Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Sure, but that again is jumping the gun.
Just because haste and carelessness CAN happen does not mean it will.
Again, I point to EVIDENCE. We have "test tube" babies. We have (or had) Dolly the Sheep. No adverse effects there at all.
So your assumption is simply wrong.
yes, all these issues and more can be solved with cat girls
I would love to know how the conversation ended up in this.
Not when I'm supreme overlord.
Elon says a lot of crazy things. This is why we must stop him now.
It was only mentioned - it didn't switch to it; & it's really a short explanation.
In that regard, it's worth mentioning other disasters that can occur, especially when someone takes the "make catgirls real" concept down the route of sentient AIs instead of genetic manipulation - as that's also riddled with a wide-array of existential risks that should be considered before attempting such a thing (as well as some similar ethical concerns given that anything which may be classified as sentient or intelligent should be provided a certain degree of respect & care for its future).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIlL0T2yTss
Also, it's probably not going to get through, but it's worth reiterating that it's irresponsible to just assume that nothing will go wrong & thus take no precautions, ever - or even shut down discussions about risks & the safety measures that can be taken to reduce those risks.
Evidence that things can go well & that progress actually can be made is not evidence that things are incapable of ever going wrong. That is wholly fallacious.
It's not an assumption, you're just ignoring or uninformed of (apparently all of) the times that things have gone wrong. It really only takes 1 incident, though, & if we say, "nothing can go wrong" - that's almost certainly when something will. - In an ironic twist, those who deny the catastrophes that can happen, will very likely experience them, YET those who say "this could go wrong" usually don't experience the thing that could go wrong... because they're able to steer away from the bad outcomes. Playing "devil's advocate" makes invisible problems become observable & avoidable.
And no, I'm not going to make you a complete list or get something specifically related to genetics for this conversation, though, I will mention a few incidents that I recall where feats of science & engineering went badly: Chernobyl, electric chair, Titanic, 1975 Banqiao dam failure, ...
& product recalls - which happen frequently & are recalled because... THEY'RE DANGEROUS (& already manufactured):
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls
...the lists get quite long...
These companies lose a lot of money in these recalls & could have, frankly, done with some more quality assurance from people considering what might have gone wrong.
Here's a summary of one of the other incidents from online:
> "The Ultimate 10 Technological Disasters"
It happens so often that there's a top-10 list, where each list item refers to an event where thousands to hundreds of thousands of people died. ... and these aren't just the result of unforeseeable natural events:
...& then the 1975 Banqiao dam failure incident occurred.
Also, hospitals used to have morgues in them & patients would get infected with bacteria from the corpses because people didn't used-to wash their hands before operating on people, after performing autopsies.
Ignaz Semmelweis[www.google.com] figured out what the problem was, but without proper tools for conducting microscopic observations (without a microscope (& a lot of time that he didn't have)) he couldn't prove it beyond the fact that the statistics showed that in his facilities, where he mandated hand-washing, mortality rates were statistically lower. He was institutionalized anyways & medical practitioners went back to infecting & -killing- their patients anyways because "there wasn't enough proof" ...except -there was-.
We don't need research documents showing EXACTLY what is going on to NOT make stupid decisions - we just need to realize that harmful events can occur, and we can prevent them by considering them in advance & adjusting our actions to avoid them. We can figure out WHAT exactly those harmful events are later - but the "I'm not going to take ANY precautions to be safe until I know exactly what the problem is" attitude that many people take is extremely irresponsible. What was it really costing those medical practitioners to just WASH THEIR HANDS?! It may not have made sense at the time but some of them tried it for a while - the statistics showed an improvement in survival rates, and they decided to IGNORE this.
If a sign says "CAUTION: HOT" are you going to just say that it's unproven and stick your hand on that stove? It'll burn you but you'll survive.
Those darn Hot Pockets... they just said "Caution: HOT!" they didn't do enough to prove it!
Afterall... a sign simply telling you something is dangerous, really isn't proving it.
The burden of proof lies with the sign, or its creator, not you, right?
How about "DANGER: HIGH VOLTAGE"? You can test - or choose to IGNORE - that one and prove to yourself that there's high voltage there by touching that one too but you probably won't survive this one.
But I still don't see how this ended in global warming.
You could call it a side-tangent. After the existential threats of:
- genetic manipulation
- advanced AIs
...were brought up, I thought it would be an interesting place to point out some other existential threats:
- climate change
- super-volcano eruptions
- giant meteor strikes
- nuclear warfare
...none of which is there any evidence will actually happen.
The evidence will be provided once the event occurs & at which point... it will be too late to do -anything- about it.
We can go through life being NOTHING BUT OPTIMISTIC - that is... - ...if we don't really care about the future of our children (& potentially even ourselves, depending on the rate of cascading failure).
Extinction doesn't sound so bad when it's not currently in-progress.
[(& on the note of, "that would be bad but wouldn't cause extinction" - maybe. Half an extinction isn't actually extinction but I suppose it's all just as well if 4 billion people die, right?)]
Now, could we prevent them? Only one. The nuclear warfare. As for the rest we could only evacuate (or try to) and hope for the best.
As for the giant meteor, I would say not much we could do.
As for the future, I'm afraid we are already on our way to an interesting one: good or bad, it doesn't matter in the slightest, since we only measure that from the human point of view, never from the planet's.
Extinction? Hardly. If anything, humanity is the most persistent type of animal out there.
I'm pretty sure our history has quite a few millenia yet to go on.
Ethics & foresight can do a lot to cause us to avoid most of the significant problems with genetic manipulation & artificial intelligence.
Now, those things don't actually fix all the risks of artificial intelligence because an advanced one can, technically & theoretically, be created by anyone with a laptop that is connected to the internet. ...however, those 2 things can reduce the risk significantly.
Evacuation is not currently a viable option either - see 16:51 of the video that I linked below for more info on that.
You vastly overestimate the telescopes' (collectively) "frames of view", magnificaton, range of coverage, & the size of meteor required to end all life - while also vastly under-estimating the surface area of the planet's upper atmosphere & the layers of gravitational field above it that are relevant to this problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wrc4fHSCpw
4:33, in particular is useful for understanding the extreme magnitude of this problem.
& further in he points out:
9:35 shows how small (but big enough) meteors (which are near impossible to see) can be extremely destructive. Most difficult case to deal with would be if a lot of these impacted us at the same time.
12:33 covers the significance of the threat still.
This is a common issue people have with serious risk problems. They tend to often underestimate both the severity of the problem / risk & the difficulty in dealing with it.
So, on a much more related note of giant asteroids, I think it would be amusing if they started naming them after anime characters.
"Oh no! Kurumi is getting too close to Earth-san!"
It seems I was a bit too slow to pre-emptively realize to address this point (added it into my last post at the last minute) so, here it is again:
As a post-response that seems a little harshly worded but I think you get the point.
It doesn't have to be full-on extinction for a (natural or unnatural) holocaustic event[www.google.com] to be of extreme significance.
Going back to genetic manipulation & those genes getting propagated into the whole of society... if it goes bad & those genes get propagated enough, with a long enough time-period before they show cascading failure - even if it only affects 1% of the world population, that would still be 800 million people who either die or end up with serious birth defects (which may be hereditary, thus causing a long-term issue of it either spreading or people being denied the ability / right to bear children).
I never said ANYWHERE that erros and ♥♥♥♥ ups were NOT going to happen. Quite the opposite. I disputed your assertion that they WILL.
They are not the same at all.
Your claim that I, supposedly, asserted that they "will" is just as much of a strawman then.
Treating this like an all or nothing situation disregards a lot of "if"s & "else"s that lie in-between "definitely will" & "definitely won't", though - which are just as important to consider / discuss.
If you were neither claiming it is going to happen and you weren't saying it isn't going to happen then what the hell was your assertion?
All I said was that your claim that was that issues will happen - YOU stated that point about a creation having a miserable existence. I sdimply pointed out that's FAR from a given, and used the example of dolly the sheep.
So I don't know whether you're just trying to backpedal but I don't get it.
A hypothetical creation, in reference to imparting genes from one species with less chromosomes onto another species with more - something which has never been done before (however, similar things have been done, to ill-effect) & without further understanding, will likely either fail or create ill & deformed creatures - in that regard, the mostly classified genetic alterations caused by military nuclear blast experiments comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-o4h0eoLlc
This video doesn't cover what happened to the children, later in the child's life, of some of the survivors that were exposed to these tests (which most of them don't survive) and went on to have kids. I believe the one I recall, which covered that, is now behind an age-restricted video which I'd have to bother with an account for.
Genes can be edited easily enough, intentionally, or by accident (usually said accident involving exposure to radiation) but unlike what superhero comics portray, most radiation exposure & gene alterations simply result in degenerative illness, which sometimes isn't even immediately apparent.
There's a lot of conditional scenarios to this subject & one situation / approach that moves too fast might have a higher likelihood of causing harms than another situation / approach, to the same subject, that moves slower & more carefully through the processes.
So, in a way, both of our perspectives are very valid but it all depends on the specific case & how it is treated, if anyone pursues anything in this line of research.
Frankly, I don't think people should pursue this line of research. I'm not against genetic research or even genetic modifications - I'm just against untested genetic modifications that are performed solely for reasons of vanity.
In fact, it goes beyond vanity. Why do people "want catgirls"?
For some... intimate reason perhaps?
Perhaps that is something the next generation may also take interest in but as for the current generation... even if this could be done TODAY... you'd have to wait for a new-born (zero years old) "catgirl" to mature - & for what... intimacy with them? What if they don't even want these people who want to engage in genetic modifications solely for this purpose?
The very premise of the topic's question reeks of some severe lack of morality & what most people would probably define as "creepy" desires. It's not "creepy" because it's a cat girl - it's creepy because when you think through the implications of what is being desired by the topic's question / prompt & those who favorably promote it as "a good thing", you realize that they're essentially suggesting creating a genetically modified newborn for the purpose of trying to have an intimate relationship with this person that hasn't even been born yet at a later date.
...& that's not even going into all of the ethical considerations they're disregarding by promoting genetic modifications of unborn people for the sake of vanity & the complete disregard of how this might make said unborn people ill after they are born.
Now, if the reason someone "wants a catgirl" is simply because they like the look - then they should find someone who is okay with putting on a cat-ear headband, & cloth tail extension & leave it at that. In fact, that interest is extremely normal by comparison to those who want to genetically engineer them [to seduce later].