I'm for it. While evolution has plodded along on million yr time segments, human genetic engineering will speed it up. Sure there will be controversy, screw ups, throw backs, scares, failed experiments, etc. Bumbling natural evolution has had most of those things, too. I think that we can do much better, over orders of magnitudes less time, too.
If/when we get this tech reasonably tried and tested on our own species, we can then start the revamping of animals and nature around us. It's true that the earth isn't too bad, but, there are many areas where it could be greatly improved.
If scientists get seriously into understanding and engineering virii, they could be used as an evolutionary tool. Simply, a virus designed to reprogram the genetics of a specific species could sweep the globe and transform the species almost overnight. I'm sure the thought scares the crap out of a lot of people.
S
What's your opinion on genetic engineering?
by LtCmd.Lore 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Satanus
-
Paralipomenon
Have you seen the movie GATTACA?
It was a very interesting take on this idea as it explores a world where people are still born naturally that have to cope with a world run by enhanced humans.
Personally, I'm all for it. It would crack open a new era of humanity complete with it's own benefits and challenges. -
Ténébreux
If scientists get seriously into understanding and engineering virii, they could be used as an evolutionary tool. Simply, a virus designed to reprogram the genetics of a specific species could sweep the globe and transform the species almost overnight. I'm sure the thought scares the crap out of a lot of people.
I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hat wearer, but again I'd point out that research like this is paid for by people with lots of money for reasons that are unlikely to be of benefit to the rest of us. While this technology could potentially be used for the great benefit of our species, it is starting off in the hands of people who do NOT wish us to be healthier or longer-lived.
-
SacrificialLoon
It will free us from the tyranny of the gene (so to speak), I'm for it.
There are some potential problems though. What if everyone has one particular trait that was deemed desireable, and a virus is either devloped or evolves to take advantage of this genetic homogeny? That could cause problems. Then there's the whole who determines what traits are desireable and which are not, and what to do with people who do not have desireable traits. What if it leads to virtual immortality for a few, and the undevloped world remains mortal? I think the devloped world would quickly collapse since people would be far too afraid to risk their near endless lives.
Overall I think the benefits outweigh the risks, but like any tool science gives us there are risks. -
PrimateDave
This is too complicated a subject to be simply "for" or "against" it. Like any technology, it is a tool that can bring about desirable and undesirable outcomes. Humans have historically had access to technology before having the ability and foresight to prevent the deleterious effects from its misuse. As for its use in agriculture, let's just say that I'm for Permaculture, which is the antithesis of Industrial Agriculture. If genetic engineering can provide cures for cancer in humans, then I'm for that. As for modifying nature in any way with G.E., well, Gaia is a tough bitch, and when she bites back we'll wish we had treated her better!
Dave -
Witchettygrub
I have to go a bit further and voice my concern about scientists turning mad and producing a strange breed made up of half man and half animal.
Currently in stem cell research there is a combining of human and animal genetics and I read somewhere recently of tissue taken from dead persons instead of human embryos to overcome ethical objections.
Remember Frankenstein.
Witchettygrub -
read good books
Well I have read that they have done some things that I just can't agree with. Like putting a spider's gene into a goat so that when it has milk it will also give a web material that can be used for bullet proof vests. Don't believe me, check it out on the internet.
And they have experiemented with putting human genes in goats, and sheep. Monsanto puts a gene in corn that makes it resistent to bugs, but it is also hard on the kidneys of humans that eat it and it's in most corn, which is used in lot of other products. Plus there is speculation that the honey bees get into this corn because of the all pollen that's in corn it is screwing up their inners too, Einstien said we can't live more than three or four years without bees because they pollinate all the plants. So until you have people who have some scruples doing the engineering I say no.
-
greendawn
It sounds good but we don't know the consequences in the long run of putting genes in unnatural places and it sounds somewhat awful eg putting mice genes in potatoes. Those doing it are in it for the profit and they don't really care about any untoward consequences in the ecosystems.
-
Spectre
I'm all for it if it means I can get a little pet rhino thats about a foot and a half tall.
-
PrimateDave
In my previous post I said that "Gaia is a tough bitch." Well, these are not my words but are the words of evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis found on this web page. Here is a quote:
My primary work has always been in cell evolution, yet for a long time I've been associated with James Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis. In the early seventies, I was trying to align bacteria by their metabolic pathways. I noticed that all kinds of bacteria produced gases. Oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, ammonia — more than thirty different gases are given off by the bacteria whose evolutionary history I was keen to reconstruct. Why did every scientist I asked believe that atmospheric oxygen was a biological product but the other atmospheric gases — nitrogen, methane, sulfur, and so on — were not? "Go talk to Lovelock," at least four different scientists suggested. Lovelock believed that the gases in the atmosphere were biological. He had, by this time, a very good idea of which live organisms were probably "breathing out" the gases in question. These gases were far too abundant in the atmosphere to be formed by chemical and physical processes alone. He argued that the atmosphere was a physiological and not just a chemical system.
The Gaia hypothesis states that the temperature of the planet, the oxidation state and other chemistry of all of the gases of the lower atmosphere (except helium, argon, and other nonreactive ones) are produced and maintained by the sum of life. We explored how this could be. How could the temperature of the planet be regulated by living beings? How could the atmospheric gas composition — the 20-percent oxygen and the one to two parts per million methane, for example — be actively maintained by living matter?
It took me days of conversation even to begin to understand Lovelock's thinking. My first response, just like that of the neo-Darwinists, was "business as usual." I would say, "Oh, you mean that organisms adapt to their environment." He would respond, very sweetly, "No, I don't mean that." Lovelock kept telling me what he really meant, and it was hard for me to listen. Since his was a new idea, he hadn't yet developed an appropriate vocabulary. Perhaps I helped him work out his explanations, but I did very little else.
The Gaia hypothesis is a biological idea, but it's not human-centered. Those who want Gaia to be an Earth goddess for a cuddly, furry human environment find no solace in it. They tend to be critical or to misunderstand. They can buy into the theory only by misinterpreting it. Some critics are worried that the Gaia hypothesis says the environment will respond to any insults done to it and the natural systems will take care of the problems. This, they maintain, gives industries a license to pollute. Yes, Gaia will take care of itself; yes, environmental excesses will be ameliorated, but it's likely that such restoration of the environment will occur in a world devoid of people.
Lovelock would say that Earth is an organism. I disagree with this phraseology. No organism eats its own waste. I prefer to say that Earth is an ecosystem, one continuous enormous ecosystem composed of many component ecosystems. Lovelock's position is to let the people believe that Earth is an organism, because if they think it is just a pile of rocks they kick it, ignore it, and mistreat it. If they think Earth is an organism, they'll tend to treat it with respect. To me, this is a helpful cop-out, not science. Yet I do agree with Lovelock when he claims that most of the things scientists do are not science either. And I realize that by taking the stance he does he is more effective than I am in communicating Gaian ideas.
If science doesn't fit in with the cultural milieu, people dismiss science, they never reject their cultural milieu! If we are involved in science of which some aspects are not commensurate with the cultural milieu, then we are told that our science is flawed. I suspect that all people have cultural concepts into which science must fit. Although I try to recognize these biases in myself, I'm sure I cannot entirely avoid them. I try to focus on the direct observational aspects of science.
Gaia is a tough bitch — a system that has worked for over three billion years without people. This planet's surface and its atmosphere and environment will continue to evolve long after people and prejudice are gone.
I think it is highly arrogant and undeniably anthropocentric to assume that Homo sapiens (sic) can tamper with the planetary systems that it has evolved within and not expect adverse consequences. We are still a part of and very much dependent on the Earth as it has evolved. As a species we are only just beginning to understand the interconnectedness of life on this world. That said, any kind of genetic engineering should be very closely controlled. At this stage of development I don't think that there are any effective controls on corporate power in the world today.
Dave