Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Or so I could not help but thinking as I read 
IVG runs into a few problems rapidly. For one, if you are female, you have no Y chromosome. Any sperm cell is going to need to be completely synthesized, and two women absolutely cannot have a son. That’s aside from the obvious problem of where a male – male baby is going to gestate.
That said, I would imagine this technology could adapted to allow people with genes for hereditary disorders like Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell to have kids without passing on the trait. Genetic engineering means fewer birth defects without the need to abort fetuses.
That’s a win-win, isn’t it? Seeing as how males are so problematic.
I think that’s the exact same edition of That Hideous Strength that I have.
RE: Your second problem for IVG: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-29485996
Some recent research on a far-left LBGTQ site stated that uterine transplant to a transgender woman is the next step to “putting us in complete control of our sexuality”.
Good post.
(I edited a nifty little book on sci-fi film and the Abolition.)
And in news from the future: viral encephalitis in 2103 wipes out a fourth of humanity when a gene added to make children have on average 20 more IQ points, makes the population particularly susceptible to a new mutation.
Engineering is really good at optimizing along any variable or set of varables one requires. The problem is that reality has more variables than can be accounted. This is a big reason why we self-driving cars are still not here.
And iirc mRNA makes proteins strands that self-fold into protein catalysts. These catalysts have numerous active sites. And they are stimulated to be produced based on another system to create the right mRNA due to a timely need for a particular catalyst. If you create a new mRNA and insert it, or for that matter change the genome to create that new mRNA, how do we know that the new mRNA won’t create a protein that has more than one active site and the other new active sites won’t have profoundly negative effects?
Trial and error?
The same one I have, as well, but since we’re all wearing masks right now, I’m reading this one:
Worth it.
We won’t be able to remake man for awhile. Right now we should focus on genetically removing the worst genes. Even when we have sophisticated genetic engineering we will only be able to improve on the human genome rather than remake it. Think of it like a series of patches that updates your computer software. That’s not the same as making an entirely new system.
The eugenicists thought the same way.
No, the remaking is already ongoing. Jesus started it. All in Lewis.
??? So our genes are different because Jesus? How did that happen. There is no textual evidence of him getting it on or giving money to his relatives so they could breed more.
Who said anything about genes?
It’s spiritual seed.
You mean his teachings?
There’s more than that. It’s in Mere Christianity. Read the chapter on “The Obstinate Toy Soldiers,” and probably also the chapters before and after that.
Eugenics generally means selectively breeding people like cattle. Bad things happen to the unlucky person who is unfit.
Genetic Engineering can be done to people without killing people. The genes are altered so the birth defect does not occur.
They may have the same end goal, but one uses terrible means.
For the virus case, I see no reason random chance is inherently better than design.
Any human gene therapy trial is going to tested thoroughly in animals and cell culture before being put in use. It’s similar to developing a medication. The rule is DNA acts as the master record, then the cell makes mRNA (m is for messenger) from the DNA. mRNA is edited a bit then sent to a ribosome to be synthesized into proteins. Most proteins have several active sites for proper regulation of their activity.
Why is it that the Ricochetti who are very interested in science are much more open to genetic engineering?
We are moral beings. Though I don’t know much of what being created in the image of God means, I’m sure that it does not refer to opposable thumbs and the ability to reason. It think it must have to do with a moral nature that other animals don’t have; a spiritual structure to our being that is in some way very like the spiritual character of God.
The “seed” is often mentioned to in the Bible and it refers to the Word of God, which is at its origin God Himself, and is alive and active and grows and produces fruit. This seed or of God is spiritual and when planted in us, if we allow it, changes us, and gives us new life and new character. This life and character will not be fully formed or fully evident in us while in this earthly existence, but it is spiritual in nature and as such is preeminent in what it is to be fully and rightly human.
What struck me and Vrouwe re-reading That Hideous Strength again and again over the years was just how eeriely, uncannily accurate his depiction of university academic life in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s was. He wrote the book 75 years ago and yet the presentation of universities is discomfitingly familiar to both of us.
This is also the book I refer to when arguing that Lewis is a horror writer on par with Lovecraft or Clive Barker. Lesbian rape? It’s in there. Demonic possession of a corpse? It’s in there. Secret cult devoted to Satan that includes a supposed clergyman? It’s in there.
Absolutely prescient. Frighteningly so.
Electro,
This is the bottom card. It won’t just end badly it will end horribly badly. Maybe with Gd’s help, we can head them off.
Regards,
Jim
Doesn’t fully human mean someone who has attained enough social status to spread his genes? Isn’t rightly human who is righteous a human that rejects his nature?
No.
No
Maybe if you define nature purely in terms of what our bodies inspire us to want.
But why on earth should we do that?
So they aren’t human until puberty?
I can’t help but connect the dots with what this post is about, and a warning from a priest who has since passed, along with the Netflix documentary called The Social Dilemma, along with the decline of faith, along with the fallout from the pandemic, along with the patents that Bill Gates in involved in……. I keep hearing the phrase “something is going on” – and it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGhoFKXnuiw&list=PLxbZsLNS7KW-O_rxLV7bXXDTLNDq06gsL&index=21
In terms of evolution, they don’t count until puberty unless they can protect the genes of their kin.
No, you’re thinking of the earthly realm. I am referring here to the spiritual realm which is higher and of greater consequence. By “right” I mean in accord with God’s purpose and expectations. “Fully” means lacking nothing. As I used fully and rightly human it means human to the degree that fulfills one’s mandate to glorify God and live in communion with Him; to embody God’s fullest expectations of you, His creation, as He created you ultimately to be.
Never met a guy like that.