37 Comments
User's avatar
MEL's avatar

> There are currently people who would rather have a disabled, genderqueer child of a different race than a healthy, straight child of their own race. Given the power to decide the characteristics of their children, they might end up making their kids worse.

Plenty of single mothers would deliberately spawn these creatures just for the welfare checks that come along with them.

Expand full comment
Khan's avatar

When they learn how to clone thylacine they should also clone tasmanian aborginies, so they can live together in a national park in edenic bliss. There was a painting I saw at the Louvre when I was 21, A Corroboree in Van Diemen's Land. How do these people live in sub-Antarctic woodlands with black skin and no clothing. Most curious.

Expand full comment
PETRIXXX's avatar

The holy grail of species revival is the T-Rex actually, and I don't care if (((speilberg)))'s movies say otherwise!

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

It's never gonna happen, sadly. The oldest DNA we have ever recovered was from 2 million years ago, meanwhile Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

Expand full comment
PETRIXXX's avatar

I don't care, use incredibly advanced cybernetics. Would be a better use for AI compared to the obnoxious fad that is AI art. I want to see artificial planets that emulate prehistoric eras of earth & robotic dinosaurs dat fire lazorz

Expand full comment
MEL's avatar
Apr 9Edited

Depends on what happens with that discovery of alleged T-rex blood. Creationists were using it as proof T-rexes died less than 6k years ago, so the scientific establishment refused to test it out of spite.

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

There might be T-Rex blood still around, but it doesn’t have any DNA left

Expand full comment
MEL's avatar
Apr 9Edited

That is the point of contention. The argument goes, given the blood is better preserved than should be possible according to modern biochemistry, perhaps the DNA is too. The other side argues it's not actually blood, but turned down a $10k donation plus fees to cover a test.

Expand full comment
God's_Fattest_Fuck's avatar

Speilberg movies lobotomised him into making him semi blind. In the books they explain his mouvement vision because of genetic problem while cloning him. In the movie they say that he was just built retarded

Expand full comment
PETRIXXX's avatar

Jurassic park's message also makes less sense when you realize already existing zoos would also see major casualties if they let out big cats & rhinos & shit.

Expand full comment
Machados Thirteen's avatar

Didn’t he just adapt the books?

Expand full comment
Aodhan MacMhaolain's avatar

I'm really glad you covered this. I've been arguing with people trying to explain how this isn't a real dire wolf, and that we probably won't get real mammoths, and I've used the whole CRISPr designer baby thing as a juxtaposition as well. I share many of your thoughts and feelings, almost down to a T. If the Hoosierborean Empire ever rises, I will put you in charge of all future gene editing.

Expand full comment
Will Tyndale's avatar

I too have a desire to have a world-wide Nationalist/Genetic Preservation Project. I see a possible future of segregation on a National and city-state level. A powerful tool for genetic preservation would be to disallow citizenship, corporate leadership, and land ownership to people that are less than c. 97% genetic match to a nation. With this tool in place, we would never have:

1) Anchor baby American Presidents like Kamala Harris or immigrant Governors like Arnold Shwartz…

2) Our media and corporations would have zero foreign ownership by ethnic Jews or Chinese.

3) Land is tied to the blood of its people. Foreigners and foreign corporations would own zero land AND all corporations would be banned from owning single-family homes. Jewish Blackrock and its Jew CEO Larry Fink owns 20-25% of American housing. This will be dissolved and never happen again.

Expand full comment
Apollinaire's avatar

These wolves are very pretty. I think they look much cuter than normal wolves. This reason is sufficient to demand their Total Repopulation... Total Dire Rebirth... TDR... FDR... Dq Yqv Svv Qt Nqvv??????

Expand full comment
Oranon's avatar

have you played ark before

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

No

Expand full comment
Oranon's avatar

u should try it, funy

Expand full comment
PETRIXXX's avatar

Is there any evidence that dire wolves behaved differently from grey wolves?

Expand full comment
Viddao's avatar

I think we should hold trans-racialism with the same level of contempt as transgenderism.

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

It depends. There might be something wicked about a Chinaman who wants his children to be White. But it is less wicked for a Mexican to want his children to be Spaniards, as his people are a racial degeneration of the original Spanish settlers. This was the point of view of much of the Latin American elite during the 19th century, a sort of racial pessimism. But during the 20th century it was replaced by la raza/mestizacion rhetoric

Expand full comment
Viddao's avatar

Well, Mexicans kind of are Spaniards. It is good that mutts identify with their national ancestry? For example, I know a Black girl who is very proud of her partial British ancestry (she's also a Trump supporter btw).

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

I think it is not a bad thing as long as people don’t get it in their heads that the mixed ancestry is irrelevant.

Expand full comment
DeepLeftAnalysis🔸's avatar

I think you're mistaken when you say that the re-establishment of the Confucian Imperial China under the royal hand of Dr. Jiankui He and his army of Reanimen would allow for biotechnological advances. Confucianism was re-introduced to China by the Hongwu Emperor, who was a peasant who overthrew the Mongols. The Ming Dynasty was proto-Maoist. It is only through rejecting Confucianism and embracing Sibero-Tibetan Buddhism that China can be put in the service of biotechnological advancement.

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

There are good and bad things about Confucianism. Neo-Confucianism was concerned with maintaining and reflecting cosmic order on earth more than Buddhism. Buddhists were somewhat aloof, according to medieval Chinese. But some Confucian mores were poisonous to China. I think it resulted both in a very complacent political system and in IQ decline due to low elite birth rates. I think eugenics falls under the umbrella of animal husbandry and subsequently stewardship of nature, so Confucians should be in favor of it.

Expand full comment
DeepLeftAnalysis🔸's avatar

Daoism is the way (I don’t know what Daoism is)

Expand full comment
Aodhan MacMhaolain's avatar

You dirty kike

Expand full comment
PETRIXXX's avatar

do we have terror bird dna?

Expand full comment
Khan's avatar

I don’t believe we do. But even if we did it would probably not be ethical to bring them back (as cool as it would be) since they died out naturally before humans ever saw them. Whereas you could make the argument that it would be ethical to bring back a mastodon or a ground sloth since they were most certainty wiped out by the greedy and bloodthirsty paleo-indians.

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

I think it’s fine to bring back extinct species. If they are cool.

Expand full comment
PETRIXXX's avatar

fuck ethics. coolness genuinely goes above all reasons for doing things and only faggots and redditors disagree

Expand full comment
Khan's avatar

Ok wow... erm... a lot to unpack here with this

Expand full comment
PETRIXXX's avatar

smart people only use ethics as a means to compromise their ideas to stupid people who base their ideas off of numbers and faggots

terror birds and robotic dinosaurs could provide an alternative to cavalry and tanks in combat

Expand full comment
PETRIXXX's avatar

bringing back giant sloths would make sloths evolutionarily viable as their current status is a pathetic species whom die from wind

Expand full comment
blank's avatar

Given gainful control over genes, would most societies trend towards greater or lesser sexual dimorphism? This is a question I don't have a good prediction for.

Expand full comment
Sectionalism Archive's avatar

I would guess greater, because most women want manly men and men want girly women. But in real life some traits which contribute to mannishness or womanishness are autosomal, so when women select for manly men their female offspring might end up accidentally more mannish. And vice versa.

Expand full comment
blank's avatar

Some factors would complicate that selection, I think. The first is that often in clinical settings like in sperm banks, men and women will display more interest in aristocratic-coded traits that are frequently more androgynous. The other is that there are mental traits that might result in affinity for cultural masculinity or femininity that are differently valued to physical ones.

Expand full comment
Viddao's avatar

According to Peter Frost, this is how White men got blond hair and blue eyes - from their hot mothers.

Expand full comment