Messing with nature.

[ben_tajer]

What happens if all this Genetically modifying things causes a sort of super disease in plants/food? Are there things set in place to control these? I can't see how you can totally destroy every bad organism.
You have only got to look at the common cold (or man flu as some call it ), theres no cure for that as it keeps reforming itself in another virus/form.
Its sad really to see the state we are in, as Frances has said , we are just excellerating our own demise. Can things be put back to how they were created?
I wonder what sort of world I will leave for my children's children's children.
I can understand a fascination with organisms and bacteria etc, how we are made up but aren't we great enough as we are?

Yeah, but on the flip side of that, say there is some sort of "super disease", I find it hard to imagine you could kill every good thing. What do you mean by "super disease" anyway? How would such an, I'm assuming large, disaster come about through GM as opposed to natural processes? In a way GM could let us respond to diseases faster than nature, because nature adapts over a series of generations, with GM we could make the leap in less than one. The technology that let's us have GM also let's us fight disease.

And you people have a terribly pessimistic outlook when it comes to over population. I don't think it's inevitable, I think that current technology and production continues to outpace our needs - what's lagging is our politics! Life will continue to get better, and the population will continue to become more sustainable, and we will begin to have a less destructive relationship with other species if we thoroughly explore technologies like GM, that will make this possible. If we do overpopulate, it's because we haven't meddled with "nature" enough (and by meddling nature I'm talking about science, not thinks like industry and global warming), and not the other way around.

Why is it called meddling with "nature" anyway? Could we have a more neutral term please? It implies that there's something inherently and universally wrong with genetic modification, when really that's dependent on subjective values. It also implies that the current way of things is somehow "natural". I find this absolutely absurd, there's nothing natural about modern agricultural practices, assembly lines, or urban lifestyles, nothing remotely "natural" (as I understand it) at all. Life styles have changed dramatically over the last 50 years, and I'm sure they'll be dramatically different within 20 years from now - history's pace is picking up as we continue to improve our technology.

 

[gr33neyes]

It sort of feels like you're saying basically you want to tweak animals, plants, food, medicine etc just to make life easier for us.Lets take away all the risks and have a happy non threatening life. We can all sit and order our supplies online and never leave our peaceful wonderful homes with our plants that always bloom and never die, our food that never rots and use by dates are just a memory. Our health will be perfect and we will live to be 200 (and looking like yoda). Our pets will glow in the dark in fact everything will glow in the dark. there will be 6 legged cows and sheep(more to go round), a lettuce will be the size of a small car.
Chocolate will grow on trees( there's a thought)
It doesnt really matter what I think though does it...I'm just a pessimistic 36 yr old woman ....Frances can I borrow your rose tinted glasses? lol

 

[digger]

Of course you can Becky.
Ben, i take it you think that by genetically modifying things we are all of a sudden going to stop doing all the things we do wrong now.
You have backed up my argument quite nicely without even realising it.
You say ;-

"I find this absolutely absurd, there's nothing natural about modern agricultural practices, assembly lines, or urban lifestyles, nothing remotely "natural" (as I understand it) at all. Life styles have changed dramatically over the last 50 years, and I'm sure they'll be dramatically different within 20 years from now - history's pace is picking up as we continue to improve our technology."

This is exactly what i mean, i will say 100 years,
in that time the damage we have done to ourselves, our planet and everything on it is unbelievable, and you think we should enable more people to live longer lives and there for increase this damage at an alarming rate.
I suppose you are an advocate for CLONING too, yeah why not all have a clone, double the population in one foul swoop.

You cannot get more natural than the way we are when we are born, in my opinion you dont need to meddle with perfection.
I just think its going to far when you start wanting to mess with the natural things in life because as you yourself have admitted there is very little natural anything left.

I just hope in 50 years time you dont live to regret the stance you are taking now.
I just hope there is not another dictator around the corner willing to pay a lot of money to a greedy scientist.
I truely hope that things turn out the way you think they will Ben, because otherwise there are a lot of other scenarios that could be played out instead.
And not one of them is pleasant to think about.

 

[freves]

Frances you certainly know how to start an interesting thread! I'm going to throw in a few more cents and then bow out of this one. At the risk of straddling the fence I agree with both sides (do we have two distinct sides?) on certain points. As I stated earlier there is no going back with our technology and I personally think that is a good thing. We would be fools to ignore the knowledge that can be gained, medical and otherwise, from genetic research. Along with this knowledge however we have to keep a sense of ethics about what we are doing and why. I of course realize that "what's ethical" is going to vary from culture to culture and definitely from individual to individual. Ben, I agree with much of what you say however unless there has been a major decrease in the human population growth since I was in college (about 13 years ago) then the Homo sapien population is quickly on the way to reaching it's carrying capacity. I agree that in many instances distibution of food to the starving is a problem and is often politically motivated, however seriously doubt that this is true in every situation. There are simply too many people in the world. I'm out of this one now. You folks just remember to recycle and feed all of these worms that are being let out of their cans to your newts!
Chip

 

[digger]

Thank you foster for your input, its nice to hear all sides to every debate.
P.S
if you dont mind i will feed mine to my axolotls.
lol

 

[gr33neyes]

The Human Genome Project summarizes the controversies surrounding GM foods:

• Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
• Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
• Domination of world food production by a few companies
• Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
• Biopiracy - foreign exploitation of natural resources
• Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values
• Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
• Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
• Stress for animal
• Labeling not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
• Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
• New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

 

[IanF]

Now since this is just another comment on your thread Francies you probably might not read it, but if you do, I'd like to say that I completely agree with what you said. Being only some young school kid, no one really listens to my opinion much and whenever I hear news about some new sharks bone may be able to cure Cancer, I can't help but say aloud 'I hope they don't find a cure'. Now I'm not some sort of sicko who hates all life and thinks everyone should die but I do feel thats these things, if cured, would cause havoc in the world. I think it's something like 1 in 4 people die of cancer... if that 1 is taken away think of the huge amounts of population blooms, materials needed, and food needed. If it were me, my family or anyone else, I'm afraid I wouldn't want any of these diseases cured. Alot of people might disagree but I'm afraid I wouldn't change my mind. I geuss with Knowledge comes Power, and with Power comes Destruction. So, again, on a happier note, very intresting thread Francies, looks like you got everyones thinking caps on.

 

[Lasher]

Humanity is in the place of the wolf, no natural predators to keep our population down

I wouldnt say that, mosquitos(as disease carriers, obviously) have killed more people than every war combined. Were certainley not invincible.

Digger, what exactly is natural about they way we are born? In many cases with medical assistance? Just sticking with that point if the mother or child is in distress should we not intrvene? Let both die? Sitting in the room with me now is a dear friend who was born by caesarean section several months premature, survived on life support for months. Without medical intervention she and her mother would have died. Thats not a 'natural' birth.

As others have stated there are larger moral and ethical implications you dont seem to be considering.

For that matter what is 'natural' about the current human form? Evoloution is defined by environmental circumstances. If you were dropped in the middle of no where with absolutley nothing, just how long do you think you would survive? As a child?

As soon as human beings began to dominate and manipulate their surroundings we developed to suit that environment, to the extent that many would be unable to survive in 'nature'. Nature ceased to be relevant as soon as the species reached a higher intelligence.

 

[Abrahm]

You cannot get more natural than the way we are when we are born, in my opinion you dont need to meddle with perfection.

Like my friend who was born with CF and is slowly dying as her lung function disappears and lives in constant pain?

• Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
• Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
• Biopiracy - foreign exploitation of natural resources
• Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values
• Stress for animal
• Labeling not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
• New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

Some of your list is directly related to genetic engineering, but many of these are problems that stem from many other causes too. The over and improper use of antibiotics is leading to the natural evolution of resistant strains. Biopiracy exists without any impetus form genetic engineering. Building a road can have unforeseen and destructive consequences to local flora and fauna. We violate the intrinsic value of nature every day with strip mining and other resource acquisition. When have the rich countries not used everything for their benefit while screwing over the impoverished?

Not that these aren't problems, but they aren't all strictly related to just genetic engineering.

Now since this is just another comment on your thread Francies you probably might not read it, but if you do, I'd like to say that I completely agree with what you said. Being only some young school kid, no one really listens to my opinion much and whenever I hear news about some new sharks bone may be able to cure Cancer, I can't help but say aloud 'I hope they don't find a cure'. Now I'm not some sort of sicko who hates all life and thinks everyone should die but I do feel thats these things, if cured, would cause havoc in the world. I think it's something like 1 in 4 people die of cancer... if that 1 is taken away think of the huge amounts of population blooms, materials needed, and food needed. If it were me, my family or anyone else, I'm afraid I wouldn't want any of these diseases cured. Alot of people might disagree but I'm afraid I wouldn't change my mind. I geuss with Knowledge comes Power, and with Power comes Destruction. So, again, on a happier note, very intresting thread Francies, looks like you got everyones thinking caps on.

Well, who decides that cancer patients should die, but people with influenza, tuberculosis, diabetes or heart disease should live? Do you want to tell cancer patients they should die because it is for the good of the world and that they don't deserve a cure? Aren't you just playing god in a passive-aggressive manner?

Why doesn't everyone just stop breeding if they are so concerned with overpopulation? I mean, if the world's going to hell why bring a child into it when you could help one of the children that is already here? Better yet, forced sterilization for 99% of the world.

Genetic engineering can provide many benefits to mankind. Imagine biologically produced plastics that can be easily recycled and are formed from bacteria using just CO2, water and animal waste. Imagine foods that can be grown in huge vats like algae or sheet meat which could mean better nutrition created with less resources.

Of course genetic engineering can be used to horrible ends, what human innovation hasn't? The majority of scientists are genetically engineering to help humanity and to improve our quality of life. Of course there are crazy outliers who do things that are wrong but most do not. GFP tagged animals serve a scientific purpose. They are markers, they give important data. They allowed my uni lab to track the movement of a protein necessary for heart development and note that it is also relevant to RNA regulation. Could this help with some heart defects? Maybe. We won't know until we try.

You can't expect scientists to peer through the veils of the future and expect them to say, "Huzzah, this path leads to world peace!" Traveling the path to find where it leads seems a better idea than stopping and burying our heads in the sand.

I am definitely not for every genetic engineering project. I don't want these things to be frivolous. To decry all genetic research is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[John]

Curing diseases by genetic means is not something I'm crazy about while people can still have 4-8 kids. However if we limit each family to 1 child per household (oh boy, can you imagine how that would need to be enforced) then I can better swallow curing diseases by genetic means. It might sound cold, but I know something about CF - some of my PhD work relating to CF was published about 5 years ago.

Someone said earlier though that human evolution is long gone and I totally agree. It stopped about 200 years ago. So many people are surviving today who by the harsh rules of nature really shouldn't, including myself (I had appendicitis when I was 8). We are certainly hurtling towards our own demise though. I give us another 200 years as a coherent/civilized world if we keep going at the current rate. Then think Mad Max crossed with Waterworld. Seriously.

 

[ben_tajer]

Of course you can Becky.
Ben, i take it you think that by genetically modifying things we are all of a sudden going to stop doing all the things we do wrong now.
You have backed up my argument quite nicely without even realising it.
You say ;-

"I find this absolutely absurd, there's nothing natural about modern agricultural practices, assembly lines, or urban lifestyles, nothing remotely "natural" (as I understand it) at all. Life styles have changed dramatically over the last 50 years, and I'm sure they'll be dramatically different within 20 years from now - history's pace is picking up as we continue to improve our technology."

This is exactly what i mean, i will say 100 years,
in that time the damage we have done to ourselves, our planet and everything on it is unbelievable, and you think we should enable more people to live longer lives and there for increase this damage at an alarming rate.
I suppose you are an advocate for CLONING too, yeah why not all have a clone, double the population in one foul swoop.

You cannot get more natural than the way we are when we are born, in my opinion you dont need to meddle with perfection.
I just think its going to far when you start wanting to mess with the natural things in life because as you yourself have admitted there is very little natural anything left.

I just hope in 50 years time you dont live to regret the stance you are taking now.
I just hope there is not another dictator around the corner willing to pay a lot of money to a greedy scientist.
I truely hope that things turn out the way you think they will Ben, because otherwise there are a lot of other scenarios that could be played out instead.
And not one of them is pleasant to think about.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, it seems a bit like you're rambling. There are a lot of a emotionally charged comments and view points in here, but there seems to be nothing to justify them.

I was born in a hospital and pulled out with forceps, I don't think that's too natural, also plenty of people are born premature and kept in incubators, what's natural about that? You ought to come up with a more precise definition for natural. Are we perfectly designed? Hell no - evolution is a work in progress, genetics can get us places we need to be faster than evolution.

You say that we've done lot's of "damage" to ourselves, when a larger portion of the world population is living better off now than ever before. Sure we've screwed up the environment, but this isn't due to scientific progress, it's for economic reasons.

Cloning doesn't have any obvious utility to me, I don't see why people would want to have a clone, as it would be just like having an identical twin several years younger. Maybe cloning embryos to grow replacement organs and tissues, but this would not have a direct affect on the world population.


Becky-

I'm glad you've actually brought in an authoritative source, but it strikes me as kind of vague, especially the one that simply says "stress for animal", not so sure what that one means. Again "Tampering with nature" is brought up, I've already stressed that this terminology not only implies a value set, but it assumes that science isn't "natural", it also fails to define "natural". Other issues brought up are economic ones, these can be avoided by good politics, unfortunately that can't be counted on.


I think people argue against GM and technology because it's easy to do, it's unknown. I don't see why issues like this should be anymore contentious than those massive particle accelerators that could make black holes (according to some scientists). A lot of the arguments against GM are based on speculation, speculation that can not be proven or dis-proven until we pursue GM further. Arguments against GM are risks, things that could happen if we don't go about it the right way, not the inevitable consequences of opting for a better technology. For all of you who refuse to realize that the world is, and is continuing to become more live-able, I'd like to see you go back and live in the middle ages. Things are getting better, and short of some major disaster like nuclear war or unchecked global climate change, they should continue to do so.

If it's really all going to end in 200 years for all of you, then what keeps you going?

 

[digger]

Have any of you actually read my first thread fully.

My son and nephew have Cystic Fibrosis, my son spent his 1st eleven months in intensive care, he actually died 3 times, and if it wasnt for medical science and the wonderful doctors and nurses he would not be in his 26th year.My nephew has just turned 29.

You will not find in any of my posts me saying i am against medical science,
you will not see anywhere that i am against anything other than maybe people wearing blinkers.
I have a totally open mind unlike a lot of people.

If my last thread was read properly it said
YOU CANNOT GET MORE NATURAL THAN the way we are WHEN WE ARE BORN. Not how.

Man IS born IN his natural form even if the birth is not by natural means.
As soon as we start to breath we have an impact on this world.
The older we get the more impact we have.

It is inevitable there are going to be disagreements about what man is and isnt responsible for, but at the end of the day think on this;

How do you think this planet would look if we were not on it?

Now picture it 200 years from now.

Progress is inevitable im no so stupid as to believe any different, or wish it so.
I just believe we ought to take a step back and think before we take that next GIANT one.

 

[Lasher]

Man IS born IN his natural form even if the birth is not by natural means.

Regardless of HOW we are born the evoloution of our current form has been influenced by thousands of years of constructed and manufactured civilisation to the point that we no longer posses the abilities and adaptations needed to survive in an envoronment that is not of our own making. How is that natural by your definition?

 

[digger]

You miss the point entirely, things evolve, we will continue to evolve, that is inevitable.
We did not go from being cavemen to be intelligent, (and i say that lightly in some cases) human beings by us physically altering ourselves.
It was all caused by outside influences.
Changes in the enviroment being the main cause.
I dont see how we could have possibly caused the ice age for example.
But now we are in a position to directly influence the changes in our atmosphere and therefore we need to tread carefully, we need to be foreward thinking, we need to look how things MAY turn out in the next few hundred years if we continue along the lines we are taking.
The point of the matter is over the last few centuries we have progressed so far we have done more damage to this entire planet than was done in the thousands of years before.
We need to take stock.

 

[gr33neyes]

A bit of light reading lol http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm

 

[gr33neyes]

Report Shows GM Crops Do Not Yield More

New Soil Association
Press Release
April 10, 2008
Coinciding with a manifesto from Country Life launched today, which urges people to 'learn to love GM crops', the Soil Association has published a report on the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years. The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.
Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said:
"GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failures. As oil becomes scarcer and more expensive, we need to move away from oil dependent GM crops to producing food sustainably, using renewable energy, as is the case with organic farming."

 

[digger]

The post before your last Becky backs what i said in one of my previous posts , the not knowing the affects these things will have on us in the future.
This tampering with genes in my opinion is still to new to be declared safe.
I am all for finding cures if they are out there but not by tampering with our genetic make-up. In my opinion we do not know enough about it to know it will not just cause more problems than it solves.

 

[lims]

the idea of making a person sterile from birth is cold yes, but its not a bad idea, people should have to prove they are responsible enough to raise a good/ok human before doing so, one of my friends was talking about this the other day

 

[gr33neyes]

So how would they do this if they had been made sterile at birth Sam? Would the baby have to take an exam on parenting before they cut the umbilical cord?

 

[lims]

no no, just steralise babies at birth and if they feel they want a child themselves later in life, assess them and their situation, some kind of course may be a good idea too. This gives everyone the opportunity to breed, but prevents unplanned births into inappropriate situations which would hinder the childs development and chances anyway.