Ethnic bio-weapon

Is an ethnic bioweapon possible? For example is it possible to create a virus that would target certain ethnicities? Or even broader like let’s say people with African or Asian DNA. Some sources yes it is possible while others say it is not. ://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-coming-threat-of-a-genetically-engineered-ethnic-bioweapon/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114775/ https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ethnic_bioweapon https://www.wired.com/1998/11/israels-ethnic-weapon/ https://sundayguardianlive.com/news/data-genetic-manipulation-race-specific-bioweapons-not-impossibility What do you think?

Of course they are possible because race is genetically discernable and you can create a virus that targets specific genetic traits. So, you can create a virus that targets specific genetic traits associated with a specific race. Anyone who thinks race isn't genetically discernable is either anti-science or a dishonest ideologue.

There are already viruses which are much more harmful to certain ethnicities. For example, sickle cell syndrome (mostly affects Africans) actually protects them from Malaria. So I don't see why not.

Gene altering through a virus is already possible and what happens whenever you get infected with simple flu. However, what you could do is alter the flu in some particular way, so that the RNA encodes gene altering at specific DNA part of a haplogroup that has that part of DNA https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/procedures/

>>73846 What a load of crap. You share 99.9% of your DNA with every single other human on the planet. That 0.1% difference is entirely you. There's not clear genetic demarcations/boundaries between "races" in any sense. When you match your genes, you'll find some from basically every place on the planet, that includes black genes. Even if your family is the whitest white in white-ville they'll still have genes in common with blacks from the congo. Melenation might be just about the only real difference at all, and even that's tenuous when you consider the epigenetic factors behind it. Literally going for a tan could be enough to qualify you as "black" to this theoretical bioweapon. Any bioweapon to target "race" will inevitably target humans broadly, because there is not genetic basis for race. Race is a psudoscience like phrenology and always has been. Race is and always will be the astrology of total losers. Sources: https://books.google.ca/books?id=rKZTDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR24&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1438 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12493913/

>>73842 Unfortunately yes, but there are also all kinds of other potential bioweapons to worry about now that we're getting much better gene editing tech. The real question is, which one is going to go pandemic first? My bet is, in 50 years the world's elite will all have children that are slightly genetically engineered to make them immune to congenital diseases and various minor upgrades. The virus will target everyone else.

>>73850 to be fair, sickle cell is a genetic disease, its prefferential effects to a race are a natural consequence of its nature, but the malarial reprecussions are certainly relevant.

>>73856 Doesn't that defeat the whole point of being "the elite"? Who's going to make your food for you? Who's going to build your cars for you? Not to mention, the entire history of plagues has led to wealthy and powerful people losing their heads and their positions of power and wealth. Intentionally starting a plague to target the "inferior humans" is self-defeating. What do "the elites" have to gain by doing this?

>>73858 I didn't say what the virus would be doing. You have a good point and it probably won't be deadly, it will do something else. This is just what feels like is going to be the first one to me; the why is obvious, power, whatever form they want to exercise it in. Maybe at that point medicine becomes good enough for humans to be effectively immortal and they need to keep everyone who isn't getting it from rioting? Or some other reason, idk. Anyway what targeted bioweapon do you think will be deployed earlier, if you don't think that's gonna be the first one?

You could make something like mitoviruses, which live their entire lifespan inside of the mitochondria, and then make it so that the virus only infects/searches for mtDNA with a haplogroup for a certain ethnicity. Or make something slightly similiar to CRISPR/Cas9, in the sense that it searches for a specific DNA strand. So get it in the mtDNA, have it search for a haplogroup, and then do whatever if it finds it

>>73858 >what would they gain? peace and quiet their lesser children and chosen assistants could make up a new better underclass. Raise average iq by 10 or 15. elites have always been among the victims of wars and coups, which are primarily elite struggles in which peasants and lower classes have been only peripheral, weapons and tools but not generally agents. This won't go away, and why should it?

>>73855 >That 0.1% difference is entirely you. Oh wow, someone made a little funny thing about what you exactly said several years ago! I'll include two more pictures, for extra added information. The tl;dr version: You are wrong. But you can always try again!

>>73855 >The emerging picture is that populations do, generally, cluster by broad geographic regions that correspond with common racial classification (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Americas). Your own source (I'm using the one that I can actually access) disagrees with the kinds of claims you are making. I doubt you actually read it. It only argues that there is a degree of continuity between races which indicates that racial classificiations alone do not completely describe genetic variance properly. But it does not sufficiently establish or defend the idea of morphologic and phenotypic variance mapped to racial classifications being totally environmental. It makes a brief god of the gaps argument and says, "We don't know, but if could be x." Which is just conjecture. Also, I'm not sure Out of Africa theory is as immutable as it claims. In any case, the study was also clearly ideologically motivated. I hate arguing with retards on the internet, but I just wanted to point that out.

>>73855 >From realistic to off the rails >Race isn't genetic You're being extremely trendy. Different species of animals have closer genetics then the different races of man in certain cases; Corvids. The Japanese Crow is indistinguishable from the North American Raven. Under no circumstances can you look at one or the other and identify it as different species, yet upon closer analysis, these birds that look EXACTLY THE SAME are a different species. The genetic difference between Asians and Africans is LARGER then the two different species I mentioned above. That makes Asians and Africans, by classical scientific identification standards, different species of hominids if we use the same "genetic distance" fST as other animal groups with aberrant phenotypic expressions. That doesn't mean that kuk incel white kids are better then subhuman chimp niggers. This is the step everyone needs to shoot themselves in the foot for. Until it is scientifically legal to study racial differences scientifically(Protip: It's illegal in every first world country to even fund the research yourself) anyone who claims one thing or another is a biased sycophantic piece of human soykaf. Get me? We have no answers, but everyone wants to pick a side. Absolutely horrifically unacceptable, and everyone should feel fuarrrking ashamed, because the data doesn't exist to be judged. Here's a shocker I do to people IRL: >In World War I a study was done on the corpses of fallen soldiers: The skull was split and the brains' weight taken note of. It was found, without question that, on average, from thousands of soldiers, the brains of African descended men were smaller by about 20% This is where everyone picks a side because they're sycophantic little bastards that shouldn't be legally allowed to have opinions. If you didn't pick a side here, congratualations, you're not a dipshit. >In mammals of the same clade, it's well understood that a smaller brain mass is equivalent to a more intelligent specimen of the same So are african's 20% smarter? Or is it just due to the excess weight of the Neanderthalic occipital bun? Interesting fact: Humans without an occipital bun, a skull prominence(bump) on the back of the head, cannot fly helicopters because they don't have the developed brain processing to calculate reflexes in 6DoF such as under water, in a helicopter, or in space. ~10% of Africans exhibit this trait(99% of the rest of the planet except Aborgines). This isn't something up for debate, it's as real as sunlight or advertisements, right there in front of you.

while cruising youtube looking for news on covid i got a recommendation to watch a video of an army general boasting about developing a ethnic targeting bioweapon. His angle was simple - an invisible selectively killing weapon is basically perfection. I have been thinking of whether the army wants to promote diversity as a counter measure - if your troops aren't homogenic they wont be as affected by such weapons.

>>73869 >Out of Africa theory is as immutable as it claims This has been debunked good decade ago as they found a skeleton older than the theory would allow. The fact that it's still brought up just makes me worry about how valid public science knowledge really is.

>>73885 >Until it is scientifically legal to study racial differences scientifically(Protip: It's illegal in every first world country to even fund the research yourself) anyone who claims one thing or another is a biased sycophantic piece of human soykaf. I have a small disagreement in my agreement with you here and it's >the data doesn't exist to be judged This isn't entirely true, we do have quite a bit of data. We just do not have academia's approval of using data. Now whether or not one race is better than any other comes down to what we are talking about. Better at what? Because no race is "best at everything." -- We just have a natural curve of some races are better at more things than other things, but I can disprove "Whites are better than blacks at everything" by posting Usain bolt (Technically Justin Gatlin, still black) and we can use the uninfluenced history of various civilizations to see it and we can even explain why certain races evolves to do the things that would fall into place as "better", such as climate and so on. (e.g. Future thinking in Whites due to harsh winters and farming VS no need to worry about the future because you can pick fruits and such all year round. Interestingly, we would likely find climate to be a fairly big influence on certain traits that, today, are found to be useful in, lets say, moderately successful people, when you remove the "handout" section of the "moderately successful people" pool.) Of course, until it is annointed by the Academics, we cannot look at this as anything more than "just speculation." which is fine, because I don't care. My race is the best race, to me, because in-group preference is in my DNA and out-group preference goes against nature. And I love nature.

>>73864 Doesn't this show that the idea of subspecies is just dumb? You can arbitrary cut up any population into how many subspecies you like. It's kinda like color spectrum. There are cultures who have just two colors, some have three, others have name for every color variation. Where you exactly put label is pretty much what you would like. Obviously there's a difference between orange and red. Likewise there's a difference between maroon and crimson red. But you can just as well sum all these up as "red" without being wrong. Same with population. You can cut off all of humanity up however you want. North Italians and South Italians look noticably different, yet no one really goes berserk about that. Most people who actually care about species simply just want an excuse to be racist.

>>73887 Very few people know this, and it is especially unfortunate in such an "advanced society such as ours", as people like to say, that worships science, both literally and metaphorically. You would think such a society would try to keep up with these things, but disproving ideas that support your worldview is upsetting and hard to deal with for most people. You'll find a lot of "science" just stops, publically, when it lands on an idea that make people feel all warm and fuzzy about their liberal worldview... or people will just make soykaf up and it works out. In this example. you have Freud, who scientists outright called "unscientific", and psychoanalysis, by all accounts is projection and scientists rejected as entirely bogus, sitting here using the exact same sentiment that people rip on astrology for, but it is taken as acceptable because it supports the liberal, and marxist, worldview. Another example is the "nature vs nuture" (previously "genetics VS environment") was not the question people thought it was, not only that, but it was actually solved a long time ago. Several times. Depending on how you phrase the question, which was the fun little game people played to bastardize the original purpose, we found that "both actually" is the answer. But if we talk about "what came first", the answer can really only be nature. The entire purpose of the bastardization of this dialogue was to push a politica agenda, that agenda being referred to as "magic soil" and "magic paper" today. The African becomes German when his paper says so. The African is German because his African mother gave birth to him on German soil. This is the intentionally dishonest idea that "race" and "nationality" are the same thing, while sliding over to "no, they are clearly different, race doesn't exist and nationaltiy does." which is ironic, when that same person usually claims that "borders are imaginary." But these people will say anything to "win" an ideological debate, which is why this can only really lead to violence, etc. etc. The point here is that the public isn't really aware of any scientific knowledge that isn't convenient and usually from the perspective of the dominant ideology, but sometimes from the intellectually lazy or hyper egoists who have such a difficult time being wrong that they have decided that they are not wrong and that the science is [insert shutdown adjective here]

>>73889 >Doesn't this show that the idea of subspecies is just dumb? Jesus Christ... That was your takeaway? You'd rather eliminate an entire section of our taxonomy in nature than admit you are wrong? What would we do about the types of animals that are clearly not the same, but similar enough? You're stuck on the superificial features, by the way, rather than the genetic. Pigmentation isn't the only difference between races. Here's a hypothetical: You have two birds, they only have a 0.1% difference, genetically. We note that the first bird is hyper-aggressive, lets say 60% more aggressive than the second bird. We would, absolutely, classify these birds differently. Now imagine you have two men, they only have a 0.1% difference, genetically. We note that the first man is hyper-aggressive, lets say 60% more aggressive than the second man. We don't classify these men differently, despite the fact that the 60% more aggressive man is an african (race) man and the other one is a "White" (collective european race) man. What I am referring to is the effect of the MAOA gene. We would classify these two races as subspecies, if we didn't have this absurd removal of humans as part of nature, and the idea that if we separate people it's "bad" despite the fact that every excuse for why it is bad is exclusively based on a relatively new worldview that hasn't existed for more than ~100 years and hasn't been really implemented for more than ~70 years. An idea that first responded with "It won't happen" to critiques to "It isn't happening" to critiques to "It's happening but it isn't hurting anything" to critiques and now "It's happening and it's a good thing" to critiques, and it's a pretty common response chain that I've actually witnessed happen more than once from the very same ideology I am talking about. This is what you are defending right now. Whether you care or not isn't important, it's just important for me to let you know that when the collective start killing those guys, it shouldn't be too surprising.

>>73891 >Jesus Christ... That was your takeaway? You'd rather eliminate an entire section of our taxonomy in nature than admit you are wrong? Well yes, and I don't consider it to be wrong. There aren't really such things in nature as species as everything in nature is flowing and ever changing. You can put labels on everything you want in nature, and they have some use, but it's not reality. It's just how we decided to categorize it. Actually people frequently have the problem of seeing that the way we systemize and model reality is in big part an arbitrary choice. The fact that the supposed "hard facts of science" usually have shorter shelf life as being truth than religious truths shows as much. So with that how we categorize and split up nature is largerly a question of utility. >despite the fact that the 60% more aggressive man is an african (race) man and the other one is a "White" (collective european race) man Well, you know what is the history of the "peaceful" white man in other parts of the world? In african societies they were slavers. People native to the americas can thank them for extermination and steralization of their women. The asian people can thank the white man once again for imperialism. And the europeans can thank the so called white man for one of the most deadly and destructive wars in history. For most people around the world the white man can be seen as the devil and rightfully so. If you want, it's very easy to look down on every kind of people in the world. And let's be honest, you just want to be racist. You don't care about the so called "science" or "truth" or whatever bullshit excuse there is. You just want to be angry at some folks of people and then you rationalize your decision. Which is ironic if you are the same person who few posts above said how people "worship" science yet you are cut from the same cloth

>>73892 >Well, you know what is the history of the "peaceful" white man in other parts of the world? Ok, but I don't care about the anglos-saxon race. >In african societies they were slavers. It was tribal warfare that led to africans enslaving africans, then trading their fellow african for goods. I don't care "how they were thought of". The reality is much more hilarious. >People native to the americas can thank them for extermination and steralization of their women You mean "anglo-saxons"? This is the subset of White you are referring to again. Also, the native americans are aryan, Interestingly enough, they were probably just as close to the older world aryans as the celts were. This, once again, shows your ignorance on the topic. >it's very easy to look down on every kind of people in the world I look down on most people, race has nothing to do with it. Most people are retarded and ignorant. Most people are pathetic losers with no sense of self and refuse to think about things that are outside of the prescribed areas. I don't give a soykaf, you misunderstood me. As per usual, you pathetic losers misunderstand me. >And let's be honest, you just want to be racist No, I don't care. You just want to hit someone with "shutdown label" and call it a night. Unfortunately, I don't care. >You just want to be angry at some folks of people No, if I wanted to blame people for the ills of the world: Capitalists (and usurers) are much easier and I don't even have to say the word "jew". Unfortunately, I'm not a lazy scumbag that falls in line. >Which is ironic if you are the same person who few posts above said how people "worship" science yet you are cut from the same cloth I am the same person, but again, you're such a fuarrrking idiot you missed the entire point. Wah, boo fuarrrken hoo. Another plebian, subhuman who cannot interpret the words I am saying because they're 3 ucking deviations lower on the fuarrrking arbitrary IQ test. I'm over it, bro. Have a good day, I know I will.

>>73855 >babies first introduction to geneology Ah, I can't wait until you learn about haplogroups and shed that political mumbo jumbo off your soykaf mind

>>73899 Lol, bro sounds like a phrenologist; very “scientific” of them to neatly categorize humans into arbitrary boxes > um ackhutually its “anglo-saxon, now huwhite Lol

>>73969 Well, I'm not a "phrenologist" and I'm still waiting for the part where you prove me wrong instead of false attribution. But you won't, because you can't. >Lol Yes. Anglo-saxons are a subset of the "White race". Anglo-saxons are also the subset of the so-called "White race" that did a lot of the conquering of places outside of Europe. Of course, the entire mention of this (For a reminder, the "Peaceful White Race" nonsense) was just goalpost moving on your part. The implication that a race is violent if they don't get involved with war clearly, whether intentional or not, misunderstands the specific gene I am referring to and what that gene has to do with violent behavior. Especially as there is a clear difference between war and anti-social violence. But then, for this specific argument, your worldview has to oversimplify it or you'd have to actually admit being wrong. Oh, but of course, not to worry, as it would be overcomplicated in another discussion in order to make it fit into other aspects of the world, but those things don't contradict because both\and logic is the foundation of your worldview, which means contradictions don't actually exist except in the so-called "opponent", which is yet-another feature of religion, but this is well out of the scope of what you are likely capable of discussing. Or am I wrong? Because right now, as far as I'm concerned, I'm just dealing with some ideologue who is verping up the fourth, or even fifth hand, regurgitation that you gulped down happily and are being a good little liberal and doing what you are told, even when no one is watching. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Show me your consistency and logic that details how off I am, even just a little bit. Or am I just going to get another dismissive, gen X-tier response with an oddly prideful amount of snark? Here's a curiositiy. You might even be able to help me better understand because I could be missing something. So, tell me, what's the point in you lads responding to me if you can't come up with anything?

>>73970 just listen to yourself, you sound like an idiot! I'm not even the same lain, I just think you sound like a dumb fuarrrk. You're not "scientific", you just like rationalizing retarded pseudoscience while pretending to be objective about it. It's "scientific racism", its crap. And without any irony! That's fuarrrking hilarious! > prove me wrong or I win lolno, "never argue with an idiot" How long have you been married to your sister? I got your self-portrait right here. Thanks for the laugh at least, shame you were being serious but this topic does attract a lot of white trash ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>73971 >just listen to yourself But I do, lainon. I'm introspective, I take the time to hear out opposing views. >you sound like an idiot In what way? >You're not "scientific" I'm quite literally in academia, which puts me on the same level of the idiotic "scientists" that are held at such a high standard. I guess that's only when they fall in line. >you just like rationalizing retarded pseudoscience while pretending to be objective about it. Interestingly, I've not made any opinionated claim about race here. In fact, I'm not even talking about superiority and even criticized the idea of an end-all be-all "superiority." >It's "scientific racism", its crap. And how exactly is "scientific racism" crap? Are you unaware of the differences in race? Maybe you didn't know that it is pretty important to make distinction in medicine. Maybe you weren't aware that "white blood" and "black blood" don't mix well and can cause a violent reaction where the body begins to kill itself. Oh, but that's just a myth and bigotry and racism! You're a dullard, man. >without any irony What would the benefit of being ironic be here? >never argue with an idiot Well, I'm still responding to you guys because I'm just so kind hearted like that.

>>73971 mediocre bait. >>73975 don't encourage it. >And how exactly is "scientific racism" crap? typically the crap is in the transition region from 'is' to 'ought'.

>>73971 lol okay, posturing is literally just a beta thing

>>73842 >Is an ethnic bioweapon possible? Nope, such a weapon is a fantasy based on two major fields of pseudoscience: >genetics >virology Actually, the fact that ethnic bioweapons haven't yet been deployed with any success is just another piece of evidence that the aforementioned fields of """science""" are fraud.

I am with the other lains on this one. It’s impossible to dissuade a racist, especially one whose deluded themselves with pseudoscience. Don’t polanons belong on 4ch anyways? What are they doing spilling their soykaf here?

holy soykaf guys can people like >>73984 actually lay out their understanding of what i.e. race is in a clear coherent way? A nice thing about boards like this is usually that you can get people to talk levelheadedly about random soykaf but people inthis thread seem to just be replying without even reading the other posts. Do your eyes just glaze over when you encounter something that looks like wrong think? Is it possible that one or both 'sides' here have a seriously distorted view of what the other thinks ? Seems possible to me, but you're just talking past eachother instead, or to the presumed audience. IDK but its stupid. Lets make lainchan nice again and hear what our friends have to say.

>>73842 >>73891 >>Doesn't this show that the idea of subspecies is just dumb? >Jesus Christ... That was your takeaway? This really hits it home for me. The idea that "I just won't think about the obvious boundaries between clusters" is somehow a valid defense. It is kind of like when trannies need everyone to not only play along, but also refrain from reinventing any words that would easily in few syllables refer to something approximating the categorical distinction between a biological male and female. Blindness is an important part of our culture. >>>73976 >is ought distinction Okay, but I think the realist/racist lainons in this thread have been talking mainly about literal things like the occipital bun having a supposed connection to higher intelligence, not about morality. Some explicitly make this distinction in their posts. Even the one guy who says he does things because he "loves nature" isn't forming an imperative statement for your consumption unless you already love the same nature he does.

>>73986 It is obvious that what people culturally refer to as black/white races could be determined by some phenotypes. For simplicity let's pretend just say skin color. Skin color is caused by genes. The black people who have black skin are going to have more genes that cause black skin and vice versa for white people. Cultural definitions of race reflect underlying clusters of traits in genetics. QoD. But that is kinda a cop-out, but why? What are we actually trying to get at here? That the differences between said clusters are really deep in the functionality e.g. bone marrow incompatibility? Or something about cultural race compatibility? That the clusters have a much-abused instinct for outgroup intolerance is arguably a point for the reality of the clusters. If the clusters weren't real then the race boundary would be useless in reinforcing the intuition responsible for class hierarchy.

>>73987 >Okay, but I think the realist/racist lainons in this thread have been talking mainly about literal things If you mean to refer to the factual claims made, I guess you may be right that they have stuck to repeating facts. I haven't really paid much attention to that. But one must be reminded that in this context, the facts stated are always part of an implicit argument. Look at the memes used, what they view as outrageous or morally represensible. I mean, come on, this is a mainly-US imageboard, we all KNOW that really the topic of this thread is "should we kill the niggers?" Everyone is just being tactful about it.

>>73987 >This really hits it home for me. I understand how people are and why they are and all that. But I hate that the world is so black-and-white, no pun intended for once, that people who decide to look deeper into subject matter are discounted as nothing more than "the bad guys." instead of just trying to understand. I mean, my entire journey into learning about racialism, racial science, etc. was because I was raised to be open-minded, be kind, think and learn as much as possible, "learn about opposing views" and that "it is wrong to hate something or someone because they hold different views" and "We should seek to understand each other." -- Well, I sought to understand. Why wouldn't I? Well, let me just say two things: 1) It is absolutely mindboggling at how the entire liberal worldview falls the moment you inquire just far enough to get a genuine answer of something like "Why did people hate the Jews?" or "Where does the so pervasive racial superiority come from in the past?" and you demand an answer that is more than just "because people are really evil." because everywhere else in history "people and thinks are very complicated" so why is this one subject matter treated any different? 2) It would just be much easier to call me a simple-minded idiot and, honestly, part of me wishes it were that simple. >>73989 That's genuinely not good faith. I'm not interested in "killing niggers" -- My entire point was to answer OP's question: Is it possible "Yes and here is my reasoning." -- It turned into something entirely different. I was completely misunderstood, misrepresented, and honestly, I'm wondering if maybe I should reconsider my position of trying to be kind. "We are different and that is okay" seems to really piss off people like those two loons that freaked out on me. I continued to elaborate, but it was rejected like "No no, you say X but what you REALLY MEAN is this other entirely different thing." -- Why do you want me to be a genocidal maniac so badly? Are you actually some racist trying to bait me into switching over? I'm not trying to accuse you, I'm just asking.

>>73994 >That's genuinely not good faith. I'm not interested in "killing niggers" But you do realize that that is the undercurrent of this thread, yes? That is the main reason why "race realism", as an ideology, exists. It is a reaction against the (genuinely retarded) opinions expressed by the likes of >>73855 , but it is driven primarily as a reaction to the normative claims that accompany it. This entire type of topic is not good faith. >"We are different and that is okay" seems to really piss off people like those two loons that freaked out on me. Ironically they probably would agree to that sentiment if it was phrased without reference to genetics. >Why do you want me to be a genocidal maniac so badly? It's frankly a default assumption that must be made when "race realism" enters a discussion. Those memes that I guess you posted in >>73864 were certainly made by people who would unironically say "gas the Germans".

>>73995 >the undercurrent of this thread As it was derailed? Sure, but my post was the first response and that was not my intention. In fact, it was my hope that the more reactionary types wouldn't have responded so quickly because the concept of a weapon that can target by race is a completely appropriate topic with regards to a dystopian future. What a hellish future to conceive. But of course, we cannot talk about this when dishonest ideologues are around... and I mean both ends, for what it's worth.

>>73842 Obviously seeing as there are already different levels of susceptibility to naturally occurring viruses based on ethnicity and/or class based differences (weight, diabetes, nutrition, levels of toxic elements ingested, etc). Through the "gain of function" method is is quite possible to create a virus that would target specific groups reasonably well... For a few months before it will mutate into strains that target other groups and thus become a liability. The issue with bioweapons Is not the feasibility of making it and distributing it, the issue is that there's no reliable way to deactivate it or prevent it from mutating and targeting your group or your allies.

>>73842 I see people posting the main thing a virus bioweapon needs is error correction. Are there any reviews of the error correction capabilities available in nature or from synthesis? It seems really weird to presume it would have a good chance to mutate when it doesn't need to stick around as long as normal viruses. Plus any escaped mutant variants are going to be under the regular evolutionary regime for viruses where lethality and virality are incompatible- very incompatible once the original virus takes its toll on local populations.

>>74002 That's why, when it comes to bioweapons, they're supposed to work on cures, too. Your side *will* become infected, it's a matter of quickly and easily dealing with it. I have an example, but considering how controversial my initial point was, I'm not particularly interested in mentioning it lol

>>73842 Chris Langan said covid targeted white people and spared Jews. He's got a 200IQ btw

>>74009 You don't have to use an appeal to authority. We have papers on this subject matter, which is what he based this statement on, Lainon. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32844124/

>>74002 You seem to be assuming a corona like scenario but worse. perhaps a more ideal warvirus would be more quickly deadly in such a way that its infective potential is badly reduced. If it evolves to be more transmittable, then it will likely do so by becomming less deadly. Its possible this is what happened with corona, if early chinese reports on dangerousness are to be beleived. still once its out of your control its out of your control, an inherent danger of many types of weapons but perhaps bioweapons in particular.

>>73988 >That the differences between said clusters are really deep in the functionality e.g. bone marrow incompatibility? yes, one of examples nicely shown >Or something about cultural race compatibility? yes, cultural and genetic influences means that people have less homogeneous society and always need to treat others as individuals instead of trusting each other as a group >If the clusters weren't real then the race boundary would be useless in reinforcing the intuition responsible for class hierarchy. or -... ya know.... it's ingrained in all people individually, and people like to associate themselves with people like them and not associate with others that are different than them....and no institution can push for it to exist or not exist because it is ingrained deep into human and species evolution

>>74002 >The issue with bioweapons Is not the feasibility of making it and distributing it, the issue is that there's no reliable way to deactivate it or prevent it from mutating and targeting your group or your allies. Quite. I think this is probably the main reason why most confirmed cases of bioweapon manufacture do not quickly self-propogate, such as anthrax endospores. >>74003 >It seems really weird to presume it would have a good chance to mutate when it doesn't need to stick around as long as normal viruses. It's essentially the von neumann machine problem. The virus will mutate over time, regardless of what error correction mechanisms are available, and faster than pretty much any other kind of organism. The question is only how quickly it will mutate and how it will mutate, and a bad gamble is disastrous. Keep in mind that these will be reproducing *millions* of times in each host, and each host presents the virus with a unique and ever-changing environment. >>74014 >If it evolves to be more transmittable, then it will likely do so by becomming less deadly. I'm no expert on epidemiology, but I hypothesize that if the increased transmissibility is due to improved immune evasion, then it would usually come with worse symptoms, because the symptoms are a result of the virus spreading within its host and infecting more cells. The other way to become more transmissible would be to somehow increase spreading capacity from host to host (e.g. making a person sneeze more or soykaf more), which can also cause worse symptoms. This can be seen with some covid-19 strains.

>>74023 >if the increased transmissibility is due to improved immune evasion normally viruses like all life follow some basic principals neccesary for long term viability. Wolves who kill all the deer just for sport will kill themselves long term, and viruses which kill their hosts quickly without spreading will die out likewise. With husbandry you can raise cows to eat anything even if it kills them and watermellons without any seeds, and perhaps you can raise viruses which likewise aren't viable outside of your production environment. If you could breed a flu that doesn't cause sneezing, perhaps it would have no host to host transmission at all, and so every case will be one host away from the lab. Some mechanical sneez-err-spraying system can spread it around a city or other area as needed, and be shut down when required. Of course, this weakens the weapon, but perhaps a price worth paying if you do manage to control it. Then again, potentially quite dangerous to test it ahahaha.

>>74024 >normally viruses like all life follow some basic principals neccesary for long term viability Sure, but viruses evolve to become sinultaneously more transmissible and more deadly all the time. Individual virus particles don't care about long-term viability of the disease, and the short term is where it can be destructive. >If you could breed a flu that doesn't cause sneezing, perhaps it would have no host to host transmission at all, and so every case will be one host away from the lab This is true, and you could also do some kind of chemical sterilization like they do to make vaccines, just to be sure. But then the question becomes how do you generate and store enough virus particles to shoot off? They generally aren't able to survive very long outside of a host, unlike bacteria.

>>73855 I know this post already has too many replies but still I feel like this is relevant. Body odor from under the arms is caused by the feces of single cell soykaf that eats your sweat. Now Japanese people don't get body odor. They don't sell deodorant much either except in touristy areas. This fuarrrker that makes most all humans smell like soykaf just doesn't think the underarms of Japanese people are tasty. If he can tell the difference, why couldn't a bioweapon?

>>73855 I remember a book where this happened, a doctor creates a bioweapon but between genetic similarities/shared ancestery, and the doctor gettng greedy and basically selling the virus to everyone to target other races he pretty much fuarrrks humanity. >>73856 Respiratory virsuses are the most dangerous followed by blood and body fluid pathogens. If someone were to make a gene vaccine that functions as a respiratory virus, and the live vrus immunzation mutates in the wild it could fuarrrk everyone. Imagine, if you will, a respiratory "cure/vaccine for cancer." >>73857 One method of targeting specific races would be to use genetic traits like sickle cell as a target organism, since the predominant recipients of these genes are black, it would work on the target population. That being said, these kinds of viruses would be tricky to handle, because it would only work on very specifc populations. If someone were to add traits, it would eventually affect the population at large, which goes to the post for >>73855 >>73860 Bioprograming has come a long way, but keep in mind that most of the people who could work on something like that are strictly monitored and publicly known, outside of china where this is probably being worked on there are few places that could work on projects like that without fuarrrking up. A virus designed for if haplogroup then target instructions would be immensely difficult to control, because it may misinterpret biomarkers, and may affect similar structured haplogroups. >>73861 I fuarrrking hate conspiracy theories, provide some proof that these "elites" have historically tried to enact large scale covert extermination campaigns for their own wealth. It goes against the idea of making wealth work for you. It's much easier to pay one peasant to dispatch another than to try to dispatch two with illuminati magic and then have to find someone else to do the work.