Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - Zeitard invents his own eugenics project

Tags: The Zeitgeist Movement, WTF?, eugenics, Another shining example of TZM'S compassion [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to The Zeitgeist Movement | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 18:12

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original


I like shortcuts (everyone does). So i was thinking about looking for one to solve most of inherited/birth defect conditions, and possibly, by sideffect, increasing the creativity of humanity. Of course it requires some more consideration, and possibly research too, but it looks like a little bit promising so far. That is, it looks like it could be faster to reach standardization of human beings with less resources then solving all the birth deffect and untangling the mechanisms wich underly susceptibilty for complex traits.

One, for now good looking approach.
By removing the automatical mixing of genes: so far, recombination, or just female meiosis have to be reomoved, possibly transposons have to be deactivated,gyonogenesis have to be implemented (so male sperm would be required for fertilization, but no genes would mix). Preferably, x monosomy should be created, important male differentiation factors should be introduced to that single X chromosome, and duplication of some X genes would be necessary (a lot of genes are deactivated on one of the X chromosome, but some are not, so those should be in double number). That is needed, because, as described, we want women to not mix here genes with males, so just because of that, only females would born. But to conserv socially important stuff, we need males too, so we want the X chromosome to contain important genes for male development. Luckily, there is one gene for SRY wich is the master switch for male development, so only this gene should be activated or deactivated with a sort of random mechanism in the oocyte, and this should happen in oogenesis, or somewhere in fertilization. Because one X chromosome is deactivated at random in humans in somatic cells, both of the x chromosomes should have those male genes, and on both of them they should be deactivated by random. That would mean complications. If we remove one x chromosome, only one single gene would need to be deactivated or activated so to deceide wheter it would be male or female.

Meiosis, must be altered, or removed because propper meiosis need recombination, recombination means sure unpredictability of next generation (hence less standard), and also, quite error prone. First round of meiosis is dna duplication, next is aligning of chromosome pairs and recombination (should be avoided), then separation of mathernally and pathernally inherited chromosomes (practically, they are at some points)- should be avoided, because it leaves chance for unknown recessive mutated genes to combine, as a homozygote, and also chance for less favorable combination to accour.
So, we either modify oocyte maturation, so that it won't separate mathernal and pathernal chromosome sets, but immediatly would assimetrically devide replicated chromosomes (eggs by default devide quite assimetrically, so every division, leaves only one viable daugher cell (the bigger one) the other just get degraded. After that, oocyte should go into fertilizable state.
We could remove the initial dna replication. Possibly it could require intervention at more places.

Genetic imprinting:in mammals, when gametes are created impringing/methyltion mostly is removed, then depending on the gamete (sperm or oocyte) mathernal or pathernally imprinted genes get disabled (in that order). Thats why parthenogenesis in mammals is not yet achieved (there are promising results). Its surely problem, that in the oocyte (only that gives the genes) have no pathernal genes activated. Im not sure if that is a problem if both pathernal genes are active (search imprinting if you don't understand).

How to prevent sperm dna to get into oocyte?
3 possibilities:
-let the dna penetrate, just leave it condensed. In sperm, dna is condensed with a special protein, if that small protein is unice, soe not realy espressed anywhere else, we only have to modify it so, that it will refuse to release dna, or target it to a lysosome, or stuff like that (there are target signals known).
-get the condensation signal in sperm, and modify the gene so it will activate some (make it, or add to it a transcription factor) dna fracturing enzime (only if that condensation activation is unique in some way)
-don't allow membrane fusion of sperm (as far as i know, its not fully understood, how sperm oocyte membrane function accurs)

Get into some more details only if you are interested.

Need some help anyway:
-statistics, on basebair mismatch during dna replication (that is the kind of mutation, wich is not fixed by the above mentioned method). about 4-10 percent of human dna is transcribed i belive. So there is a big chance that this kind of mutations are mild, but who knows. If these kind of mutations are severe, the thing is not too feasible.
-more known information regarding early phases of oocyte development (prior to mathernal imprinting)
-required genes known for healthy sperm generation (you could also check the case of XX male, when, both X chromosomes contain genes from Y chromosomes, if that male has sort of healthy sperm, its good)
-differentiation to primary oocyte, from precursol cells or stem cells. Is that known?

I will look into everything else mentioned above till you won't pick some.

possible known recessive mutation handling in stem cells (gene knockin/gene recombination with functional), before they can

if thats feasible concluding from those mutation statistics, consequences would be: only a set kind of poeople would be copied (by themselves), presumably, a couple of thousands; they would not intermix much, and they would half of them would be only different from the other half in gender (well, that can mean some physiologycal differences). I think noone knows more then a couple of thousand people, and i think noone requires more then a couple of thousand people for having a healthy mind. Thats another minor thing wich could be investigated (mostly for sociologically interested people). Possible more creative, socially health people would be replicated, from different usefull areas, that is, making sure, that their genes are adequate, for creating such persons (so, genes ok, only environmental factors would need to be taken into acount). But this social consequence is not sure, but probably, the increased creativity part is more likely. It still can be fucked up though. So, then, no born diseases (about 1 in 3000 birth for obvious diseases, and a lot of others who are susceptible to dieseases because of complecated interactions between genes and environment), and less susceptibilitie to bad conditions, since healthy peoples would be picked. How ti pick surely people is another concern, i won't go into more detail now (i have just questions anyway), for me now, the technical feasibility is more interesting. Anyone can have sex with anyone, but offspings would be similar to mother, if girl, otherwise, not, because they would be boys (). Possible, that migration of offsprings would be required so a colony/sity would have more diverse faces. Not sure if required. If there are some simple only physical appearance influencing genes are known (such as certain pigments), they could use a similar random activation deactivation method to the random SRY deactivation (or activation). In that case, there would be some difference atl east.
This would mean only a fast resolution to suffering, and there is much resources invested to medical research on such illnesses. They could be invested on regenerating medicine instead, so open ended youth could be possibly reached faster. This would be only a transitional period for humans, after technology is more advenced, more effective humans could be created, the original diversity of humans could be restored but no such illnesses would be possible (old human genes could be as time and energy allows backuped).

#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Wolf BirdPosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 18:17

I shoot you dead.

Level: 9
CS Original

I wonder if this zeitard is for or against GMOs? Hmmm...

#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 19:37

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original


#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
alexastormPosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 23:56


Level: 2

And they'll all have blue eyes and blonde hair...

#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
MuertosPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 01:22

Paid Disinformation Blogger

Level: 14
CS Original

And they'll all have blue eyes and blonde hair...


#5 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 04:47

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original

The entire post is summed up with the line: "standardization of human beings"

#6 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 05:25

Level: 6
CS Original


#7 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Wolf BirdPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 07:37

I shoot you dead.

Level: 9
CS Original


But we have no leaders! We're also not a conspiracy movement, and we're full of compassion for all. We just want an RBE!

Sure sounds utopian to me! Yeah, the cranks have completely taken over.

#8 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 08:54

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original


#9 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]