ALERT: The Culture of Death Just Got a HIGH-TECH UPGRADE – Shop for Your “BEST” EMBRYO TODAY!!
Nucleus IVF+ markets itself to real-world couples hoping to conceive via IVF with this eyebrow-raising invitation “Pick Your Baby” and URL: pickyourbaby(.com)
That isn't a dystopia. It is the only way to stop the degeneration of humanity. Eugenics is ABSOLUTELY required, else we will have ever increasing numbers of ever more retarded people.
How about the kind of eugenics where people only have children with those they are committed to spending their lives with? Anything else is bad for the children. In this case it's a crime against nature as well. Ends don't justify the means, but if they did, a world of genetically modified transhumanoids isn't a persuasive end point.
There is no such thing as a crime against nature, especially since nature spends all day trying to kill us.
You don't think it should be a crime to breed humans with apes, experiment on babies' genes to see how they turn out or grow humans in a lab that have no emotions and can be used as cannon fodder? We have a natural disgust of deformed creatures and monkeying around with natural processes for a reason. Subversion of nature is also a slippery slope that we have to put strong guard rails around to prevent the commodification and degeneration of humanity.
The former premise is true only because we assume deformity = disease or genetic maladaptation, a judgement which was correct in most circumstances in the ancestral environment.
The latter premise is retarded. One of the earliest things humans did was selectively breed crops and animals for size, yield, and physical characteristics. We don't just not have an aversion, we have a predeliction for tampering with natural processes.
There's a huge difference between encouraging animals to breed that are already able to breed and forcing things to happen that biological processes specifically prevent from being possible. One is working with nature and the other is subverting it.
What biological processes exist to prevent us from choosing traits to pass on?
The only reason we can't is because reproduction is entirely chance based. Which sperm cell enters which prepared egg is absolutely random, and "choosing traits" is simply picking out precisely which pairs we want to form a zygote.
You know what, before that. How exactly do you think biology works? Do you understand how DNA is formed, how genes are expressed, how cells grow and reproduce? Because I'm not really getting the impression you are familiar with these processes, based on the statements you make.
We have biological processes that determine which egg gets released and which sperm reaches the egg but we are sidestepping all of those. Of course humans are not naturally able to extract or even see egg cells to begin with in order to do IVF. The woman has to be given hormone drugs to accept the embryo because the body is only designed to expect an embryo after a fertilization has happened within the body. There's other drugs they also take to unnaturally produce a large number of eggs. Plus sperm are not designed to survive long, especially outside the warm bodily fluids, so they have to be frozen.
Not at all. The best quality sperm is the winner. Only a few sperm if any normally make it to the egg. We don't actually know what all the necessary qualities are. You sound like the one who doesn't understand biology. I'm no expert but I have studied university courses on things like microbiology and immunology.
These are acceptable, there is no purpose to crossing humans and apes, that experiment has already been done: see Africans.
There is no reason to condemn people to live their lives with crippling genetic diseases. The fact that christcucks like you want that is further proof that, at best, your god is a demon that enjoys torture. Humanities genetics need to be purified, and that starts with sorting embryos.
Do you extend that line of thought into any kind of “Technological Singularity” / “transhumanist” domains, or would you restrict it to effectively just sorting out “peak” humanity? Honest, and admittedly very broad question, just wondering what you see as reasonable
I AM a transhumanist. The problem I have with OpenAI, xAI, Microslop, and Google isn't the technology. It is who controls it. I have a problem with Alex Karp, Sam Altman, and all the techjeets. If it was controlled by someone who had loyalty to Whites it wouldn't be nearly so bad.
So you're hopelessly naive, got it
Fair take
Would you say roughly the same about the things raised in Kaczynski’s Industrial Society…? i.e. It’s about who wields the tool?
Also have you seen any of The Will Stancil Show yet?
https://xcancel.com/AlfredAlfer77/status/1975629219905282556#m
One of the first and few “good” uses of this tech I’ve come across
I'm not even a Christian, retard
Last I checked Jesus acted against nature too. IVF doesn’t make parents less parents, unless this kid is being used for surrogacy it’s a non issue to want healthier children. Go forth and multiply.
I don't know what you mean by he acted against nature. Walked on water? Healed the sick? Don't you see those things are completely different than breeding humans with apes, normalizing human genome editing or ensuring that all future generations of humans would be selected and grown in labs by killing several other developing babies for each one that is born?
Can you show me anywhere this is happening? I’ll wait.
Again that’s not IVF. You’re making up imaginary scenarios. Embryo selection isn’t abortion, there is no zygote.
As just a basic search will tell you, it was already attempted in communist countries last century. Because only deranged lunatics with no ethics would want to do this kind of thing. As humanity gets more deranged by the year I'm sure if human genome editing becomes normal then it will be attempted in the future with better technology that might actually succeed.
An embryo develops from a zygote. In the video they talk about selecting an embryo from a catalog and the rest get destroyed. That's always how IVF has been: make a bunch of babies and destroying all but one that gets used and any others that get frozen for later use or destruction. But even if they weren't killing any embryos IVF is still going to lead to a dystopia where everyone is required to be genetically modified before birth.
No it didn’t. 1. The technology doesn’t even exist now and 2. The things communist counties do the most is lie out their ass to project power.
Again you’re making up doomsday scenarios to justify your claims. IVF doesn’t “destroy all but one” either, it’s very rare for more than one embryo to survive in general, in most cases IVF happens because natural fertilization doesn’t occur. You’re literally complaining about wanting less babies because some other embryos don’t make it, why are you against life?
Jesus isn't real, sir.
You can't just bring magic into a conversation about reality.
I always find it funny that the athiest retard response is to make abjectly absurd claims about a person being fictitious when he has more historical documentation than any other person alive in that time period. Was Herod not real either? How about Augustus?
I would easier believe in Christ's miracles than the leftist welfare state ever delivering its promised utopia.
It always amuses me when the godbuggerers pretend the crux of their argumentation isn't "and then he did a magic".
Even if, IF, jesus was a real person (and that's a hell of a weird name for that region and that time), you people never want to discuss his humanity, only his divinity and his magic. You dont care for his morality or his ethics except as it overlaps with him being king biggus magical dickus and telling people what to do.
You're clout chasing sycophants, pretending at virtue.
Aw! Did the retard get lost on the way to Reddit atheism? The Romans documented Jesus existing, so did the Pharisees, it wasn’t just the Bible. You don’t even believe he existed so what do you know of his morals or ethics? Fascinating you claim superior knowledge yet you can’t even do the most basic verification.
Right, because you care so much about the man, and not at all about the magic and attaching yourself to what you see as the biggest dick magic sky king.
Your boy jesus doesn't even exist in your mind, and you have the absolute temerity to insist he take root in mine.
Go spin a chicken in a bag to work off your sins, you idolator.
Christ has more documentation of His existence than the theory of evolution does lol.
Cry harder, atheist.
If you truly think that, then the brain worms are terminal.
You're right, "Josh" is a crazy name, bro. Hella sus. I think you just put the nail in Christianity.
Always stridently refuse to acknowledge the fact that you really want magic sky sempai to notice you, eh?
No, instead, let's try to move the goal posts over a bit, away from the motte and over to the bailey.
Humans have avoided natural selection for far too long! Face it only a handful of humanity is important the rest are just so much chaff!
All well and good. Right up until you're classified as chaff.
And someone like Fauci will be the one doing the classification.
They're already doing this. High IQ free thinkers are being erased in favor of a servile slave class.
We need to more than just selecting babies though.
I mean heck, If I could guarantee that my son would not be at risk to the cancers and heart problems that run in my family, I'd take it.
Just 14 gene splices to flatten the curve!
Obviously I wouldn't be an early adopter.
You're just content for other humans to be sacrificed first so your children can have less risk?
Why not?
I don't think that question requires a response
You have a sick, twisted and evil mentality that puts others above yourself and your kin, you're a plague upon our genepool and will lead us to genocide if you're allowed to breed.
I'm the sick one for not wanting people to be genetically butchered? And for caring about the long term fate of humanity and my own descendants rather than solely thinking about the immediate hedonistic needs of my family and race?
Which ones? A thousand illegals for the future of one White American child? Fair to me.
lmao downvote harder cucks. you're not convincing anyone
I'm content to watch from a distance to see if it works first, yes. What other people do with their children is their business and on their conscious and soul.
Yes, other people's children are their responsibility. But at the same time we should be concerned about others' children and as a society we shouldn't allow technologies that are going to be bad for humanity.
The tech claims it will have positive effects. They already use it for animals and it works as advertised. I don't see the issue.
Have you thought about where this technology leads after a generation or two of it being normalized?
But what about all the risks of other diseases that they haven't told you about? And is it really worth starting down this slippery slope for a promise of security?
They’ve been screening for and aborting (or atleast pressuring the mother to) Down’s syndrome babies for like 30+ years now.
Exactly. It's a slippery slope from abortion in some cases to abortion of diseased babies to picking an embryo and aborting the rest. All of it is bad and it was only in the last few generations that any of these became acceptable in countries with ethical standards.
No, it's not. Birthing a baby with severe genetic defects that either ends up dying shortly after being born or becoming a helpless human suffering for all of its life is not something desirable.
It sounds like you haven't actually met anyone with Down's syndrome. I've never met one who seems depressed and thinks they're in constant suffering. If you're talking about other illnesses where they may die then let them die naturally. No point killing what may actually survive. There's a guy born with no limbs who is glad he wasn't aborted and is totally against your way of thinking: https://www.lifenews.com/2021/03/25/man-born-without-arms-or-legs-condemns-abortion-all-life-has-value/
I wrote genetic defects. Plural. Besides even Down Syndrome is a spectrum. You might be lucky and your child is a very high functioning Downie or they might be non-verbal, violent and have zero self control.
Right. Let them suffer. Scar the mother (and father) for life for birthing her child and watching it die a miserable death. Perhaps even keep it alive as long as possible like we do with terminally ill patients in hospitals against their will.
That's great. And I know of 40-year olds that are non-verbal and need to wear diapers because otherwise they'll just shit and piss on the floor.
Being born with a physical disability in a family that is able to support all your needs and give you a leg up in life, no pun intended, can compensate for severe physical disabilities. Severe mental disabilities cannot be compensated.
If you truly and honestly believe that there is no reason for abortions I urge you to adopt severely disabled orphans who can't live independently and care for them for their entire lives.
People who actually have babies that die young still love their babies and are happy for the time they get to have them. It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, as they say.
Plenty of people have such babies naturally or through adoption and are happy. And even if they weren't happy that wouldn't somehow make the child's life have no value. You sound like you'd be a great merciless dictator though.
That’s a non argument. By your logic we should abandon all technology…
That is what he want. The US to abandon technology, so his people can more easily dominate us.
Spoken like a true postmodernist
So the only two alternatives are embrace everything science has to offer, not asking whether it's good for us, or else abandon all technology? I don't see why there can't be a middle ground where we just reject technologies that when taken to their logical conclusion lead to dystopia.
You haven’t asked anything, you made up doomsday scenarios in your head that could literally be done for electricity. It’s the equivalent of abandoning AC after it was used to electrocute an elephant.
You’ve put zero logic forward, doomsday hypotheticals are not logical conclusions. The logical conclusion of humanity is dystopia, that’s even in the Bible.
The difference between AC being used to electrocute an elephant and designer babies is that one is self-reinforcing while the other is not. A few people electrocuting elephants doesn't incentivize others to do the same. But a few people designing their babies to out-compete everyone else incentivizes others to design their babies as well otherwise they would fall behind. This was so obvious I didn't think it needed stating as to why this is a bad thing.
If the logical conclusion of humanity is dystopia why hasn't there been a constant dystopia for hundreds or thousands of years? How long does it take for humanity to reach this logical conclusion? The Bible doesn't say anything about logical necessity, it just makes some predictions about how things will turn out and I think it's bunk.
False statement, if it was legal and accepted plenty would do it.
How communist of you.
You really don’t believe we’re currently in a dystopia? Adorable. Every society humanity has created end up being corrupted over time, that is the textbook definition of a dystopia, a corrupted utopia.
It's important to understand that genetic testing claims are massively overblown. e.g. people send dog DNA in and companies can't tell the difference.
True, pretty much need to sequence the whole genome of every sperm/ova to be actually acurrate.
A stone's throw from eugenics I see.
I don't trust this new age jew tech purely because i'll know they won't allow Whites to make Whiter babies
rather they'll market it to jeets N niggers to make their babies less niggerish with blue eyes and other shit that is just pure science fiction
In a world where we could trust medical professionals, this would be great. Unfortunately, we can't even trust the medical community when it comes to the most basic and routine procedures, let alone anything even remotely as experimental as this. That's also not to include some vindictive lefty maniac turning your kid black or something.
Years and years ago, probably mid 2000's there was an interview on cracked.com with someone who worked at a genetics lab, and evenback then they admitted to putting 1-2% of african DNA into some samples to prove a point.
The irony that we need eugenics to make eugenics viable
You can design all you want, the Jewish doctor will use his own sperms anyway
Lowering genetic diversity tends to narrow the bell curve, possibly lowering the number of idiots, but also lowering the number of geniuses, especially super-geniuses, by a (probably smaller) amount.
Civilization is mostly pushed forward by geniuses.
I mean, that's what mate selection is. It's not really any different from eugenics if you think about it.
Mate selection based on personality and physical attributes is totally natural and leads to good outcomes while incentivizing good personality traits and physical health. But selecting an embryo based on predicted characteristics is totally unnatural, leads to unknown outcomes and incentivizes everyone else to select and edit their babies so that their offspring remain competitive. This leads to a dystopia in which natural humans become an underclass and people are coerced into using these unnatural processes that may have unforeseen negative consequences and can be abused, for example by a government wanting a more controllable population.
The built in "safety feature" against eugenic dystopia's are:
A) most people are retarded and would pick retarded things. Which would be cruel to people's kids being born with genetic duck lips and pinched faces. and
B) no-one knows the future so therefore no-one knows what "superior" genes actually are. Think about this one. "Superior" is dependant on the environment, and also to some degree sexual selection and scarcity.
Lets say only 30% of Women want brown eyes. This makes Blue eyes "superior" but if only 1% of the population have brown eyes, because 99% of parents follow the trend and select blue eyes. That 1 % has unrestricted access to 30% of the Female population.
Or another, more fanciful example would be Downs Syndrome. No-one would call missing a chromosome as "superior" genetics. But if there was a deadly and transmissible pathogen that specifically targeted the 24th chromosome, it would become superior.
C) You forget the natural enshittification of products. Any "products" will inevitably become shit. Having a first gen iphone when no-one else had one was probably a benefit at the time. But it's become so shit by generation 17 or whatever we're up too now, not having one is a marker of something better.
D) Eugenics is the natural process of selecting Mates via attractiveness. Symmetry is attractive, and symmetry is a marker of a healthy organism that is superior at surviving in that environment.
"This kid better be hilarious." - father of gay pirate baby
So, like, literally just the rape babies of children trafficked by Epstein? That’s what you’re going to get; just rape babies. Way cheaper and no one who could do anything about it would ever know.