Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (144327)	11/27/2018 8:43:01 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217543

The gene editing man has the wrong idea because improved intelligence by way of gene editing is not for benefit of society but for benefit of the individual with the improved brain. It's also a good idea to ditch bung genes so has that part right. A doctor who I know here has a family gene for stomach cancer. He has had his stomach removed - in his late 20s. When having a child, they did zygote selection by inspecting them and trying to implant one that did not have the bung gene. That didn't work so they went with good luck and fingers crossed for the baby. It would be better to do gene editing to cut out the random part. 18 years ago I was considering a business for gene editing for intelligence so mothers could choose intelligence for their baby without the hopeless guesswork and random cross fingers and hope. An intelligent man and woman combo doesn't guarantee an intelligent baby because their genes do random combinations instead of the right stuff. Nature is cruel and random. The process of natural selection and elimination of bung genes is hideous. It is much better to do it by intelligent application of know-how rather than composting the unlucky individuals who get the short straw which is how nature does it. A free market in gene editing would soon find the people and businesses who are capable of doing a good job. Over a decade ago I attended a Who Gets Born? conference for a couple of days in Auckland. The government busy-bodies and so-called Ethics people were decidedly unethical and self-important = of course because being the boss and in charge, clipping the ticket etc was their most important position so THEY had to be in charge. I say put the MOTHER in charge, along with her funding agency [who should be the husband]. No need for government bossy britches [other than to enforce common law rules for fraud, liability]. If she wants an intelligent baby, that's her business not that of some self-dealing moron in government. At present women try to get intelligent babies by selecting intelligent men, but it's hard to tell how intelligent the man is and impossible to say with the random genes will work out okay. Best to be scientific and engineering = use applied knowledge to get the right result. Mqurice