Thread: genome munipulation for the better, or worse?

scientists are dwarfing, cross-breeding, re-engineering, plants; along with animals. where might that be headed? creating more fit organisms to be released into the wild? using nature to our benefit? what kind of impact would that have? more private uses such as a cross breeding toy for 8-year-olds? improvement in ecology and society? or could it be negative destruction of the world, replacing what is there with more "desirable" life forms, ultimately recolonizing life and ripping humanity apart?

let the brainstorm commense!

Individuals will be left to decide if the outcome of genetic manipulation is positive or negative, given that such judgments are entirely subjective. What is undoubted is our technical ability to perfoem such manipulations. For this reason, societies need to think carefully about the moral implications of potential future endaevours. I woukd guess that a reasonable consensus opinion of what is a good outcome is preservation of current lifeforms, limitation of disease, maintenance of freedom of choice and protection of biodiversity. Potential bad outcomes include rhose driven by eugenic agendas or which harm the safety, health, wellbeing and freedom of choice of any and all lifeforms. Best wishes, Tri.

Altered rice & wheat has been producing food to feed our world and is continuing feeding the world as we know today. Without them we probably be starving. Green Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (-1960s)

Let me quote William Shakespeare. From Julius Caesar.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."


​GM is that tide. If we mount our surf boards and ride the tide, it will lead us to advancement. If we try to fight it, we will be left as also rans.

I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems

Originally Posted by skeptic

Let me quote William Shakespeare. From Julius Caesar.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."


​GM is that tide. If we mount our surf boards and ride the tide, it will lead us to advancement. If we try to fight it, we will be left as also rans.

Very nice. Those who never travel on the waves will remain in ignorance of the experience, while those of us who do will risk drowning. Seems to me like the future of genetic engineering rests on the shoulders of the individual.

Originally Posted by question for you

I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems

What solid evidence do you have for this opinion?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by question for you

I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems

What solid evidence do you have for this opinion?

Gattica, duh.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by question for you

I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems

What solid evidence do you have for this opinion?

Absolutely none so far as i am aware.
I want to change what i said to "I think it could be pretty dangerous to play around TOO much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems" now it is correct. As if you play around TOO much you you have gone TOO far, which means you must have done some harm, whichs COULD be dangerous.

If you still want to argue... please don't bother

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by question for you

I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems

What solid evidence do you have for this opinion?

Gattica, duh.

Did you mean Gattaca? I haven't seen it read it or ever heard of it until google refused gattica

Gattaca used the incredible Uma Thurman as female lead. Any movie with her in it has gotta be worth watching. I enjoyed it.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by question for you

I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems

What solid evidence do you have for this opinion?

Absolutely none so far as i am aware.
I want to change what i said to "I think it could be pretty dangerous to play around TOO much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems" now it is correct. As if you play around TOO much you you have gone TOO far, which means you must have done some harm, whichs COULD be dangerous.

If you still want to argue... please don't bother

I want to discuss. Who determines what is too bad or too much? And what contexts are used?

[QUOTE=Paleoichneum;342697
I want to discuss. Who determines what is too bad or too much? And what contexts are used?[/QUOTE]

Ahahaa well it is a bit quiet on here so ok... 'Too much' is determined by the ratio of beneficial to harmful consequences. How's that? some of these consequences may not be measurable and some may take a long time to register.

If they are not measurable then how do you quantify them as bad?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

If they are not measurable then how do you quantify them as bad?

If you cannot measure them it is becuase you cannot detect them. You cannot quantify something you cannot detect.

Originally Posted by question for you

If you cannot measure them it is becuase you cannot detect them. You cannot quantify something you cannot detect.

A bit like God really. This opens up anti-technology as a new religion. Based on ignorance and faith, just like Christianity.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

If they are not measurable then how do you quantify them as bad?

If you cannot measure them it is becuase you cannot detect them. You cannot quantify something you cannot detect.

So how would you determine the unmeasurable undetectable effect to even exist let alone say they are "good" or "bad"

You couldn't determine any unmeasurable, undetectable effects exists (because they are unmeasurable and undetectable! sheesh). It follows (for the 3rd or 4th time probably) that you couldn't quantify the good or badness of any unmeasurable, undetectable effects.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by question for you

If you cannot measure them it is becuase you cannot detect them. You cannot quantify something you cannot detect.

A bit like God really. This opens up anti-technology as a new religion. Based on ignorance and faith, just like Christianity.

What do you mean skeptic? That my comment opens up 'anti technology' as a new religion? Im a bit puzzled by your comment

I was, of course, being a bit tongue in cheek about that. I have had too many arguments with irrational greenies who seem to oppose any new technological developments.

However, religion is characterised by a lack of empirical data to back it up. If you are suggesting we proceed in making decisions because of a lack of data, rather than as a result of good data, then that seems to have an element of the irrational religious about it.

Originally Posted by skeptic

I was, of course, being a bit tongue in cheek about that. I have had too many arguments with irrational greenies who seem to oppose any new technological developments.

However, religion is characterised by a lack of empirical data to back it up. If you are suggesting we proceed in making decisions because of a lack of data, rather than as a result of good data, then that seems to have an element of the irrational religious about it.

no no, i wasnt suggesting we make suggestions becuase of a lack of data in anyway, not quite sure how you could draw that conclusion... I was just trying to answer the silly question that paleoichneum was trying to trip me up with.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by question for you

I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems

What solid evidence do you have for this opinion?

Gattica, duh.

Did you mean Gattaca? I haven't seen it read it or ever heard of it until google refused gattica

Sorry, the smartass section of my brain kicked in before my spellchecker.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by question for you

I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems

What solid evidence do you have for this opinion?

Gattica, duh.

Did you mean Gattaca? I haven't seen it read it or ever heard of it until google refused gattica

Sorry, the smartass section of my brain kicked in before my spellchecker.

aoplpgoy aecpcetd, tanhk you