Messing with nature.

[lims]

I know there are flaws with this idea though, inevitably unless the system is very well designed, deserving people will be denied the right they deserve.

 

[IanF]

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



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.



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.

My appologies if I got it across that I was only refering to Cancer. I was simply using it as an example and I do see your point of the matter. I've known many people who have died of various diseases, but I'm afraid I wouldn't change that. I'm not a cold hearted person but veiw life simply as, Life dies and is reborn again. I don't see why when people hear about a sick, elderly man dieing and they feel bad, because thats simply the fact of life, poeple die. I also don't see why people don't consider humans to be 'animals'. I mean, animals die in some really horrible ways, and yet people do nothing. Someone dies after being shot and everyone tracks down the killer, and throws him in jail (but its inhumane to kill him for what he's done?) and makes a huge big deal out of it. WE all live much, much longer than we used to and thats already caused probelms, but now we want to live even longer?! I'm sorry, but if you consider what happens when we take away the only predator (disease) mankind has left, then what will we do? Populate the world until there is no food, water, or housing? I'm not playing god, simply stating the obvious.

 

[i_love_necturus]

I think that everyone has the right to create life, I find that quite disturbing to have that chance taken away from me before I was born. This is a very chilling thread in some of the things brought up here. But this "sterilization of unborn people" really struck me as wrong.

 

[gr33neyes]

I think that would be very unethical Sam, I can see where you're coming from, but thats taking away a persons human rights and what happened if the sterilisation couldnt be reversed (something went wrong), again thats meddling with nature to some extent. I'm afraid no parenting course can fully teach a person how to raise a 'perfect' human being, parenting comes naturally or at least it should.

I don't think John is far off when he says he can see mad max meets waterworld. The Human race is peppered with greed and our own greed for 'better' will lead to extinction. When you are young you see all these 'advances' we make as something fantastic, something new to learn. But as you develop and grow as a person and decide your own thoughts on life, you realise the mess this planet is in.

 

[Saspotato]

Firstly, how are all of the anti-GM members here defining 'nature'? There seems to be a common theme of saying 'GM is bad as it messes with nature' without anyone defining what it is to be 'natural'. Thoughts? In my opinion, there is no such thing as natural and artificial as everything is created from a set of known elements be it a tree or a computer and you would need to draw a line somewhere. So where?

Current starvation is not a result of overpopulation, it's a problem of distribution.

Exactly! We have more than enough food to go around but no financial incentive to make sure this is the case.

Over crowding is inevitable, it doesnt matter how many wars, how many die of starvation, or how many die in natural disasters. If we continue to, rightly or wrongly, try to meddle with our genetic structure to find cure alls, the population on the planet will grow at an alarming rate.

I disagree completely. One of the solutions to overpopulation is making sure people have good living standards. Look at the West - the number of children people have has been in decline along with the rise in living standards. This is a common trend. The majority of people don't want to be pregnant every year and education (generally tied to living standards) has been shown to reduce people having so many kids! That is why I think GM could reduce the increase in population by providing millions of the world's poor with food and therefore increasing living standards.

If you look at the world today, it is much much better than it ever has been in the past, especially in the West - with the exception (in my opinion) of pollution. Women have equal(ish) rights, homosexual rights are improving, disabled and old people are cared for by society rather than be left to die like in the past, medicine is vastly improved and can extend people's lifespans well beyond what they used to be, we aren't likely to be invaded by other nations, women can control how many kids they have and we generally have freedom to make most choices about our day to day living. This is only applicable to the West of course - but it shows with improving living conditions you can solve a lot of the world's problems.

What happens if all this Genetically modifying things causes a sort of super disease in plants/food?

There have been diseases in humans, animals and food crops since the dawn of time so it is not dependent on GM. GM can reduce the problem of these diseases you know and help people respond to new naturally occuring or GM caused diseases MUCH MUCH faster than natural evolutionary processes could. I think even if there is a disease caused by GM (I'd be interested to hear your theory why this would be likely Becky) it does not necessarily mean it will be catastrophic. Plants become resistant to many diseases on their own and I don't see how it would be any different with a GM created disease, especially if we could then engineer something to combat the disease.

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

Again I completely disagree. Humans are far from perfect. We suffer a multitude of diseases, are injured easily due to being physically weak (imagine if we could regrow limbs like axies, that would make humans much better hey?), have many congenital problems, suffer many life-destroying addictions, are often mentall ill, we get old and we die.

If you look at the entire of human history there have been many potential terrible consequences of science - none of them yet has even come close to destroying the world's population. Diseases have in the past - but they weren't created by GM. I mean, we have nuclear bombs which could certainly destroy the world a lot faster than a GM 'super bug', but we haven't annihilated ourselves yet!

The net benefit of science has *always* been positive and by a large amount. In future, it could go either way of course but really, we have been successful as a species precisely because we have been able to escape natural selection via science and our need to constantly be creating and inventing. So I think we should keep it up so hopefully by the time I am old and dying they can regenerate my body back to its youth and I can have another 80 or so years

 

[digger]

So basically Sarah you are saying, there has been no radical increase in the population, we can all live longer and that wont be a problem, we can always provide more food, do more research to cure more diseases, and all these things will not significantly change the worlds population from what it is today. Interesting to say the least.
The only way that would ever come about is mass sterilization.
I would be interested to know if these diseases were all of a sudden irradicated what the population would be in say, just 20 years from now if everyone only had 1 child today, and that child had 1 child in 20 years time.
I think you would be amazed.

 

[Kal El]

Wow...this has to be the most controversial thread I've ever encountered. This would make an interesting poll, eh?

First of all, raise your hand if you're an advocate to science. I think should divide the posters equally.
I, for one am pro-GM, and of course you could argue whether this is right/wrong until your heart is content- no skin off my nose.

People have argued that we shouldn't mess with the genetic make-up of a human and that GM is doing precisely this. I haven't ventured into the background of GM and read every minute detail but it doesn't take a genius to realise that GM isn't the only thing that is going mess with nature. There are other factors in this "natural" environment that will destruct our genome. UV radiation is a perfect example of a non-GM factor that will meddle with the human genome. UV radiation can cause mutations and strand breakages in DNA. If this were to occur in the reproductive organs and the DNA lacked the resources to repair the damaged bases, this mutated DNA strand would be passed on the daughter cells during meiosis, thus the future generations. Was this because we were messing with nature? No. We were just too lazy to apply sunscreen which in itself is another advancement in the scientific world. An advancement that would not have come about if we didn't try new things.

We have come a long way, and quite frankly I wouldn't want to go back the stone ages and attempt to light a cigarette with rocks (not that I smoke ). We are civilised people in this modern age. We eat by using cutlery (most countries anyway) and not with our hands. But wait, cutlery itself contains about 20% chromnium- a potentially carcinogenic metal. Wouldn't this considered to be messing with nature as well? Whether you like or not, the human genome will always be subjected to mutations in this "natural" world (so we like to call it) because of the mutagens in the environment- it's all around us, not just in GM.

We are humans and it's in our nature to be inquisitive. Thus, we try new things to advance ourselves technologically, biologically, and even culturally (i.e. inter-racial relationships). Some have argued that we making the world worse for a our children's children and so forth, but how sure are you that you're going to have a conscience when your 6 feet under? Sad, but true. We are a selfish bunch. Supply and demand.

Jay.

 

[Saspotato]

No I didn't say that digger, not even close. Reread my post. In summary - when there is an increase in living standards, birth rates decline. Eg. The West. The rest I didn't say at all, not even close!!!

Also, well said Jay.

 

[gr33neyes]

Sarah you obviously didnt read my post concerning the soil association. They have stated and this comes from actual data not just what you have decided is right , that GM crops are no better at feeding our starving nations. There have been cases where it was found to be worse then organic foods. And yes I do believe we could be accidently manifesting a superbug. Nature has a way of overiding things (like GM) and who is to say it won't happen. You can always go and read my post which contains a link to the site saynotogmos, this site is put together by scientists. Read it and then decide.

Unlike conventional breeding, the GM process does not have a long history of producing new and (generally) safe varieties of plant and animal foods. The potential for unexpected toxic effects may be greater for GM than for conventional breeding, so safety testing is essential.
It should also be pointed out that safety testing may be more problematic for GM foods than for new conventionally-developed foods. This is because the process of gene transfer is not yet precise enough to be able to predict what potential safety problems might occur. That is, if researchers do not even have some knowledge of the likely nature of a potential problem, it is
difficult to know what sort of safety tests need to be conducted.

 

[Saspotato]

I did read your post but not the article. As you said 'light reading' I actually thought it was a non-serious article to lighten up the mood of the thread! I am time-poor so did not even look at it. So don't say I have 'obviously' not read your post with out even asking, it is implying something about me that is incorrect. It would be nice to be asked first... Anyway, I disagreed with your post and I thought one small paragraph that you posted was not evidence for your point. Hence I asked for more information So thank you for directing me to the other link, which I shall read later on.

I have not said anyway, that GM is currently successful. I do not have enough information to say so. I mentioned its potential, that is all.

 

[digger]

Im sorry Sarah i have re-read your post and my interpretation of your words will remain unchanged.
If you believe the world is truly a better place now then it was before we started messing with it, and will improve further if we meddle with gm, you need my rose coloured glasses.
We as a race are destructive and greedy.
We always want more.

 

[Saspotato]

Well ok lets address what you said I said

there has been no radical increase in the population, we can all live longer and that wont be a problem

No. I said in the West there has been a decline in the number of children people are having so the increase in population is reducing - see the difference? The population is increasing, but by a smaller amount. Secondly, I did not say we can all live longer and that won't be a problem. I said we are living longer and I did not comment on whether that would be a problem or not. I think it may be or it might not be. That depends on a huge amount of other things that may occur, with GM only one of them.

we can always provide more food, do more research to cure more diseases, and all these things will not significantly change the worlds population from what it is today

I didn't say we could provide food or any of the other things. I said GM could. Perhaps I should have used 'might', it is notoriously hard to convey meaning in a medium like an internet forum. GM may not though. However if people are allowed to study GM then the potential for that technology is HUGE to address some of the world's problems such as food shortage or diseases. I don't think we have a food shortage, we have a distribution problem. Finally I did not comment on whether it would significantly change the world's problem. I said increased living standards are correlated to a decrease in the amount of children people have. And the conclusion I drew from that was if you increase living standards and education you will have a decline in birth rates. In Australia, birth rates are low and the government is using financial incentives to get people to have more babies... what do you make of that? It is countries in the developing world that have population issues, not the West. And this is mainly because food is not distributed fairly so many people starve.

I would be interested to know if these diseases were all of a sudden irradicated what the population would be in say, just 20 years from now if everyone only had 1 child today, and that child had 1 child in 20 years time

I have no idea, and neither does anybody else. This scenario is not going to happen so I am not really going to speculate on it.

So as you can see, I did not say any of the things you attributed to me. You made assumptions about my meaning which are incorrect.

Seeing as you disagree I would like to hear your arguments and responses to the following issues I raised:

"What is natural or nature?"

"What do you make in the improvements in living standards of the West? Do you think this has made the world a worse place to live in? And if so why?" Really, if you think this, I suggest you read about the Dark Ages, or the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. The majority of people ALL over the world lived in horrific conditions. This is not the case today, hence there has been an improvement in how the world is running.

"Do you think that the costs of science outweigh the benefits? If so why?"

These are the points you need to address, based on what you have said. Because so far all I have heard is that the world is terrible and GM will make it worse but I have not heard why. Becky's comments about super viruses and the poor yields of GM crops are an example of reasons for your arguments but only a few and I would suspect that if GM is further refined these problems would not exist. No new technology starts out perfect

Here is an interesting article you should read digger. It is called "The global peace epidemic. The world isn't so dangerous after all". http://www.slate.com/id/2133226/

 

[digger]

When i take a seed from MY tomatoes or sweet peas, and countless other plants. They are natural, and yes i do know they are some of them originate from plants that are older than me, and im a lot older than you.
No chemicals were ever used to improve them, the original fertiliser was horse and cow manure, leaves were used along with ash for the runner beans cabbages, sprouts ect.
THAT IS NATURAL.
THAT IS NATURE.
No messing with chemicals, totally organic.
My parents believed in that before i was born.
And my children, none of them were born into this world with the aid of Gas and air, or epidurals ect, why, because i believe once we are born we breath more than enough pollutants to poison our bodies, so there is no need to introduce them before we are born.
I am not against medical science, i am not against GM, i am not against progress, and if you bothered to read MY posts properly you would see i have said that more than once.
All i say is , there is not enough known yet about any of these things to use them in a world that is already racing towards its doom.
I still sit on a fence not knowing what way to jump because i fear what lays ahead.
And im sorry if you disagree Sarah, and if you know something i dont that is able to allay my fears for the future of mankind then please do share.
As for living standards, yes they have improved.
But no i dont think we have improved along with it.
When i look out my window day or night i see youngsters, milling around doing nothing, or being destructive, im bored they cry, why are they bored, because they have too much, they have never learnt how to use their imaginations, they are ruled by computors and television sets. Their parents have them because thats what you do, after all thats why we were put on the planet right?
to pro-create.
Our lives are so wrapped up in material things that we have forgotten there is a world outside, ok not everybody but the greatest percentage.
I am one of the fortunates and i would like to think my children think they are too.
My back garden backed onto a woodland. My children spent most of their young lives there, my grandchildren walk there everyday with me, they are only 4 and 7 yet they both know where to look for wild strawberries, rasperries, black berries, wild garlic. They know which trees produce sweet chestnuts, beechnuts, hazlenuts and horse chestnuts.
They know where the green woodpecker, greater spotted and lesser spotted woodpeckers nest. They know all these things because they are lucky enough to still be in one of the few places in Plymouth that has been designated a NATURE reserve. They are growing up with adults who care and want to teach them about preserving what we have.
But alas they are among the few, their own nursery teachers were astounded by their knowledge, and these teachers live on the same estate as them.They had no idea the things that were there and they are going to teach the youths of today about looking after our world.
Science is a marvelous thing is it not?
Well i believe that science has done a lot of good for man kind, but i do not think it has done anything for the world as a whole.
Today my nephew got admitted to hospital with pneumonia, he has cystic fibrosis, and yes hopefully science will enable him to get better.
My son who is also cystic has just had an operation to stop acid going into his lungs and causing hemmoraging, this operation would not have been necessary if he had not been given a needless operation when he was 3, but hey according to science the operation was going to cure him.
So i still say we need to know more.
Our science has caused the pollution of our rivers and oceans.
Polluted our air.
Made extinct more animal and plant life than we will ever know.
And who is to say that our cancers ect of today were not originally caused by us in the first place.
All we know for sure is what is here now and i believe we have to try and preserve it by what ever means necessary.

 

[Saspotato]

Thank you, that goes along way in explaining your view point. It is just one I disagree with. And you don't need to be sorry that someone like me disagrees with you, everyone is entitled to their own view point.

What I am tired of though, is the accusation that I am not bothering to read people's posts. I most certainly am bothering, I even went through your post to me line by line. I always like to discuss issues and hear alternative view points and I find it quite disheartening when you just dismiss me as not bothering to read your posts when it is just that I disagree.

Anyway,

When i take a seed from MY tomatoes or sweet peas, and countless other plants. They are natural, and yes i do know they are some of them originate from plants that are older than me, and im a lot older than you.
No chemicals were ever used to improve them, the original fertiliser was horse and cow manure, leaves were used along with ash for the runner beans cabbages, sprouts ect.

To me, chemicals aren't unnatural - many of them occur without human interference - and therefore I don't see them as bad like you seem to. But that is really a matter of semantics, which is the point I was trying to get across.

Re something to alleviate your fears about humankind (by the way, it is not mankind, at least over 50% of the population cannot be considered mankind), what did you make of that article I posted? I think the biggest thread in this world today is fear because it is what drives people's demand for war and the suppression of others. This is why black people were enslaved, why woman were burned at the stake for witchcraft and why people turn to fundamentalist religion and kill anybody who disagrees. So the less people fear, the better. If humans were truly as greedy and without redemption as you have painted them, you would have people murdering each other left right and centre for whatever they could lay their hands on. This happens for sure, but not very often. Otherwise people would never leave their homes. Instead you see the majority of people living side by side without incident, people helping others, and many many selfless acts.

When i look out my window day or night i see youngsters, milling around doing nothing, or being destructive, im bored they cry, why are they bored, because they have too much, they have never learnt how to use their imaginations, they are ruled by computors and television sets. Their parents have them because thats what you do, after all thats why we were put on the planet right?

I am 23 so quite young, and have never been bored with life like you state the youths of today are. I think many people who look at youths today just label them as bored because they live a different life than they did when they were younger. Some people are bored, sure, but so are many adults. You have also labelled them as unimaginative, again there are imaginative people in every single age group - it has nothing to do with your age! And it is quite insulting to write off an entire generation as unimaginative! Every single generation has looked at the one following it and has said that they are more degenerate, useless and so on. The 60s and 70s are a prime example of this. It is natural for you to look at youth like you do but I don't agree with your viewpoint. By the way, I was not put on this planet to procreate - I agree this is what drives most species - but humans have found a way to escape that. I may have kids, but ultimately I am on this planet to enjoy myself as much as possible without infringing on the rights of others. That is how I view my existence.

Well i believe that science has done a lot of good for man kind, but i do not think it has done anything for the world as a whole.

Science is the thing that has done the most for the world! It has allowed humans to understand how they got to their current state via evoluntionary theory, allowed humans to explore space and land on the moon, it has eradicated a terrible disease entirely (smallpox) and has reduced the effects of countless more, it has allowed woman to stop being slaves to their reproductive system (one of the things that has been a big part in the oppression of woman), it has demonstrated that the idea of race is incorrect via gene analysis and thereby reducing the opinion that non-white people are inferior, and I could go on and on ad infinitum. How is this not benefiting human kind as a whole?

All we know for sure is what is here now and i believe we have to try and preserve it by what ever means necessary.

No, I think we have to try to improve things by whatever means necessary. Not preserve it as things are not perfect. Why should we not aim for perfection?

 

[digger]

Lol,
i interact with youths everyday of my life , i have done since i was 14 and helped run a youth club, i run a family evening once a month at my community centre, i have young children who come here just to talk to me about my animals, they walk my dog, feed my rabbits, who by the way run freely in my garden, they come and see my axolotls, fish and newts.
I did not mean an entire generation i am quite aware of the good out there, but i am afraid as a whole the youths of today are missing out because of the new technology we have invented, even you cannot deny the influence television has on people. They spend hours infront of their televisions, and on their games consols playing violent games, watching violent programmes, then wonder why they feel depressed, ive never known so many young people who cant work because they are on anti depressents.

I am far from being old Sarah, just older than you.

I read that artical and i would like to say it allays my fears but there is one thing that sticks i suppose, that is that one terrorist is capable of killing a vast amount of people with 1 nuclear device. Look how many they killed with 4 planes.
But anyway that isnt really the issue.
In this country and many others violent crime is on the increase.
Drug related crimes are on the increase.
Murders are on the increase.
Children carrying weapons on the increase.
As for refugees being down 45% that may be true in America but in this country it has increased.
Most of our increased crimes are by the younger generations, car theft, rape, assault, burglary, murder.
I know there is good out there i see it everyday and am glad for it but that does not take away the fact that the bad is getting worse.
I always tell people that it is about time someone brought out a GOOD NEWS newspaper. That is the only paper i would read. I havent read a paper, watched or listened to the news for years as i for one am fed up with bad news all the time.

 

[Jan]

As we contemplate the future of our species in terms such as potential extinction; environmental change, its forces and its sequelae; and, the concept of becomming 'un-natural', an historical perspective may prove interesting:

"It is estimated that the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age. Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_sc/close_call;_ylt=ApWSG0NJRe2uLH4kpFL8Q4CzvtEF

And regardless of the position one takes on scientific advances and the course of human development and survival, I believe that all would agree that we, today, are not the same organisms (physically, anatomically, mentally, cognitively, emotionally, etc.) that our ancestors of 200,000 years ago were....whether for better or for worse.

 

[digger]

I definately agree, that is why i asked the question.Why do we need to genetically modify ourselves when we are evolving everyday as it is.

 

[Jan]

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.

Ahhh, Brave New World. A new world order with a global government authorized reproduction. Who's government? Problem with your scenario - such authority is provided to mere humans. That is the ultimate power..to control reproduction. Least you never forget, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This devolving scenario would reign supreme over genocide and eugenics which has been (is) used for power of certain peoples over another.

 

[Abrahm]

But anyway that isnt really the issue.

What is the issue? You are not against medical science. You are not against GM. Yet we shouldn't do it. The kids aren't okay. People are violent. We can't fix anything. People aren't in touch with nature. There's too much pollution.

You need to define the issue.

 

[digger]

For fear of repeating myself again.
I have never said we should not do anything, i have always said i am in two minds.
I just say we should think carefully before we take that step as too little is known.
WE HAVE ALREADY MADE SO MANY MISTAKES THAT CANNOT BE UNDONE.
And why because we do not think to the future we only think of today.
The issue was never about how many people terrorists kill Abraham.
It has only ever been about one thing Genetic Modification.