Can you scratch my back? My third arm can't reach it.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Adari

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,649
Should we or should we not object to genetic modification?

Imagine this… it’s 2174. it’s a warm, sunny summers day. Children used to play outside on the streets and people used to walk their dogs in the morning. People used to sport and lay on the beaches in the afternoon, and in the evening people used to walk thru beautiful forests.

But, on this day, in 2174, people are doing the same thing all day long. People don’t have time to think of anything even remotely interesting, people have to think about how to survive, people how to find out how to prevent the entire human race from becoming extinct.

People are trying to solve the mysteries of fast spreading diseases, unthinkable and unpredictable chemical and biological situations where death is by far the easiest and least painful way out, UNKNOWN, UNCONTROLLABLE AND UNPREDICTABLE MUTATIONS OF THE HUMAN RACE…

…just because one man thought it was necessary to develop a new type of pink cereal with rabbit flavours.

It has been said by countless scientists that adding new genes to an existing regulated DNA structure can cause a chemical reaction that can for instance lead to instability of the DNA structure and the production of poisons. Every change made in a DNA structure of an organism can cause a chain reaction of chemical changes that can not be predicted or controlled, or even noticed before it’s too late.(1)

Even though no scientist can predict what genetic modification can do it’s still being practised and tested all over the world, without knowing a thing about the consequences of these new methods to enhance whatever they want to enhance. I think that’s irresponsible behaviour. I don’t think the human has developed enough in order to start experimenting with genes and DNA.

Genetic modification can disrupt natural processes and ecological systems. Genetic modification can screw up everything nature has done for us and itself. I believe that some things on this very planet were not made to be changed into something else. I don’t think we should mess with the ‘blueprints’ of food, or breathing creatures because it is not our task to fuck with something we haven’t made, but something that was given to us.

Therefore I’m against it.

I do think we can get something out of it, but not anytime soon.

Discuss.

1) Uit “Genetische modificatie en techniek.” http://www.greenpeace.nl
 

Aoami

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,900
Hmm, i'm not sure. Some parts of it i object too such as Designer Babies, but then other things such as Stem Cell Therapy could benefit Humanity so much.
 

k9awya

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,416
hmm, make everyone like lotr elves.. good idea.

except tisme, her jokes dont deserve immortality.
 

Sissyfoo

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,814
I think that you have a fairly naive view of the world. Humanity has already fucked up this planet in more ways that you can concieve. We have taken thousands of species and forced them to do what we want or simply wiped them out because they were inconvenient.

I agree with you that humans aren't really mature enough to be playing God. This is a brand new science and you have one generation which doesn't have a frickin' clue what is involved and are scared shitless about the implications of having genetically modified food on their plate. Then you have the younger generation that, mostly, appreciates the fact that sometimes nature's design isn't always the best and that a few changes here and there could actually work out better in the long run. However, genetic tinkering is a Pandora's Box that has already been sprung wide open and for people to stand around saying, "Well...fuck! Let's slap a load of restrictions on it and hope the problem goes away." is a bit irresponsible. The key to controlling the problem is to understand it fully.

Genetic manipulation could, one day, hold the key to mankind's salvation or it could lead to our destruction. Of course, nuclear powerplants, terrorists in control of nukes and deadly viruses and various other contraptions that we are responsible for could also wipe us out. As we advance as a species we face an increased risk of wiping ourselves out. Its the price we have to pay in order to evolve.

Anyhoo, I dunno about you guys but when I see people with genetic deformities like Down's Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis I can't help but wonder if our irrational fear of the unknown is fair on the people who have to suffer as a result. With a lot of care, genetic tinkering could lead to a world where children are born completely free of any mutations, with a longer lifespan, higher than normal IQs and a much healthier physique. Food could be engineered to be grown in harsher climates such as Africa which would result in a lot less people starving to death every year. Illnesses which affect the GNP of a country, such as AIDS and Schistosomiasis, could be wiped off the face of this earth. Humans could even be engineered to survive life on planets which would normally be inhospitable to our current forms.

This science has a lot of potential but ... well, it may turn out to be like giving a loaded nuclear bazooka to a child. Time will tell.
 

Adari

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,649
I don't have a naive view of the world. We might have whiped species but that's because we were able to estimate the consequences of doing so.

However, we are not able to predict what genetic modification can cause, hence I doubt if we're ready for it. If we keep saying something bad could happen, how are we going to make it right if we don't even know what could happen?
 

Sissyfoo

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,814
Pfft, yea right. We were just damn lucky that in most cases the species we wiped out weren't vital to us in the long run. ;)

I didn't want to use star trek as an example but I think this one is pretty apt (albeit highly unlikely)In Star Trek IV Earth is almost destroyed by a probe sent to make contact with the wales which mankind had wiped out centuries before. Granted, that isn't going to happen in the case of the Dodo or the Tasmanian Devil but when they were wiped out nobody was thinking about the future, they were thinking about themselves and their precious livestock or tummies!

I never said that genetic modification wasn't risky but I think that we are at just a big risk of some tit in the pentagon pressing the wrong button and sending us to nuclear hell or some newspaper saying the wrong inflammatory thing and causing some rightwing terrorist group to go mental and release a cloud of poisonous nerve gas/deadly virus into the air and give us all a lethal case of the sniffles. If things go pear shaped then that is something we will have to live with. The alternative would be to close down all the universities and schools and go hide under some rocks because there is bound to be another future discovery that could ultimately prove benificial to man or kill us all.
 

Adari

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,649
Yea, Star Trek also has a holographic doctor that can cure everyone, who says we won't have developped 500 of those by then? :-P

The difference between what you mentioned in the third paragraph of your reply and genetic modification is that in your case we know exactly whats going on and what's going to happen, or can guess it at least. Terrorists don't launch a weapon while not knowing what it's going to cause. I am not trying to debate what is worse to the world, I am comparing the known to the unknown.

Right now, we don't know shit, all we know is that it might kill us in the long run. So why are we doing it anyway then? Surely that's a sign we're not ready for it.
 

Sissyfoo

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,814
Adari said:
Right now, we don't know shit, all we know is that it might kill us in the long run. So why are we doing it anyway then? Surely that's a sign we're not ready for it.
I don't think we can just brush something underneath the carpet just because it may or may not kill us 100 years down the road. When the scientists who were developing nukes were doing their little brainstorming sessions they knew that as well as being a devastating weapon, nuclear power could be of great service to humanity in the right hands...and they were right (sort of). Nobody knew could imagine the extent of the devastating side effects of releasing the nukes over Nagasaki and Hiroshima before they were dropped but some good has still come out of it. My point is that there is no possible way to predict all the possible outcomes of doing something. If we could then we would be Gods. And if we don't take risks every now and again then we will never grow as a species. If you had gone back in time and presented the people back in the 40s with details of the effects of nuclear accidents then they may have cancelled the building and testing of the bombs. That would have led to an extension of WW2 and it is entirely possible that the Space Race would never have got off the ground. We also would never of had Chernobyl or t'other nuclear fuck ups.

Its hard to say whether genetic tinkering will go wrong and I have no doubt that we will make some mistakes and wipe out a few species here and there but in the long run we stand a VERY good chance of benefiting from it. We learn and grow from our mistakes.
 

Driwen

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
932
Adari said:
Right now, we don't know shit, all we know is that it might kill us in the long run. So why are we doing it anyway then? Surely that's a sign we're not ready for it.
first off dont use greenpeace as your only source of information. They are hardly an unbiased media and have been known to be horribly wrong at times (the oilplatform of shell, were it had to be brought to norway to get dissambled there, which wasnt necesarry actually?).

genetic modifications is mostly based on trial and errors and it is based on what we actually understand (ok we dont understand all of it, but we do have a basis of knowledge). We have been breeding certain kind of animals for centuries this isnt much different actually.

Besides the fun fact that you cant stop science. If you make it illegal to research it here, the scientists will just go to cuba, Iran, China, North Korea, etc. You must make scientists aware that there is a risk and that we must be really careful with it, but this goes for allmost every science, research on fusion or as simple as making a kids toy (it must not be able to be eaten and when you lick it the kid must not be poisoned (these are just things I made up, but I do think toymakers keep such things in mind)).
 

Adari

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,649
Greenpeace has realiable information written by scientists and other experts in their files, they just put it together.

I see your point Sissy, I guess you could compare it to nuclear energy and all that.

But shouln't that be an example and a reason to stop now? Do we really want the same thing to happen again?

Look at xenotransplantation, by the time xenotransplantation will be fully researched, develloped and authorised there will already be alternatives that are more appealing. For instance, artificial hearts. Artificial hearts do not require to be replaced every ten years, neither do they have the risk to cause diseases etc amongst the human race, etc. But anyway, if there are gonna be artificial hearts, why even bother with xenotransplantation?

So why can't we skip this fase and wait untill somebody, somewhere, finds a better arternative for whatever one wishes to achieve with bio technology?
 

Driwen

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
932
Adari said:
Greenpeace has realiable information written by scientists and other experts in their files, they just put it together.
NEVER EVER base your opinion on one organisation, if you had written a report about this for school you had failed miserably. Besides the fact that greenpeace has actually been proven horribly wrong once, when they had based their facts on scientists thats why you should always get multiple sources for your information and with different backgrounds.
Greenpeace IS anti genetic modification, it is very likely that they will not take facts that proof it is useful and possibly reasonably safe to hearts and will only listen to scientists who tell them it isnt.
So greenpeace information might be correct, but it most likely will be biased and will only shed light on the cons and most likely will make those (slightly) bigger than they are.
This is what other scientists and other groups do aswell and that is why you search for multiple sources for your information.
 

'Shy

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,824
We're not allowed to sell a certain type of jalapeno cream cheese pepper cos it's gm :(
 

Sissyfoo

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,814
Driwen said:
NEVER EVER base your opinion on one organisation, if you had written a report about this for school you had failed miserably. Besides the fact that greenpeace has actually been proven horribly wrong once, when they had based their facts on scientists thats why you should always get multiple sources for your information and with different backgrounds.
Greenpeace IS anti genetic modification, it is very likely that they will not take facts that proof it is useful and possibly reasonably safe to hearts and will only listen to scientists who tell them it isnt.
So greenpeace information might be correct, but it most likely will be biased and will only shed light on the cons and most likely will make those (slightly) bigger than they are.
This is what other scientists and other groups do aswell and that is why you search for multiple sources for your information.
Yea, gotta agree with Driwen on this big time. You can never look at only one source of info no matter how well written it is and who supports it. If you did something like that in Uni they would cut yer knackers off. Not sure if they would be so extreme in school though. :)
 

Vodkafairy

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
7,805
Regardless of what greenpeace holds back, we don't know much about genetical modification, but we do know it's extremely dangerous. I think it's pretty scary actually, but as long as people research with extreme caution it should be tolerated.

Like cloned organisms, most of them aren't "normal" and who are we to force a life like that (being weird, not accepted, a product of science) upon anyone? Sure cloning is different to genetical modification but in the end it comes down to altering organisms and it's not experiment with life, because your test subject will be stuck with the shit for his entire life.

And about plants and stuff, once you modify it there's no turning back. The ground can't be used to grow "normal" things on for ages. And if the modified plants mix with "normal" plants it's the same. You'd have to buy a special type of fertiliser only produced by one certain firm (you can guess the rest).

If this is all bullshit I blame the theatre show I was forced to watch with school about genetical modification. It was with dancing tomatoes and stuff shouting "Hi I'm a genetical modified tomato" :D

Anyway, I'm just trying to say genetical modification is on the edge of too risky to play with atm. With the current economy it all boils down downs to money at the end, and I don't think modifying organisms is something that should be allowed in the hands of commercial types... If there are scientists who would research and develop this from a non-beneficial way it should be okay tho. Ie, no pressure from a government (CURE CANCER FFS NOOB DO WHAT IT TAKES, KILL A FEW RATS OR PEOPLE JUST KEEP IT SILENT!1111) or commercial firm (make us rich, no matter what, just keep your mistakes to yourself).
 

Adari

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,649
Driwen said:
NEVER EVER base your opinion on one organisation, if you had written a report about this for school you had failed miserably. Besides the fact that greenpeace has actually been proven horribly wrong once, when they had based their facts on scientists thats why you should always get multiple sources for your information and with different backgrounds.
Greenpeace IS anti genetic modification, it is very likely that they will not take facts that proof it is useful and possibly reasonably safe to hearts and will only listen to scientists who tell them it isnt.
So greenpeace information might be correct, but it most likely will be biased and will only shed light on the cons and most likely will make those (slightly) bigger than they are.
This is what other scientists and other groups do aswell and that is why you search for multiple sources for your information.
Sorry, but this is something I'm not going to discuss in this thread.

I'm in my 6th year of school/college, after my exams I'll have had the best education you can have before going to uni. I know what I'm doing and I don't need you to tell me what I should or should not pull off.

As for greenpeace, they have just collected different articles from different sources and put em all in one file, which is the same some newspapers do. Hence I used it. It doesn't matter if they're biased or not, 'cause I share the same opinion. BECAUSE of this theyre the best source I was able to find. I don't give a rat's ass about the pro's of the subject because I don't need em. I need to have good information about, amongst other things, the negative points of the subject so I can use them to create good arguments to CONVINCE whoever reads them that my opinion is right. Even if I'm not, that doesn't matter.

This thread isn't about the pro's and con's of genitic modification, this thread is about my opinion vs sissyfoo's opinion, my examples vs his examples, my arguments vs his arguments.

Besides I used all these different articles from different sources gained via greenpeace for my exam this morning, and it went rather well ^_^
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,088
Adari you're being very naive.

As for greenpeace, they have just collected different articles from different sources and put em all in one file
The point that Driwen was making is that Greenpeace is a politically motivated organisation, with a specific agenda. Therefore, they can not be relied upon to produce unbiased reports. They will choose whatever they publish so that it fits nicely with their agenda.

Now I'm not saying that Greenpeace is somehow wrong in all this, but like anything or anybody else, they are far from perfect. They object to a technology like GM because of the 'unknown side-effects' and because 'its unnatural'. They casually fail to mention how GM crops would benefit farmers in the 3rd world, and boost the economies of those 3rd world countries. Also, by printing mis-information, they promote the banning of GM foods and products in developed countries, thereby excluding the 3rd world from trading those crops.

Myself, I really don't mind genetic modification. I'm of the opinion that mankind's ability to adversely affect this planet is vastly overstated. A nuclear war would lead to total devastation, but such things have happened before, and this planet is still teeming with life. Even a worst-case scenario such as a genetically engineered family of viruses (sp?) destroying all life on earth would be far-fetched, there are places on this planet where life exists, that we cannot observe (bottom of the ocean, landlocked and ice-covered sea in Antarctica). Anyhow, I don't believe genetic modification could lead to any of this. You seem to think that scientists are somehow irresponsible by nature - you couldn't be more off the mark.

As for using medicine and science to eliminate mutations and deformaties from the human race, that would truly be a colossal mistake. Removing things such as Down's Syndrome might be an advantage, but not allowing certain mutations to take place (6 digits on each hand, abnormal internal organs, etc) would not allow the human race to develop/evolve.

If you truly want to educate yourself on this matter, than try researching all the pros/cons before you form an opinion. Such techniques might lead you to wisdom.
 

Adari

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,649
I am not being naive.

At all.

Greenpeace has good arguments that back up my opinion and remarks, hence I use their information, cos it's all true as well, which is indeed a fact. ;)

If I wanted to point out what's good and bad about gen. mod. I would have used multiple sources, but I don't.
 

Sissyfoo

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,814
Tom said:
Myself, I really don't mind genetic modification. I'm of the opinion that mankind's ability to adversely affect this planet is vastly overstated. A nuclear war would lead to total devastation, but such things have happened before, and this planet is still teeming with life. Even a worst-case scenario such as a genetically engineered family of viruses (sp?) destroying all life on earth would be far-fetched, there are places on this planet where life exists, that we cannot observe (bottom of the ocean, landlocked and ice-covered sea in Antarctica). Anyhow, I don't believe genetic modification could lead to any of this. You seem to think that scientists are somehow irresponsible by nature - you couldn't be more off the mark.
I don't think that argument will make people feel better. Not many people are going to see that as the 'silver lining' on the mushroom cloud. :)
 

Adari

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,649
Adari said:
Greenpeace has realiable information written by scientists and other experts in their files, they just put it together.

I see your point Sissy, I guess you could compare it to nuclear energy and all that.

But shouln't that be an example and a reason to stop now? Do we really want the same thing to happen again?

Look at xenotransplantation, by the time xenotransplantation will be fully researched, develloped and authorised there will already be alternatives that are more appealing. For instance, artificial hearts. Artificial hearts do not require to be replaced every ten years, neither do they have the risk to cause diseases etc amongst the human race, etc. But anyway, if there are gonna be artificial hearts, why even bother with xenotransplantation?

So why can't we skip this fase and wait untill somebody, somewhere, finds a better arternative for whatever one wishes to achieve with bio technology?
I was looking forward to ur answer to that Sissy ><
 

Sissyfoo

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,814
It was coming but then I got distracted with something else. I'll try and remember what I was gonna write. ;)
 

Vodkafairy

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
7,805
Sissyfoo said:
It was coming but then I got distracted with something else. I'll try and remember what I was gonna write. ;)
Just genetically modify your head so it can hold two brains instead of one.
 

Adari

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,649
Tom said:
If you truly want to educate yourself on this matter, than try researching all the pros/cons before you form an opinion. Such techniques might lead you to wisdom.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I WANT! I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

All I want is a debate whether it should be allowed or not, I'm against it so I wouldn't mention what is actually good about gentech now WOULD I?

Why the hell do you think I blew my intro out of proportion :p
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,088
Adari said:
THAT IS NOT WHAT I WANT! I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

All I want is a debate whether it should be allowed or not, I'm against it so I wouldn't mention what is actually good about gentech now WOULD I?

Why the hell do you think I blew my intro out of proportion :p
All I'm saying is that your basic argument is flawed. You insist you know everything there is to know about the subject, when plainly your posts show that you know only what you want to know.

Asking people to debate the worth of Genetic Engineering, while only giving them the information that you would like them to use in that debate, doesn't create a good argument. Such things are known as propoganda.

Genetic modification can disrupt natural processes and ecological systems. Genetic modification can screw up everything nature has done for us and itself. I believe that some things on this very planet were not made to be changed into something else. I don’t think we should mess with the ‘blueprints’ of food, or breathing creatures because it is not our task to fuck with something we haven’t made, but something that was given to us.
I see no difference between the manipulation of species and environments to produce better living conditions/crops, and the manipulation of genetic structures to do the same. You believe that some things were not made to be changed, so where do you draw the line? The computer you are working on contains non-biodegradable toxins, but you seem quite happy to ignore this because it suits you.

Also, just 'who' gave it to us? God? The logical conclusion of your argument is that we revert to an agrarian society. If thats so, then say goodbye to all the creature comforts you take for granted, because they're 'fucking with something we haven't made'.

If you provided us with a source of unbiased information, and a balanced argument, then you might find people are prepared to listen to you. Simply insisting that you're right, and we're wrong, is the position of a child, and nothing you have so far said has demonstrated otherwise.
 

Vodkafairy

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
7,805
Tom said:
Simply insisting that you're right, and we're wrong, is the position of a child, and nothing you have so far said has demonstrated otherwise.
Wake up? Adari is claiming he knows almost everything on this subject and for all we know he does. You're however claiming that he's wrong and you're right, that makes you a hypocrit and a child doesn't it? He doesn't want to be educated on the subject, he wants to share his perspection of the topic and discuss it with others.

Adari never said he doesn't know the pro's afaik, he doesn't have to post everything... if anyone disagrees its up to them to find pro arguments to counter adari's >.<

What is it that you want anyway? Lecture about how to discuss something or what?


zzz tbh :twak:
 

sibanac

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
824
Adari said:
THAT IS NOT WHAT I WANT! I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

All I want is a debate whether it should be allowed or not, I'm against it so I wouldn't mention what is actually good about gentech now WOULD I?

Why the hell do you think I blew my intro out of proportion :p
You should atleast look into both sides of the argument before you make ytour opinion.

And never believe greenpeace or anyother enviromental organisation, because they lie and tell half truth's as much as any other political group.

example : they have been spreading the myth that rainforests are the lungs of the earth, well all research has shown that a rainforest basicly has a neto anual oxigen production of 0. Its realy alge that produce most oxigen on earth.
Ofcourse saying we should save the rainforest because all the spiders and snakes that live there doesnt sell so well, so they twist the truth
 

sibanac

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
824
Vodkafairy said:
Wake up? Adari is claiming he knows almost everything on this subject and for all we know he does. You're however claiming that he's wrong and you're right, that makes you a hypocrit and a child doesn't it? He doesn't want to be educated on the subject, he wants to share his perspection of the topic and discuss it with others.

Adari never said he doesn't know the pro's afaik, he doesn't have to post everything... if anyone disagrees its up to them to find pro arguments to counter adari's >.<

What is it that you want anyway? Lecture about how to discuss something or what?


zzz tbh :twak:
If you say you have an opinion about samething but only know halve oiff it, then you dont have an opinion but an emotion.
An opinion is formed by looking at both sides of an argument and evaluating them against each other.
Anything else is bias, emotions, superstition, religion
 

Vodkafairy

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
7,805
lol @ the people whining

How about you fuck off until you manage to write something decent about the topic (genetical modification)?

Oops for a second I forgot this is fh, nm, whine away :rolleyes:
 

Vodkafairy

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
7,805
sibanac said:
If you say you have an opinion about samething but only know halve oiff it, then you dont have an opinion but an emotion.
An opinion is formed by looking at both sides of an argument and evaluating them against each other.
Anything else is bias, emotions, superstition, religion
Stop being so god damn thick, he knows more on the topic than just the greenpeace bullshit, but he happens to share their opinion.

I would like to have a debate with you about anything, I'll laugh my ass off if you give 100% true info on BOTH sides of the subject.

bbl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom