|
|
|
|
|
|
by notafraudster
1209 days ago
|
|
|
This seems like a flip dismissal of a pretty serious challenge to the ontology of the grandparent comment. Soldiers can also present threats and competition to government (this is literally what a coup is). Soldiers also retire and go into various fields, including science, engineering, sales, and politics. And almost everything the military does is dependent on external contractors and public/private partnerships and, indeed, university research. So it's an awfully broad conspiracy to add value to infantry grunts, who play a shrinking role in the conception of U.S. military power. And also every other country in the world has to opt to engage in the same conspiracy, otherwise all the benefits accrue to other countries that are willing to allow the technology to be exposed to civil society (e.g. when the average Chinese university graduate has the benefit of CRISPR super brain, it's going to add much more value than if Fort Hood has a bunch of Captain Americas sitting around). In total this seems to involve a massive and sprawling worldwide conspiracy involving the coordination of opposing actors who have reasons not to coordinate in service of unclear benefits that don't seem to stand up to much scrutiny. |
|
|
Most editing needs to happen during development, which means you’d need to recruit parents. Maybe some overly-moto idiots would agree but anyone who would seems like dubious stock for a super-human! Even if they did, there’s an 18 year lag before the kid maybe enlists. Then you’ve got to covertly move them to whatever speciality can use their new abilities.
The whole process seems slow, low-yield, and involves so many people [0] that it could not possibly remain secret if someone were trying this. And, of course, that’s all glossing over the fact that we don’t understand or know how to manipulate polygenetic or plieotropic traits…which is all the strategically interesting ones!
[0] For example, the school nurse flags something. Now what?