying on given code. Memory allocations, I can keep counting potential issues for long time. One team wrote pieces of graphic suite, other wrote directX, other is responsible for file system, boot record and what not. First and foremost I doubt there is one person there that can comprehend all the garbage of a code windows with whole package is. Second, it's just bad practice and if you plan on this kind of "patching" you plan ahead, encapsulate pieces of code you plan to modify, expand on or reuse, and you apply STEPS ahead, because at core you assume updates. I dont know many human engineers that worked on the code that my compiler build from apparently procedurally executed code, given to me from my parents.
Third and probably most important part is. If DNA is like a BOOK, then A,T,C,G sequences are WORDS, then like in grammar sequences of VERY specific words create sentences.
I find it naive to believe human can edit book that is 133 astronomic units long (by the Science lol, length of 1bp x number of BP per cell x number of cells in the body). Its very admirable to have faith in humanity, but I find it impossible to buy in gene editing yet. The day it will become as easy and natural like 1 and 1 makes 2 and children grasp it, SURE, but then we sre godlike so we don't care anymore anyways.
Exactly. That is what I'm talking about. Instead of studing things they try to make an instant profit doing things they have no any clue about.
Science is broken. Especially medical or biological. It is not an unraveling the mistery of life and source of knowledge backed by theory and experiment anymore, it is a dirty business of bigpharma and nwo narrative cover.
Crazy Rusky has a point. It could be used for good in the hands of someone with good intentions. You could edit out hereditary diseases, save children's lives. However, medicine and tech in the hands of these billionaires is never going to be in the best interest of the people at large.
Who told you that? Why do you so underestimate humans?
Isn't it a core purpose of a human being - to decide what is good and what is bad and do what is good and not do what is bad?
Denying technology never worked out. You could find numerous examples of communities that denied technology and none of that communities is a winner.
I like KISS principle and follow it where possible. I see no need in many novelties too. But I slightly more optimistic about humans. :)
Not an american farmer, but it would be interesting for me to use CRISPR for making my livestock better. Say, make it invulnerable for the shit government/corporations could use to kill it. Or convert them to a breed with better output.
I see nothing bad in using technology in the way I want with complete understanding of what I am doing. That is completely different from the situation when that technology used by some third-party satanic elite bastards to make you compliant and controlled.
CRISPR is just a technology. The question is who use it and for what purpose. We change genes when doing controlled selection and other stuff. CRISPR is just a method to do the same thing faster. If you have an example of some cool and delisious variety of berries, but can't obtain seeds (or they extremely expensive, or prohibited by government), using CRISPR you could make that delicious variety from your regular berries without long selection process. Find dfiferencies between your berries DNA and delicious berries DNA, then use CRISPR to do replacements.
Throw out some decent way to resist to NWO just because NWO use it to fuck you, does not look sane for me. I'll prefer to fuck NWO with it.
So, how to create a winterproof variety of lemons? You can't do it without changing lemon genes. The question is only in how you will do it - by natural selection, by random gamma-rays shooting or by direct editing.
All that smokescreens around genetic is just a smokescreen. This thing is similar to computer programming - you have a "program" written as DNA code. Different parts do different things. That's all. As you know exactly how it works, you are free to do anything you want.
Ethic questions about human gene editing also not as simple as you think. Of course when some elite bastards want to change your DNA with murky goals that is absolutely unacceptible. Or when they want to grow dumb brainless clones to replace us. But from the other side it is a question of what making us those who we are. If it is DNA - than it is unacceptible to interfere with our DNA. Changing DNA we will become something different. But if it is something else and we are spiritual beings in the vessels of our bodies, then who cares if we change our vessel in the way we want? As long as it is our own decision, it should be OK. Of course there will be some dumbfucks that will grow horns and tails, but most people will use this ability to fix errors or for other utilitarian things. Nowdays we already have few freaks who do some weird and disgusting things with their bodies. But nobody think that fixing teeth or repairing wounds is something satanic.
Even moving to theological things, it is not as simple as it seems. If God create us and give us an ability to change ouselves, may be He do it with purpose. And since God create us by His own likeness, it means that we have the right not only use life, but change it too. And may be even create it, in the likeness of God. Also, f.e., humanity become taller, and it is genetic thing. Yes, our genes changing making us taller. Is it against God or is it along His plan? I think it is up to us - use that ability or not and how to use it.
Shortly it depends on who and with what purpose doing that "scary" gene editing. And it does not matter how they do it. CRISPR - is about "how", not about "who" or "with what purposes".
Question everything. It could be at least interesting.
Cherries and melons too. But there are varians perfectly growing in high latitudes selectioned more than 50 years ago.
There are no any reasons to not to have lemons that grow in high latitudes. The question is only will you spend decades if not centuries to achieve necessary gene changes, or will it be hours to make it.
You just touched one of the biggest rabbit holes. Do you understand that current climate is completely unnatural for our planet? Earth should be green from pole to pole with modrate warm climate under greenhouse effect with 1200ppm of CO2 in atmosphere, as it was hundreds millions of years in eocene, f.e. You keep temperature and humidity in your home exactly at average temperature and humidity of eocene. To grow perfect crop you have to copy eocene climete up to that 1200 ppm CO2.
So, trying to prevent "climate change" you break nature apart, not by creating lemons that could survive the -20°C.
And there is no such studies because they don't care. When you want to use something for your purpose, I think you study the consequences first, and then use that something with wisdom. Not like them. That is the difference. That is why technology should be taken away from elites.
Because Monsanto don't care about things you will care about. That is why Monsanto using gene editing is bad and you using gene editing is good. You care. You will figure out how things works and will not use something you don't know about even if it promise billions in profit. You and Monsanto have completely opposite goals.
Again, it is only a question of who is using technology and for what.
You use internet to share your thoughts with friends and to get answers for your questions. They use internet to create sheeple. Does that make internet bad?
Meanwhile, about GMO. I hate GMO not because it is GMO. Being an engineer I perfectly understand that every apple or beef we grow and eat for centuries are literally genetically modified by selection process. If you ever tried to eat wild apples you know what I'm talking about. And I don't even know if there somwhere still exist a genetically unmodified wild cow.
I hate GMO and strongly against it because it is their GMO. Nobody knows what they really changed, for what purposes except profit and what real side effects could be. That is the danger of GMO, not the GMO itself.
Something like that.
Like ongoing genetic program wasn't enough.
Whose genetic program and for what purpose? That is the key question.
When it is completely up to you, say, you want to have a renewable teeth (just new one grow if something wrong with old) and you have exact map of what nucleotide sequence responsible for and change one that responsible for growing new tooth instead old one - what is the problem? It is your decision, you do it by yourself and no corporation could insert something unintended into your DNA. You just get always perfect teeth and will never have to pay dentist. Why could it be something wrong?
I'd rather care about teeth I have so I don't learn vanity in my life and just stop caring due disposable nature of my body.
I would not mind be able to repair shit I break due being idiot, which I admittedly am, but I'd rather not mess with my stock settings.
Of course there is speculative part of "what if accident", but then, I need material to learn on and from experience, making mistakes and dealing with consequences is path to improve.
Reasonable, me, probably, too. At least to the moment I will get a full and complete documentation on every possible setting. But why make a taboo from it? Bad guys (? transgender inhumans?) don't care about your taboos and will do that in any case.
This. Older civilisation - more consequences to deal with. You will have to deal with consequences of gene editing usage. For now, you already have to deal with consequences of mRNA gene editing. And how you will fix it if you deny gene editing technology as whole?
It is not taboo for me. Let me expand a bit on what I tried to express. If I can comprehend what given process does, I can estimate by myself consequences and risk to reward ratio (if any). For example they come up with some new whatever radio or any EM based tech , say some scanning techniques (like MRI) . I have provable skillset to asses what I'm dealing with before I go for this process, without need to trust 3rd party.
Also I have a problem with trusting things like that tech for a reason. I have to assume authority or so called expert in something that may be determinal for my well-being. By doing so I unintentionally turn off drive to know it, because "there is some one doing this 4433 years and knows better". As result I'm building my understanding of reality on somebody's else word (possibly agenda).
You don't need authority or expert to trust. Really, there are no things in the world that sane person could not comprehend.
As for the discussed CRISPR technology there is nothing complex at all. Special proteine split DNA and compare one strand with provided short RNA If RNA is complement to splitted part of DNA this proteine cuts/change nucleotide/whatever at that position. It is some kind of text search function in programming. You have a word, you have a text, you search a word in a text, if found, do something with text at that position - replace a word, letter or delete something. Simple, isn't it, if you get rid of all that biomedical slang?
The problem with that extremely simple thing is that to do something sensible you have to know exactly what you want to change and what will be the result. And that is the problem.
Really, things are not complex too. DNA is a program. 3 pairs of nucleotides (codons) progam an aminoacid. Some codons program stop or start condition for reader. Proteins built from aminoacids, so sequence of codons from start to stop encode a protein. And so on. The problem is that nearly nobody really try to reverse engineer that programming language and system. Most just do random changes in the hope to get the needed result.
It is like some webmonkey, trying to get modern fancy web2.0 site at the deadline insert random pieces of code into some big project using Ctrl+V Ctrl+C (CRISPR) without any understanding how all that things work and what he is doing in the hope to get something that will look like needed website and will be paid by emplyer. Obviously, the result is awful for end user, but profitable for webmonkey and employer.
Sane programmer will study how computer works, how it execute code and what that code do, and then will change exactly what he need. But nobody do that. Evetually, there are no books "gene editing for beginners" or "complete apple DNA documentation".
That is the problem with gene editing, not your inability to understand how things work.
So happens you are talking to programmer. Changing one line of code in such a complex mechanism as body... I went ahead of myself, changing ONE instruction, within line of code, of something as complex, is ULTIMATELY risky. Take Linux kernel. No, take windows, everybody is using this shit. If there is one programmer there that will risk one line of code, assuming cross references, differences in hardware system are running on, and all possible hardware events, response of drivers for devices relying on given code. Memory allocations, I can keep counting potential issues for long time. One team wrote pieces of graphic suite, other wrote directX, other is responsible for file system, boot record and what not. First and foremost I doubt there is one person there that can comprehend all the garbage of a code windows with whole package is. Second, it's just bad practice and if you plan on this kind of "patching" you plan ahead, encapsulate pieces of code you plan to modify, expand on or reuse, and you apply STEPS ahead, because at core you assume updates. I dont know many human engineers that worked on the code that my compiler build from apparently procedurally executed code, given to me from my parents. Third and probably most important part is. If DNA is like a BOOK, then A,T,C,G sequences are WORDS, then like in grammar sequences of VERY specific words create sentences. I find it naive to believe human can edit book that is 133 astronomic units long (by the Science lol, length of 1bp x number of BP per cell x number of cells in the body). Its very admirable to have faith in humanity, but I find it impossible to buy in gene editing yet. The day it will become as easy and natural like 1 and 1 makes 2 and children grasp it, SURE, but then we sre godlike so we don't care anymore anyways.
The "experts" in the field don't even have complete understanding of what they are doing. They're not omniscient and they never will be.
Exactly. That is what I'm talking about. Instead of studing things they try to make an instant profit doing things they have no any clue about.
Science is broken. Especially medical or biological. It is not an unraveling the mistery of life and source of knowledge backed by theory and experiment anymore, it is a dirty business of bigpharma and nwo narrative cover.