Challenge Mode : Play WoW like my disability has me play:
You will need two people, Brian MUST use the mouse for movement/looking and John MUST use the keyboard for casting, attacking, healing etc.
Briand and John share the same goal, same intentions - but they can't talk to each other, however they can react to each other's in game activities.
Now see how far Brian and John get in WoW.
Challenge Mode : Play WoW like my disability has me play:
You will need two people, Brian MUST use the mouse for movement/looking and John MUST use the keyboard for casting, attacking, healing etc.
Briand and John share the same goal, same intentions - but they can't talk to each other, however they can react to each other's in game activities.
Now see how far Brian and John get in WoW.
Sorry this wasn't particularly aimed at you its just this isn't a new topic; we were debating the ethics of it when I was a young teenager in school, and everyone since then seemed to focus on the aesthetic benefits as opposed to the medical (in terms of anti-disease) or practical (super strength, super brains) applications. Just find it funny.
OMG did we just see a nutter ask "were you there" regarding theory of evolution I thought that was just a "exagerated example of how mental they are". This website does not fail to entertain.
Wasn't there a Trek episode where some aliens secretly stole some of Riker's DNA and made a clone of him without Riker knowing? When Riker found out he was mad.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
Ummm... really? Consent of the fetus? What happened to the right to chose?
The parents have the right to use this tech to save their unborn child from life destroying genetic disorders.
Once it hits the market and people want to use genetic mods to turn themselves into what ever they want, go for it.
We don't have the right to say no because we disagree with the way someone else uses it on themselves. It is wrong to label this tech taboo.
What matters now is that we build, as a society, a strong moral compass on how to use this tech for the betterment of everyone.
From nuclear bombs to nuclear reactors.
No one wants Gattaca.
No one wants horrible genetic disorders.
Foster invention.
Teach your children responsibility.
When I went up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today. I wish I wish he'd go away.
Originally Posted by Daxxarri
Embryos aren't human being, it's just a bunch of cells.
I think someone here is already ignoring the possible side effects of gene editing.
Until further notice... I'm going to assume it can vary as widely as some attempts at boobjobs. When they look like Mary-Claude, sure I can't see a downside.... when they look like Kristi Think.... FUCK THAT SHIT I'M OUT.
I respectfully disagree about us reaching 10B. We will reach it. Overpopulation will be a problem. Now, we have an issue with mortality vs natality. Mortality rates will go down, and natality rates will stay the same, or increase. This causes an inflation of the number of humans, who have the possibility to have more children, versus dying.
Mega fuck.
I was a Death's Demise.
Those were the good old days.
She actually makes quite a lot of sense. Here is a paper which touches the ethical side of genome editing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251934/
An important part (though I'd advise to read everything under that section):
Basically, by choosing CRISPR editing on a germline level (that passes on to future generations, which somatic doesn't, hence it's less of an issue) you will subject your offspring to possibly a life long of inspection, tests, unforeseen medical circumstances and prejudice.From a societal viewpoint, different issues would emerge when genome editing-mediated germline gene correction is practiced for preventive medicine. A regulatory agency would require that practitioners should fulfil long-term monitoring and healthcare of children born using the procedure because it could be associated with a potential risk of health impairment. However, it is difficult to determine how long such children must be monitored. Does the monitoring last during their whole lives or across several generations of the offspring? With regard to the mitochondrial replacement, the UK HFEA declared that it would be necessary to monitor the resulting children during their lifetime and ensure the traceability of gametes and embryos [83]. However, it is unlikely to be possible to perform such monitoring in all relevant countries. Moreover, it is also difficult to decide whether a country should aid all patients with thousands of genetic diseases, or how to select the subjects for the preventive medicine.
Seeing some reactions here, it's fully understandable why these high-level discussions are only being conducted with actually knowledgeable people...
But now the biggest part,
is all about the imageand not the art
Up The Long Ladder. Both him and Pulaski got cloned and Riker took a phaser to said clones.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
Don't get your panties in a twist yet, the human genome is more resistant to changes than most people think.
- - - Updated - - -
You're wrong though (maybe not about the 10b part). Check out this video:
The UN estimates the 12th billion person will never be born. This is because the development of a region correlates to the amount of children people get, with underdeveloped regions typically having more children. As societies develop, the population levels out.
In western Europe, the population (without immigration) is pretty stable. That's also why I'm against mass immigration. The solution is not having people immigrate en masse to greener pastures, but to help them build a better country.
It is extremely different. When choosing a partner to produce offspring with, you do not know their genetic make-up. You can only assume several things based on some phenotypical traits, but that's about it. The rest is 'natures' business', aka how live evolves.
With CRISPR you can, in theory, to a certain extent build up a baby like it's made of lego. But we have never done such extreme experiments on humans before. We do not know the long-lasting effects on humans. And as with everything, there will be unforeseen negative circumstances. That is why the first few generations with heavily modified genomes will be monitored to the extreme (hence the 'consent' part). We would be engineering the human future. And as this might result in either eternal anthropogenetic prosperity or a fucked up mess, it's extremely important to discuss this very thoroughly.
You can have your opinion and all, but for goodness sake put some effort in objectively forming one.
But now the biggest part,
is all about the imageand not the art
For some reason I read the thread title as needing consent for CPR...