Genetic Engineering - Good or Bad?

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by MagiK: Why not worry about that once we make sure that EVERYONE that already exisits is fed. [img]smile.gif[/img] Of course if you look at it, it isn't the well fed west that is overpopulating the land masses, but the starving countries of India, Pakistan, China and other places wehre people are starving that seem to be over reproducing. Population growth in the west is nearly stagnant.

China starving? The average life expectency there was 69 during the 1980's -- not all that bad. And it's improving.

Certain sources have also argued that, if anything, it is the rich countries of the West that need to control their populations more than the Third World, because the West consumes a far greater amount of resources per head than the Third World -- and there's certainly not going to be enough to make every Asian as affluent as the average American.

I agree fully with Silver Cheetah -- it's not how much food we produce, it's how it's distributed. For one thing, the meat-oriented diet of the more affluent countries means that too much of our grain is being used to feed livestock rather than people. It takes 16 lb of grain to produce 1 lb of beef, 8 lb to yield 1 lb of pork. In fact it has been calculated that if North Americans during the early 1990's were to reduce their meat consumption by just 10%, it would have freed up more than 12 million tons of grain annually for consumption -- enough to easily feed all those facing famine in the world at that time.

As for why the Third World countries don't grow food to feed themselves but instead seek to sell it overseas, the reason is that selling overseas brings foreign exchange and eating your own food at home doesn't. Trouble is, all too often the foreign exchange is in non-essentials. And there are also more than a few stories of corrupt local bigshots collaborating with Western elites to siphon all the foreign aid into their pockets so that the needs of the poor continue unheeded.

Better crop yields through genetic engineering will not solve the problem of world famines. What we need is better morality.

Another two cents from me.

[ 07-10-2002, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: 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.

That's the theory of personal accountability - NOT survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest states that the strong survive and the weak die out. In nature, that refers to physical strength....which means the strong survive at the sacrifice of the weak. That is what I mean by a "bullies mentality".

AFA individuals "fending for themselves", it could well be argued that almost ALL Americans ARE fending for themselves...in the fashion they see fit.

Gov't aided programs (welfare, medicaid, etc) are necessities for some people, but are terribly abused by others. However, an argument can be made that those who abuse the system are still "fending for themselves". They are actively going after a resource that is available for helping them and their family. I've seen different expose's on welfare fraud, and some of these people work harder trying to "cheat the system" than they would if they just took a regular job. Still, in their eyes, they are "providing for their families with the least amount of effort". Sounds VERY much like the Lion King to me.

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??

My point here was that boxers and wrestlers suffer a larger number of physical ailments at an earlier age due to the physical "combat" they engage in to make a living. In the traditional definition of "Survival of the Fittest", we would ALL have to compete (sometimes physically) for food,clothing, and other resources. The "strong" are going to win in the short term, but are going to die off quicker themselves due to the constant challenges they face each day.

On the other hand, if we work together, share resources, and take care of each other - then all members of society live longer as a result.

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.

NO. It sounds like a Democracy, where the social objectives, rules, and regulations are formed based on the desires of the majority of the overall population. That was the vision of our founding fathers, where EVERY citizen had an equal voice in the shaping of our society, rather than policy being dictated by the elite few born of the proper bloodline.

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.

Well, the Constitution prevents the first scenario from occurring...and does so quite well.

AFA having the morals of others "pushed" on you, that simply isn't happening. You may not agree with the decisions being made. Fortunately, you live in a society where you can contact your gov't representative directly to voice your objections, or you can vote against policies you disagree with if they are put to a public vote. However, if more people agree with the other side, then you have to accept that society is serving the needs of the largest portion of the population. It may not serve your needs the way you would like, but that is the trade-off we have to live with.

At least you have the opportunity to make your individual voice heard in several different ways.

There are many thousands of people in other nations who also disagree with the morals and objectives of their country's leaders, unfortunately they can be put in jail or executed for voicing their displeasure.

You have every right to voice your dissent and disapproval....but that doesn't mean that society has an obligation to change their rules just to accomodate your individual preferences over the preferences of the majority.

[quote]Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna:

Hunter, 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.

It is called a Representative Republic, The elected leaders MUST by definition follow the wishes for the majority of their constituents. If your views are in the minority then yes, you are being bullied into going allong with the majority in this case. That is the way this system of government works. If the minority set the tone for the majority I think it would be called a dictatorship, monarchy or some other form of government.

The only way to get stem cell research allowed is to find evidence that the people who are against it are wrong. Just saw an article saying that there had been a break thru using mature stem cells (not obtained from foetuses) that may make the harvesting of unborn children unnecessary.

Originally posted by K T Ong:

China starving? The average life expectency there was 69 during the 1980's -- not all that bad. And it's improving.


In the 1960's more than 20 million people died in china from starvation due to famine. Tis is regaurded as one of the worlds worst disasters. The repressive government hid all knowledge of this untill well into the 1970's or 80's from the outside world and did not seek aid from outside sources to help save some of those people. China is in fact one of the most over populated countries in the world with nearly 1/3 of the earths population living there...right around 2 BILLION people. There is still much starvation in parts of China.

EDIT: Did some checking on the State Department web site, my numbers were off..and so were yours. The population of China in 2002 is around 1.4 BILLION and is expected to peak at 1.6 BILLION. The average life span is around 71.1 years of age. Urban couples are allowed to have 1 child and rural couples a maximum of 2

Certain sources have also argued that, if anything, it is the rich countries of the West that need to control their populations more than the Third World, because the West consumes a far greater amount of resources per head than the Third World -- and there's certainly not going to be enough to make every Asian as affluent as the average American.


The US population growth is less than 5% and in parts is actually negative. Most of western Europe has a negative or nearly stagnant growth rate. The total population of the US is less than 300,000,000. Consumption does not equate to population. You also did not mention just how much the US pumps back into the world economy.

I agree fully with Silver Cheetah -- it's not how much food we produce, it's how it's distributed. For one thing, the meat-oriented diet of the more affluent countries means that too much of our grain is being used to feed livestock rather than people. It takes 16 lb of grain to produce 1 lb of beef, 8 lb to yield 1 lb of pork. In fact it has been calculated that if North Americans during the early 1990's were to reduce their meat consumption by just 10%, it would have freed up more than 12 million tons of grain annually for consumption -- enough to easily feed all those facing famine in the world at that time.


Why is North America supposed to be responsible for feeding the rest of the world? (we do in part more so than any other nation, but Im curious as to why you think we should?) Last time I checked most people don't want to eat what the cows eat [img]smile.gif[/img] Hay is just not very tasty (I have tried it [img]smile.gif[/img] ) much of the land used to graze cattle is not suitable for growing crops to feed humans...which is why the cattle are grazed there in the first place, to better use the land. It is ridiculous to blame westerners eating beef for starvation in other parts of the world. People were starving in those parts of the world before there was a west.

As for why the Third World countries don't grow food to feed themselves but instead seek to sell it overseas, the reason is that selling overseas brings foreign exchange and eating your own food at home doesn't. Trouble is, all too often the foreign exchange is in non-essentials. And there are also more than a few stories of corrupt local bigshots collaborating with Western elites to siphon all the foreign aid into their pockets so that the needs of the poor continue unheeded.


So who should ensure that corrupt local bigshots aren't screwing over their own people? If the USA tries to do it we are called nosey busy bodys and bullies.

Better crop yields through genetic engineering will not solve the problem of world famines. What we need is better morality.


I do agree that the despots and dictators of the third world need some morality. They also need to adjust the mentality and social values of the people themselves. Sacrificing female children (not uncommon in China) so that they can have sons, is just plain barbaric. I refuse to accept though that the west is the cause of those problems.

Another two cents from me.[/QUOTE]

[ 07-10-2002, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Hey! Cerek Great post, as usual [img]smile.gif[/img]

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by MagiK: In the 1960's more than 20 million people died in china from starvation due to famine. Tis is regaurded as one of the worlds worst disasters. The repressive government hid all knowledge of this untill well into the 1970's or 80's from the outside world and did not seek aid from outside sources to help save some of those people. China is in fact one of the most over populated countries in the world with nearly 1/3 of the earths population living there...right around 2 BILLION people. There is still much starvation in parts of China.

Well, as I said, the situation's improved considerably since. You were taking about the 1960's, but I was talking about the 1980's. As for the overpopulation, why do you think they enforce the 'one child' policy in China? To keep the population under control. (And yet one sometimes hears of Westerners accusing China of violating human rights because of the 'one child' policy, instead of commending China for her sensitivity towards the overpopulation problem. Just dunno what to say about them.)

EDIT: Did some checking on the State Department web site, my numbers were off..and so were yours. The population of China in 2002 is around 1.4 BILLION and is expected to peak at 1.6 BILLION. The average life span is around 71.1 years of age. Urban couples are allowed to have 1 child and rural couples a maximum of 2.

There you go. What I said wasn't all that off the mark, right? Not an easy job maintaining the average life expectancy of 1.4 billion people at 71.1, mind you.

The US population growth is less than 5% and in parts is actually negative. Most of western Europe has a negative or nearly stagnant growth rate. The total population of the US is less than 300,000,000. Consumption does not equate to population. You also did not mention just how much the US pumps back into the world economy.

One American in the 1980's consumes as much of the earth's resources annually as 103 Bangladeshis. In other words, having one American baby is equivalent to having 103 Bangladeshi babies. Doesn't this make it more of an imperative for the affluent world to control its population growth? I'm not saying that those in the Third World shouldn't control their population growth, only that those in the affluent countries face a greater obligation to do so in view of their far higher rates of consumption of the planet's resources. Of course, if you do have negative population growth in certain areas there, that's commendable.

As for what the US pumps back into the world economy, it is not clear to me how much this is helping the starving people in the Third World, who haven't much to buy the goods with. Besides which it is in fact the whole modern economic philosophy that is the problem, not the solution.

The modern economic system treats the earth's resources as infinite. They aren't. It treats the biosphere's tolerance for pollution as infinite. It isn't. This system's just ruining the planet for everyone, rich and poor alike. I have yet to see the US make a positive contribution in this respect. What did Bush do to the Kyoto Accord? Dump it.

Why is North America supposed to be responsible for feeding the rest of the world? (we do in part more so than any other nation, but Im curious as to why you think we should?) Last time I checked most people don't want to eat what the cows eat [img]smile.gif[/img] Hay is just not very tasty (I have tried it [img]smile.gif[/img] ) much of the land used to graze cattle is not suitable for growing crops to feed humans...which is why the cattle are grazed there in the first place, to better use the land. It is ridiculous to blame westerners eating beef for starvation in other parts of the world. People were starving in those parts of the world before there was a west.

North America (in collaboration with the other rich countries) endorses a global economic system which is simply overtaxing the biosphere -- and making things extremely difficult for a lot of people. It is therefore the affluent countries that messed things up, so they jolly well put it right.

Many of the world's peoples actually weren't starving before the West came along. They actually did pretty well. British ecologist Edward Goldsmith said as much. And they didn't like this modern economic philosophy which the West introduced to them either -- it was the West that forced them to accept it, as Commodore Perry did the Japanese in the 19th Century. Before then, the Japanese didn't want anything at all from America. And they didn't do all that badly either.

Picture this. A bird keeps on whining loudly about you not caring enough for his broken leg. You complain, "Why the heck am I supposed to care so much for you?" "Because you broke my leg," replies the bird. ("Oh, did I? Gee, I didn't know that..." [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

But now let's imagine something else. Imagine a truly fair global economic order that will really allow absolutely everyone to get rich if he put in the necessary effort, so that even the Bangladeshis can become as loaded as the average American. Imagine further that billions and billions of people actually do achieve such a level of affluence as a result (and the Chinese are seriously trying to achieve that too -- Heaven help us). What's going to happen? Mother Nature's going to get real pissed. The planetary environment's going to get so severely damaged, human extinction may well result. What's the alternative, though? That only a few people be allowed to be rich while the rest starve, as in the world at present? Would that be fair? The third and final alternative: everyone should learn to conserve and to consume only what is genuinely needed as far as possible (plus population growth everywhere should be kept under control too, of course). And surely the rich countries will have to set an example first.

As for hay not being nice to taste, I understand a lot of livestock is fed on grain, and that because meat from livestock fed on grain presumably tastes better than meat from livestock fed on hay. And as for land not being suitable for growing grain, simple. Fertilize it. Plough the soil. Practise crop rotation.

So who should ensure that corrupt local bigshots aren't screwing over their own people? If the USA tries to do it we are called nosey busy bodys and bullies.

The least the US can do is to withdraw their support from the corrupt local bigshots, and not actively support them. Right?

I do agree that the despots and dictators of the third world need some morality. They also need to adjust the mentality and social values of the people themselves. Sacrificing female children (not uncommon in China) so that they can have sons, is just plain barbaric. I refuse to accept though that the west is the cause of those problems.

Nothing to it but you show to my satisfaction that the West isn't the cause of these problems (at least to some degree).

Gee, this thread has drifted a bit off topic, hasn't it?

[ 07-11-2002, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[Earthdog]

First. I could really go off on this subject. This was suppoed to be a discussion about genetic engineering, not a discussion about the morals of feeding the world population.

Genetic engineerings problems lie in the "moral majority". Christains dont want ANYONE playing God. Fair enough. I dont want some doctor trying to turn my unborn baby into a 9 foot tall freak that will be "the fruit picker of the future."

On the othe hand, as a parent it is my DUTY to give my child every possible advantage. Defeating diseases like Down Syndrome before birth helps me as a parent to raise a "normal" child. Theres the advantage of genetic engineering.

The two lesbians in New York State who chose to have a deaf child need to be shot IMO. Causing a child to be deaf isnt giving the child the advantage. Will the child hear the other kids yell "CAAAAAARRRRR!!!!!!" when they play baseball or football in the street? NO!!! SMACK!! one dead deaf kid and the people reasponsible are the lesbian parents who chose to make the kid deaf on the basis that "Deaf people are more self reliant"

Thats a load of crap IMO.

Now to the "feed the world" arguement. Only Im going to make it more complicated.

It is NOT the United States responsibility to feed the world. It is up to the governments of other countries to feed their populations. If they cant feed them they need to impose controls to control the population. NATURE WILL TAKE ITS COURSE. IF one cant eat, one will starve. Thats not being mean or chauvanistic, its NATURE. Ive read all the arguements of the wrestlers ansd all the survival of the fittest. Those who cant feed themselves , DIE. Sorry if anyone disagrees with that but Morals aside, thats the FACT.

Americans are more hated than they know. Mid-eastern countries hate Americans becuase of the pompous attitude. Big Brother. The International Police. If they dont want us there--- its time to LEAVE.

At the same time that they hate us-- we feed their populations!!! Even the great former Soviet Union had to buy wheat from the US.

If countries dont like us imposing our ways laws and beliefs on them -they need to STOP BEGGING FOR FOOD. STARVE!!! Once the populations of "Third World Countries" drops to a point where they can FEED their people then they wont have to BEG. And at the same time the US presence wont have to be felt.

I know this doesnt sound very Christian of me. Im past caring. They Dont want us THERE. So They relieve us of the moral obligation of FEEDING them. Im sick of all the America bashing. Nobody shows any gratidtude whatsoever. Fine. Starve. Id rather have world complain about our refusal for AID then have them complain about our PRESENCE WHEN WE ARENT WANTED. Terrorists Hate our presence. Ok fine STARVE. SEE YA

[Sir Kenyth]

K T Ong. It sounds like a lot of your belief is based on a great deal of propaganda that's been around forever. It's not a new concept. Blaming hardship on someone who isn't experiencing hardship is an age old tradition in countries in Asia and Europe. Hitler himself used such a tactic. It was the rest of the worlds fault that Germany was in depression. "Everyone else" is bringing us down, is simply more palatable than "we" aren't doing things right. You spout these theories, but don't explain exactly how they work? Exactly how is the US forcing everyone to be part of a global economy? How are we supporting people being screwed over in the world? Buy buying things on the market? Should we not buy anything from these countries? Is that the answer? We'd be chastised just as much if we did that for closing our doors. The problem is that these countries are nowhere near self-sufficient. If they were, they could simply stop global trade, take us out of the equation and everything would be hunky-dory, right? The problem is rooted in comparably poor socialogical advancement. Ignorance is always a big part of this. Getting more people educated is part of the answer. Unfortunately, the countries send their best and brightest over here to be educated, and then they stay here to open shop instead of going back to advance the homelands cause. Who's fault is that? Is overpopulation our fault too? Speaking of pollution, I believe other countries that have NO evironmental regulations are much more at fault than we! Last I heard, our pollution was coming steadily under control while other countries are getting worse! We even have recycling pickup coming to rural areas now. Our water quality is good throughout the country. Our air quality is good except in our largest metropolitan cities. I expect changes in car technology will alleviate that in the next ten years or so. The local governments are making it a requirement.

Good Posts ED and Sir K.

KT, I was going to reply, but it would be off topic and I am guilty of enough OT in this thread. Genetic Engineering is a good thing. Fear of science is what led to the dark ages in europe, it is what set mankind back centuries. we cannot afford to be set back like that again.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by MagiK: Good Posts ED and Sir K. KT, I was going to reply, but it would be off topic and I am guilty of enough OT in this thread. Genetic Engineering is a good thing. Fear of science is what led to the dark ages in europe, it is what set mankind back centuries. we cannot afford to be set back like that again.

No kidding! We lost the secret to making CONCRETE! AARRGGHH!! [img]graemlins/crying.gif[/img]

We didn't get it back until relatively recently. Imagine if we had continued progress from that point instead of taking two steps back!