Dirty_Jerz
Ethiop
@Dirty_Jerz I'm not sure what the link to chemical or biological warfare is to this big head ant story.
Also, I believe the point is that ancestral traits can be unlocked to benefit difference species, including humans.
I don't think the motivation would be to develop deadly forms of viruses and diseases, like cancer.... for two reasons. 1) We already know how to do that. 2) they wouldn't be advertising it like this.
Plus I believe we had a biological warfare department that created hiv and cancer like weapons. ( i suspect that those actions have already been released)
the warfare part was really just a response to throughthefire's doubts and it went no where really fast
but to my original point, that the research itself isnt really beneficial imo is for a few different reasons like arent we suppose to be evolved to our greatest potential yet so far? why would it be a good idea to backtrack on that so to speak, like how do they know it wouldnt make other genes weaker and also in order to unlock them he has already admitted you would have to put strain or stress or add hormones at a certain point in the person/animals/crops life to even have that happen
what humans are they going to subjugate to this as potentially infants/toddlers to test which serum or enviroment puts the right amount of stress to "evolve" them? especially when it is most likely going to make them sterile
i am also firmly believe GMO products arent the way since they themselves are linked to tumors and premature deaths as well as organ failure
i would definantly agree though that the motivation behind this Dr himself might not be ill mannered but people like the writer to this and many other up and coming biologists arent the same
Last edited by a moderator: