Is biopunk plausible?

>>8078733
No

>>8078735
Why not?

>>8078740
Because you didn't specify what you meant,so I won't specify an answer.
Maybe give some actual examples and we can work through them

>>8078742
If you don't know what biopunk engenders you should not be posting like an uninformed dolt waiting for the spoon. This is a science board. Science involves research.

>>8078746
shut the fuck up you idiotic piece of siht
your question is absolute popsci garbage and anon was already too polite with you even explaining his no

you're a fucking retard and you need to fuck off

>>8078746

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8078750
>>8078753
Lots of spergs on this board. Wonder if it's a genetic trait triggered by anonymity.

>>8078746
>>>/lgbt/

>>8078755

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

>>8078755
4chan is for 13-25 year olds.
Reddit is for 22-35 year olds.
Very rarely are there any top level graduates online in forums anymore.
They jump to conclusions, straw man and contradict well known consensus-based concepts, and in some areas, they even reject axioms.

They don't seem to understand the importance of coherency or source.

In this case, anon straw mans and then refuses to point to a source, just dictating anons memory justifies anons emotional retort and denial.

Debate etiquette calls for references, which I posted, and logical arguments without presumptions, which I posted, but I doubt anyone will take LOGIC for what it's worth when people can try to rely on self-serving biases and interpretations.

>>8078768
Biopunk is a clear cut term that's coherently defined though. One click away. Do you also ask people to define math for you?

>>8078770

That has never been proven.

Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0

I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.

I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.

>>8078771
I thought your kind doesn't come without a trip.

>>8078779

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8078771
... I am also an intj with an iq of 164. I do not feel as doing such clouds the mind and prevents rational though. Behold my supreme intelligence.

>>8078784

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8078784
is this a joke? come on anon, step it up. this is lazy pasta

Watch out for the bow

>>8078791

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8078733
Ignore the faggots here OP,but >>8078742
is right,you're Question is way to broad.
If you asked if Cyberpunk was plausible the answer would also be maybe,some stuff yes,some stuff no.

You really have to be specific in your questions and hypothesis

>>8078803

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

>>8078804
>wahhh stop attacking OP I wanna discuss senseless popsci!


Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8078808

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8078768

Your flawed assumption is that people go here for actual scientific discussion. Sci is where academics go to pointlessly bicker and pretend they're retarded.
t. midway in a PhD

>>8078753
Get the fuck out of here. Nobody wants to talk about your teenage obsession. Wrong board, kiddo. People aren't providing arguments because NO ONE CARES.

>>8079253
Reported for spam.

>>8079258

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

>>8079253
He's using quotes from me three months ago because we got into a debate and he kept using fallacies and demanded alternative answers to "no".

So now he's been spamming /sci/ with quotes from me from 3 months ago.

He thinks skepticism is a form of immature trickery and he's sadly attempting to make me look bad by doing this.

He doesn't understand that context matters.

>>8078771
amazing,
absolutely euphoric

>>8078733

>>8078742
>>8078804
These two people are correct, but since your thread has been hijacked by some guy having an autistic outfit, I suggest you go look up synthetic biology and masturbate to some of i t.

>>8079670
why don't you "look up" biopunk before acting like the arbiter of truth, fagtron?

>>8078733
Not really. Definitely not Resident Evil. The viruses in that series cause their hosts to spawn new limbs and crap from out of fucking nowhere, completely violating pretty much everything we know about mass and energy.

>>8079700
not really when insect level is concerned

>>8079694
I know what biopunk is. Let me quote from wikipedia:
>Biopunk (a portmanteau of "biotechnology" and "punk") is a subgenre of science fiction that focuses on biotechnology.
If you literally cannot see how asking if "biopunk is plausible" is unspecific as fuck then you are probably retarded.

>>8078733
It depends. It seems like wide range of things can be encompassed in 'biopunk'

If you asked me about Gattacca, I'd say it's quite plausible. If you were to ask me about the typical zombie outbreak, then no, it's not even possible.

If you ask about a particular work and I happen to know about it or can easily look into it, I'll let you know what I think.

>>8079729
keep reading sperg

>>8079731
it's almost as if every term has myriad of meanings

>>8079740
>it's almost as if every term has a myriad of meanings

Yes, but people seem to need that explained in this thread.

>>8078733
>Is biopunk plausible?
Synthetic biology is a thing, sure. So are corporations. And illegal stuff exists too. So, yeah.

>>8079794
it doesn't exist because people don't make stuff that's not commercially viable.

>>8079809
t. Adam Smith

>>8079810
t. common sense

research costs money

>>8079814
By the way, what part of biopunk is commercially unviable? I can't see why there wouldn't be a market for augments or germ-line engineering/designer babies.

>>8079819
anything dealing with humans

you can't even have generic stem cell research going in the first world without church getting a spoke in the wheel. for starters.

>>8079823
That doesn't really have anything to do with profit, though. That's a social problem, and most speculative fiction imagines some sort of social upheaval and/or dissolution of structure.

>>8079829
yes and if there's anything that can kill any research hype from the very beginning it's the outcry and various form of hysteria, sensible or not. every outlandish biopunk premise looks stunted from the facts that even simple genetic research gets mired in red tape.

>>8079844
I think the fundamental problem is that we can't imagine getting from point A (now) to point B (experimental technologies run rampant alongside total collapse of government). I guess it comes down to an interpretation of the question "is it plausible." Yes because the situations of biopunk could theoretically exist. No because there's no way (which we can see) that we're going to get there.

>>8079854
well nothing is stopping big pharma from doing it right now (collapse of government may well be in full effect regarding their business model) but the "business" part is the key.

>>8079854
>Yes because the situations of biopunk could theoretically exist.

This is why biopunk is the most interesting genre fiction today. Yet barely anyone writes it well.

>>8079869
Because well written Biopunk as of now would be pretty boring.
Most synthetic DNA simpy doesn't work,if your only superpower after rewriting your genome is cancer you wouldn't want to be a superhero.