Genetic Engineering - Good or Bad?

[Azred]

Originally posted by K T Ong: To Azred: I would agree that genetic engineering can be a great boon when used safely and sanely. Question is: can we prevent it from being used in harmful ways? For how long?

There is no way to prevent misuse of this knowledge, other than its own inherent limitations due to knowledge, training, and equipment. Do you know how to splice a sequence? Neither do I.
The only thing we can do is punish those who misuse the technology. *sigh* I suppose we'll have to develop a range of "crimes against nature" or something like that.

Originally posted by Neb: To Azred: How can having more food be bad, you ask? It means that we'll be able to support more humans on the Earth, which means that we'll continue to expand our numbers for even longer. There are already enough of us around to ruin our homeworld. We should definitely see about limiting our population rather than letting it grow unchecked. Making it easier for our population to grow is a big no-no in my book, too. The microbes used to eat oil spills is one thing that I consider a GOOD use for genetic engineering. Perhaps we could create a special plant that released lots of energy when burnt and very little pollutants, that would produce some environmentally friendly fuel. Might sound a bit too sci-fi, though.

Originally posted by MagiK: Why not worry about that once we make sure that EVERYONE that already exisits is fed?

I could not have said it better myself, MagiK.
Yes, family planning would help many of the poorer nations begin to stabilize themselves; education and better medical care are also desperately needed.

Neb, why not sound sci-fi? Sci-fi requires thinking, thinking leads to ideas, ideas lead to research (investigation), and research leads to advancement. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[WOLFGIR]

Well I´m pro genetic changes..

1. Some people are A-holes, we can change that from birth..
2. I hate my glasses they kinda makes my nose red sometimes and when I´m training it hurts more to get a fist of knuckles on the glasees then right on the nose. Yes I have tried lenses but can´t use them oki, happy??
3. If we are humans, and we can do it? Who to blame us? (Now I am hoping that is like putting a bees nest in your undewrwears )
4. Let thoose that would benefit most from genetic changes answer this post before people like you and the rest of us here try to say oh hey, thats imoral, in my opinion it is imoral to perhaps have a treat for several really really bad deseases(I mispelled that on purpose ) and not try to at least do something about it. Let thoose who suffer answer it first!
I would have been happy if I had missed the oppurtunity to get into fights because of bracers and glasses most of my days as a kid, and I can tell you that thoose I fought with, would probably say the same

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Azred: Genetic engineering of plants to increase nutrition and/or crop yield is a really good thing. How could having more food be bad? Even if the content or yield is not changed, how about the hardiness of a plant? If a soy or wheat strain can grow in almost any terrain or climate then more land can become "farmland", effectively increasing yield. Also, don't forget about other manipulations such as the microbes used now to "eat" oil spills. Genetically engineered animals could also benefit humanity by producing more milk and meat that is more nutritious. I know it sounds like I am a cheerleader for genetic engineering, but I'm not. I simply think that when used safely and sanely, in moderation, that engineering can improve the health of humanity. Genetic engineering for/on humans is good, if limited. Some diseases are now treated with gene therapy, which helps the body to create what it needs. How can that be bad? Stem cell research opens the door for organ transplants with organs either created from scratch or from the donee's own body. Again, how could this be wrong? I think many people who think "all genetic engineering is bad" might be confusing genetic engineering with eugenics. GE is not going to create tall, athletic, and highly intelligent humans with a particular hair or eye color--that is a bad sci-fi plot, not reality. If a group of doctors say "we can give your child green eyes" then where is the surprise? Another factor spoiling the idea are the people like the millionaire who donated lots of money to Texas A&M so they could clone his dog. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] A clone of your dog is not your dog, at least not the dog you loved,because the clone will most likely have a different personality. Besides, the psychological damage you do to yourself in not letting go will cause more harm than your ephemeral happiness at seeing "your dog" alive again will lift your spirits--the clone, too, will eventually die. Ethically, genetic engineering is no different than any other human activity. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it. Religion actually has nothing to do with genetic engineering. As a human, are you nothing more than a sequence of nucleic acids? Cats have a genetic sequence, but humans have a soul, that [i]je ne sais quoi, that indefinable quality that sets us apart from the other animals. Well, at the very least, I am more than just a sequence of nucleic acid. [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] I would apologize for rambling on, but why? [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] [/b]

We have bloody tons of milk and meat, more than we can handle. Likewise crops. The problem is not the amount of food in the world, it's the way it's distributed.

In fact, over production is a serious problem in Europe, due to massive subsidies that mean the developing world can't compete with our prices on the world market, (and so stay poor). Dunno about the US. Get rid of the subsidies, that'd sort out a lot of the developing world's hunger problems. They'd be able to export cash crops at a decent price, instead of trying to compete in the closed shop that's the Western 'free market' hahahahahaha. (A misnomer if I ever heard one...)

As for crops - ha. Don't make me laugh. Monsanto have engineered crops that are resistant to their pesticides (like Roundup Ready) - these crops can actually take more pesticide than your average crop. Also, a hell of a lot of studies have been done which show that GM crops, on average, produce no more than standard crops. They broadcast a lot of rubbish about how they're going to feed the word - it's all bunkum.

In India, farmers who have bought GM crops are forced to buy their seed for the following year's crop from the GM company - it's not allowed to save and plant their own seed. This is bankrupting a whole slew of farmers - suicides amongst third world farmers who bought into the whole GM thing because they believed the advertising and the sales people are rising exponentially.

GM feed the world? Don't make me laugh.

[ 07-09-2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: As for crops - ha. Don't make me laugh. Monsanto have engineered crops that are resistant to their pesticides (like Roundup Ready) - these crops can actually take more pesticide than your average crop. Also, a hell of a lot of studies have been done which show that GM crops, on average, produce no more than standard crops. They broadcast a lot of rubbish about how they're going to feed the word - it's all bunkum.

I would like to see your source of data for this statement.

I have read reports in Popular Science, The Farmers Almanac and other places detailing increased yields from several crops that were geneticly altered (wheat in particular, Triticale) in one way or another. The alterations also make the crops disease and parasite resistant also increaseing yield. Some of my knowledge comes from the Science mags and some from actually working on farms when I was a kid.

As for third world people selling cash crops to the west...they should try feeding their people first before selling crops.

You may be off on this one SC

[Little Grabbi]

In my opinion the debate over genetic engineering is a moot point. What CAN be done, WILL be done. We Humans are like that. Sure, society can shun the geneerers, but some will go on. Society already despises those who do not confor to its standards. BUT: the non-conformers dont giva a sh***. If that is good or bad is for everyone to decide for him/her.

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Monsanto have engineered crops that are resistant to their pesticides (like Roundup Ready) - these crops can actually take more pesticide than your average crop. .

Most farmers in this country are looking for seed that takes LESS pesticied, less fertilizer and less work to grow, not more. All that stuff is expensive and the goal is to produce the crops cheaply to maximize their profit margins!

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: We have bloody tons of milk and meat, more than we can handle. Likewise crops. The problem is not the amount of food in the world, it's the way it's distributed. In fact, over production is a serious problem in Europe, due to massive subsidies that mean the developing world can't compete with our prices on the world market, (and so stay poor). Dunno about the US. Get rid of the subsidies, that'd sort out a lot of the developing world's hunger problems. They'd be able to export cash crops at a decent price, instead of trying to compete in the closed shop that's the Western 'free market' hahahahahaha. (A misnomer if I ever heard one...) As for crops - ha. Don't make me laugh. Monsanto have engineered crops that are resistant to their pesticides (like Roundup Ready) - these crops can actually take more pesticide than your average crop. Also, a hell of a lot of studies have been done which show that GM crops, on average, produce no more than standard crops. They broadcast a lot of rubbish about how they're going to feed the word - it's all bunkum. In India, farmers who have bought GM crops are forced to buy their seed for the following year's crop from the GM company - it's not allowed to save and plant their own seed. This is bankrupting a whole slew of farmers - suicides amongst third world farmers who bought into the whole GM thing because they believed the advertising and the sales people are rising exponentially. GM feed the world? Don't make me laugh.

The distribution problems are within the countries if I remember correctly. Poor roads and communication. Non-existant internal trade routes. This is where the government should step in. I remember seeing a TV show that showed donated stores of food rotting in storage facilities. Who knows why? Selling food for export while the populus starves is pure madness! I've also seen pictures of rice plants before and after alteration. The yeild per square foot can triple or quaddruple. This was in scientific american if I remember correctly. A while back Popular Science showed the newest rice plant that now produces grain containing beta-carotene! A nutrient sorely lacking in third world countries diets. I won't argue the point that third world countries populations are exploited. Mostly by their own leaders and short sightedness. What else can explain selling food for export instead of feeding the people?

[Mouse]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: In India, farmers who have bought GM crops are forced to buy their seed for the following year's crop from the GM company - it's not allowed to save and plant their own seed. This is bankrupting a whole slew of farmers - suicides amongst third world farmers who bought into the whole GM thing because they believed the advertising and the sales people are rising exponentially. GM feed the world? Don't make me laugh.

Not 100% sure if that's entirely true SC. For example the benefits of the K68 wheat strain and it's variants in India are pretty well documented and acknowledged.

Interesting debate - I look forward to learning more [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: The problem is not the amount of food in the world, it's the way it's distributed.

I could not agree more. However, more food available for distribution couldn't hurt.

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: In fact, over production is a serious problem in Europe, due to massive subsidies that mean the developing world can't compete with our prices on the world market, (and so stay poor). Dunno about the US. Get rid of the subsidies, that'd sort out a lot of the developing world's hunger problems.

Personally, I don't like subsidies either. However, simply removing all subsidies will most likely result in causing many farmers/farm industries to go bankrupt, unless they raise prices dramatically. However, this is not the place for an economic discussion....

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: In India, farmers who have bought GM crops are forced to buy their seed for the following year's crop from the GM company - it's not allowed to save and plant their own seed. This is bankrupting a whole slew of farmers - suicides amongst third world farmers who bought into the whole GM thing because they believed the advertising and the sales people are rising exponentially.

I suppose they could always insitute some farm subsidies, but we really don't want to go there, right? [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Hunter, I have to admit that I find your constant referral to "Natural selection favoring survival of the fittest" more than a little disturbing. It sounds too much like the same justification used by bullies everywhere - (I'm bigger and stronger than you, so I have every right to pound on you if I want to). But, aside from the "bully mentality", let's look at the practical application of "Survival of the Fittest". One of the closest representations we have to that would be boxing. Two men go into a ring and face off against each other. Most of the time, the stronger or "more fit" of the two is the winner. That's great for the short term, but look at the larger picture. MOST boxers are suffering numerous physical ailments by their mid-30's due to the constant abuse thier body takes. Even if you look at the "choreographed alternative" to boxing (professional wrestling), the same conditions hold true. These paragons of male-fitness aren't actually hurting each other - at least not intentionally - but the same holds true for them. By their 30's and 40's, the physical abuse has taken a serious toll on their bodies. In the wild, the same principal holds true. Lions are dominated by the strongest male. He is the king of the pride...until a younger, stronger lion comes along. Then he is cast out, or at least to the bottom of the heirarchy. "Survival of the fittest" - where each member is only concerned with THEIR individual survival, ultimately leads to a shortened lifespan for the whole species. You also mentioned everybody's two favorite Christian punching bags - Falwell and Robertson - but they aren't the only ones who object to "stem cell research" based on morality issues. The LARGE majority of Congress feels the same way - because that is how their constituents feel. However, I am shocked that you would advocate stem cell research at all. Why do you endorse it? To find cures for diseases? Why would you want to do that? Disease is Nature's way of weeding out the weak. It's Natural Selection. You say that, if you needed a heart transplant, you would rather have a human heart than a pigs. That may well be true, but if you truly beleive in "survival of the fittest", then wouldn't you agree that you don't deserve a heart transplant at all? After all, if your own heart is too weak to sustain your body, then you obviously aren't the "fittest", and Natural Selection dictates that you should not survive.

Cerek ,
There is no bullies mentality in my survival of the fittest outlook. I simply believe that eveything should fend for itself in some way shape or form. Much like a house cat. if you stop feeding it then it simply goes out and catches mice or it starves. I think people should be like that also. Make your way or get out of the way.

As for boxers and wrestlers dieing in their 40's and 50's , well that is just the way of things. Take a look at your grandparents , most humans werent built to live into their 70's. Old people have a whole slew of age related problems from atrophyed muscles and brittle bones to eye sight , hearing and internal organ failure. Do you think these things would hapen if we were supposed to live to that age??

You hit my point right between the eyes with congress being against stem cell research because of the MORALS of their constituents. What if I have diffrent morals?? Is it ok for congress to deny me medical advances because the moral majority doesnt like where stem cells come from?? That sounds more like being a bully to me. What if one day the moral majority that congress represents decided that a particular religon was outlawed because of peoples moral objections to it. Would that make it right to do it?? All I can say is if they keep their morality to themselves I will keep mine to me. I dont push my morals on anyone else and I refuse to let anyone else push theirs on to me.

The heart transplant was just to illustrate a point. We shouldnt have to kill another fully formed living creature when we can accomplish the same thing with out it. Also , regular exercise should prevent my ever needing a transplant, but if the need arises I will sighn up for it. Just because I believe in natural selection doesnt mean that I want to die. If a transplant will keep me going Im all for it, but I will be paying for it in cash not with socalized medical money. So in a way it is still natural selection because if I didnt have the money I wouldnt get the operation.