Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By question for you

Thread: genome munipulation for the better, or worse?

  1. #1 genome munipulation for the better, or worse? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    59
    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!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    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)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    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.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I think its pretty dangerous to play around too much with the natural development of organisms and ecosystems
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    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.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    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?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    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.
    dmwyant likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Gattaca used the incredible Uma Thurman as female lead. Any movie with her in it has gotta be worth watching. I enjoyed it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    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?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    [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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    If they are not measurable then how do you quantify them as bad?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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"
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    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.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    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
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. genome munipulation for the better, or worse?
    By bigratlover in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 8th, 2012, 02:08 PM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 10th, 2011, 04:31 AM
  3. Science reporting getting even worse?
    By Bunbury in forum In the News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 1st, 2009, 01:49 PM
  4. ISS - worse than a construction mishap?
    By Steve Miller in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2007, 01:16 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 4th, 2006, 01:09 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •