Spuriousmonkey and I have a argument on this subject going on. Anyways I think it should be continued in its own thread.

You can read up on it here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17661&perpage=20&pagenumber=2

what's our argument?

i read in new scientist about terminator and exorcist which eliminate any adverse effects (allergies, pollen drift)

A Embryonic Lethal Operon is also a proposed means for preventing GM plants from reproducing in the wild or crossbreeding. The seeds would need to be bathed in a trigger chemical (anything can be design as the trigger chemical… lets say dextrose) to deactivate the operon, the operon would be self deactivating (its actually two operon) and would not be open to reactivation tell meiosis again. If the operon is not deactivated it will produce a lethal substance (eer, lethal to the seed only) that would kill the seed. The operon can be inserted into any GM plant breed in multiple copies on many chromosomes so as to guaranty that any hybrid plant progeny would also carry the operon and die promptly.

Hey do you remember that cat they engineered to be non-allergic (aah, to its pet owners)? They are doing the same thing the peanuts.

I find it funny how the anti-GM people will be so vocal, yet at the same time, will unknowingly purchase strawberries in the winter. It's mainly because they're undereducated on the topic. Sad - but true. :rolleyes:

Biotechnologists have created genetically modified plants that can grow plastic. They managed this by inserting 4 genes from a plastic-producing bacteria into varieties of oilseed rape (Eurasian plant) and cress. Conventional plastics are made from oil and do not degrade easily, but the plant plastic is biodegradable. But it is expensive. Petroleum-derived plastic cost about $1 per kg (2,2 lb) but plant plastic would cost $5 per kg (2,2 lb).

Money doesn't grow on trees but one day, perhaps, credit cards will!

Originally posted by Elbaz
I find it funny how the anti-GM people will be so vocal, yet at the same time, will unknowingly purchase strawberries in the winter. It's mainly because they're undereducated on the topic. Sad - but true. :rolleyes:
This is muddled. It's perfectly possible to be anti-GM and eat strawberries in the winter and not be under-educated. IMO supporters of GM have been over-indocrinated into thinking it's a complex issue which requires high levels of specialist knowledge to understand) This is nonsense. Common sense shows that GM is a very dangerous technology without any sensible use or purpose (other than money-making of course, or jobs for biologists).

GM strawberries are not necessarily unsafe to eat. It is the long term dangers of tinkering with genes that is potentially suicidal. One does not need a doctorate in anything in particular to see the obvious.

If there were a pressing purpose for GM then perhaps it would be worth doing. As there is not one it is IMO madness. Soon we will have thousands of unregulated labs all over the world playing with nature's building blocks and unleashing them on our ecosystem. Hell, they're even modifying marijuana. Is nothing sacred.

Yes, it is like playing with the wires of a bomb not knowing the complete mechanism!

I specifically said “modern” genetic engineering in my poll so that one would not get confused with the falsely believe benign practices of hybriding and selective breeding that we have been doing for thousands of years; as a result I can not use my main argument against all anti-GMs.

So we will need to get into more detail here: what are the specific fears that you have about GM foods?

My main concern is just crop multiplication. If you can make sure that a specific GM crop only grows in specific fields which someone keeps track of, and the plants are unable to reproduce on their own (or polonate other plants) then I don't see any major problems.

The only other thing I see, is possibly creating a bread which has some fatal flaw. The US has one bad winter and we have no wheat because all the crops died. I'm not sure how big of a problem this might be, as normal crops can have the same problems.

read above about a lethal operon... the problem is though it is a proven technique no one is doing it yet.

Also considering the varity of wheat (or any farm plant we grow here) I seriously don't think a crop failure problem like that will happen. The Irish potato famine never happened here because of potatoes varity. Genetic engineering is not going to kill variety only increase it.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
read above about a lethal operon... the problem is though it is a proven technique no one is doing it yet.
But is there any serious chance of this 'failing'?

Genetic engineering is not going to kill variety only increase it.
I would have thought the opposite. I was imagining them trying to put all of the positive properties in one potato. Since this type of potato is capable to resist just about everything, that's what most will plant. The option you are talking about seems to be more along the lines of having making different modifications to potatos, and not creating an 'uber-breed'.

This is muddled. It's perfectly possible to be anti-GM and eat strawberries in the winter and not be under-educated. IMO supporters of GM have been over-indocrinated into thinking it's a complex issue which requires high levels of specialist knowledge to understand) This is nonsense. Common sense shows that GM is a very dangerous technology without any sensible use or purpose (other than money-making of course, or jobs for biologists).

So far crop or livestock manipulation is confined to really basic changes. Just like the ones you see in strawberries. And any properly trained scientist will be as objective as possible when messing around with the very stuff of life.

That said, there are bad scientists out there who don't really care about the consequences. But that shouldn't hold progression off. We all play with bombs everyday - everywhere. Does that mean we should live our lives without danger? Nope, not IMO. As long as we're sensible, there shouldn't be any major problems, and if there are, it'll be natures fault - because let's face it, we aren't in control of our surroundings yet.

Embrace change with all four arms!! (not mine ;) )

But is there any serious chance of this 'failing'?

No the chance of that happening with multiple copies on many different chromosomes is about the same as you have a child with a monkey!

I would have thought the opposite. I was imagining them trying to put all of the positive properties in one potato. Since this type of potato is capable to resist just about everything, that's what most will plant. The option you are talking about seems to be more along the lines of having making different modifications to potatos, and not creating an 'uber-breed'.

You can't make a super-breed... breeds are best made for there environment: soil type, parasite and infestations types... ect. All breeds are specialized and limited.

There probably is no point in arguing this. The scientifically minded will, while admitting the dangers (the need for operons for instance) always regard new technologies like GM as 'progress', as if it was ever any trouble to grow an apple. The non-scientist will think it's madness based on the common sense fact that it's unnecessary and might go wrong. Discussing the facts seems rather pointless.

As it will make lots of money it will be done. Science and business will make the decisions for corporate reasons. The rest of us are pissing in the wind.

Why do you believe it is unnecessary? Progress it only progress if something is learn from it and mankind can benefit.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Why do you believe it is unnecessary? Progress it only progress if something is learn from it and mankind can benefit.
I would just ask what it's for. The only benefit seems to be to allow us to create even greater urban ant heaps of mouths to feed.

I don't understand Canute? :confused: Genetic engineered foods seems have many benefits in improving efficiency of crop production and benefiting the environment.

Yeah, Canute, do you realize it's actually safer for us in many respects to use GM?

Things like pesticides cause huge dangers to the ecosystem. Don't tell me you're not aware of that. If we could insert a single gene into the mix that would null the need for a pesticide, then what's the problem? There are dangers, but what about the dangers that exist in not utilizing new technology? I think you're beginning to forget those.

People fantacized in the 60's about the greatness that GM could bring, and all of a sudden there are people who just want to throw it out the window. I don't get it?

Originally posted by Canute
Common sense shows that GM is a very dangerous technology without any sensible use or purpose (other than money-making of course, or jobs for biologists).


well this is just wrong. common sense, which would require opening your eyes and making decisions based on what you see and good judgement, would say exactly the opposite. the uses and benefits of gm are endless. you tell those children in third world counties who still have their eyesight because of engineered rice that it has no purpose. or those in africa who have been able to plant crops in otherwise unfertile conditions. exactly how is it very dangerous? sure, i agree that foods should be labeled, eliminating the risk of possible allergic reactions.......but very dangerous? no. ok ok you've got my on the creating jobs part. i have been studying molecular genetics and eventually want to get involved in 'responsibility in engineering', taking the environment into account. well aren't ashamed that i might get a job out of it. :o

The 'environment managed pretty well without GM for a few billion years - now suddenly it needs scientists to save it. What do they need to save it from? Pesticides you say. Well where did they come from? I seem to remember they were going to be a good thing. DDT was a positive life-saver. Starvation? Starvation is what happens when you have too many people and not enough food. If you want to increase the human population to ever more uncomfortable densities then we need GM and we need to run farms like biolabs and factories. Natural plants and animals just won't grow fast enough to feed us all. IMO this is insanity.

The after-effects of DDT will remain with us forever. The long term affects of widespread GM use will remain with us likewise, whether we like it or not. GM will allow us to feed more people - thus there will be more people. Before long before we will be dependent on GM to avoid mass starvation. We will then need another new technology to save us.

Scientists are always promising to improve the planet. Generally they are having to save it from their previous attempts to improve it. The human species seems to be in the grip of some sort of madness. If we could control our own reproductive behaviour a bit then nature would provide for us perfectly adequately.

I would still like to hear of one reason why we need GM. Of course it has a use. So did everything else that's ever been invented. That does not mean that there is a need for it that justifies the risks involved. I'm not suggesting that GM researchers are immoral, just that they are paid by people who are commercial entrepreneurs who would like nothing better than that more and more people become dependent on their products. Technologies create their own dependence every time.

Pardon - this is a bit waffly - it feels like stating the blindingly obvious to me, and that's always difficult to do.

Dude: :confused:
The 'environment managed pretty well without GM for a few billion years - now suddenly it needs scientists to save it. What do they need to save it from? Pesticides you say. Well where did they come from? I seem to remember they were going to be a good thing. DDT was a positive life-saver. Starvation? Starvation is what happens when you have too many people and not enough food. If you want to increase the human population to ever more uncomfortable densities then we need GM and we need to run farms like biolabs and factories. Natural plants and animals just won't grow fast enough to feed us all. IMO this is insanity.

I realize that the human population is in a J-shaped curve. That is VERY bad, as no species has ever survived one. But our numbers our so great, and our intelligence so evolved, that I think we might just have a chance if we can allocate enough resources to curbing it. That's probably not what'll happen, though. World war 3 is on the tables and it ain't going anywhere.

What you're suggesting is that we ALLOW millions and millions of innocent people to 'slag off'. Your reasonings for this viciousness are nothing short of wrong. The world DOES have enough resources as it stands, -take for example super-rich north America, where every day, we battle obesity and overflowing fields of grain. THe reality is that we could never get a reasonable amount of our 'extra' over there. It's just not feasable. Instead, these countries can grow their own. But they need drought resistant crop, or something with enough bang to survivve the cold night temps.

So these disposable people can survive, and at little impact to the environment. If they're fed, they can worry about other important things such as education, which would allow population growth to 'slag off' without involving atrocity. Get the logic? Where's the insanity?? Civilization is just evolving right now, and it only seems insane because your a cross-eyed luddite.

The after-effects of DDT will remain with us forever. The long term affects of widespread GM use will remain with us likewise, whether we like it or not. GM will allow us to feed more people - thus there will be more people. Before long before we will be dependent on GM to avoid mass starvation. We will then need another new technology to save us.

No. DDT will dicipate into the environment. And read my above statement once again. The more resources you have, ie food, the less reproduction you need to survive. That means your simply wrong. We can use GM as a stepping stone to education and better government which would allow the desired results, without allowing people to die brutal deaths.

Scientists are always promising to improve the planet. Generally they are having to save it from their previous attempts to improve it. The human species seems to be in the grip of some sort of madness. If we could control our own reproductive behaviour a bit then nature would provide for us perfectly adequately.

Yes, we call this control education and nourishment of the masses so that they don't have to have 12 sons each. I challenge you to give me one example of when scientists tried 'to save it (the planet)from their previous attempts to improve it.' rather then the improve the result of humanity?

I would still like to hear of one reason why we need GM. Of course it has a use. So did everything else that's ever been invented. That does not mean that there is a need for it that justifies the risks involved. I'm not suggesting that GM researchers are immoral, just that they are paid by people who are commercial entrepreneurs who would like nothing better than that more and more people become dependent on their products. Technologies create their own dependence every time.

Hmm...have you read anything written by people in this thread?? THat includes real biologists, real doctors (I'm sure) and people with common sense? Of course people get paid by corporations to do these things, and that's because there's demand from starving people across the globe. Imagine the wealth that could be opened up if these developing nations stabilized and became self-sufficient.

Technologies do create voluntary dependence on those technologies, but they also free us from dependances of the past. I really hope you don't need me to name a few.

Pardon - this is a bit waffly - it feels like stating the blindingly obvious to me, and that's always difficult to do.

You're excused. Your brazen littlle Stalin comments were like a fart in the wind. They irritated me at first, but now I realize you're just as rude and self-richeous as the people you claim to be fighting.

Canute,

Actually if we were eating natural plants the human race would have starved to a stable pop level at only .5 billion!

I see GM foods as a continuation of selective breeding and hybriding and as such expect the same kind of problems from modern genetic engineering as in historical genetic engineering.

Yes well I didn't expect any agreement here but I hoped for sensible discussion.

Albaz- it's clear you didn't understand my post. Your answer illustrates the need for supporters on GM to fall back on the deliberate misrepresentation of the arguments of opponents and their demonisation as being anti all 'progress'. I don't suppose it occured to you that 'progress' is supposed to mean more than just change.

I quite simply don't understand the comments about Stalin and 'slagging'. Perhaps you would explain. By the way DDT will be in the environment forever since, guess what, they found that it's not biodegradable. As for science not having to find solutions to its 'improvements' I leave it to you to take an unblinkered look around, you can hardly move for examples.

I conclude that your descent into unnecessary insults reflects the strength of your argument, but then I suppose it could be just arrogance.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
No the chance of that happening with multiple copies on many different chromosomes is about the same as you have a child with a monkey!
Ah shucks!

You can't make a super-breed... breeds are best made for there environment: soil type, parasite and infestations types... ect. All breeds are specialized and limited.
Ok, now I get what you're saying. Thanks.

My goal isn't to insult you, Canute. I get very frustrated with people who think we should just ignore new technologies when they are are ONLY hope in solving immediate problems like world hunger or disease. Here and abroad.

I did not misinterprit and I also don't base my argument on the concept of progress alone. Progress has many definitions and components. It would be naive of anyone to think they know 'progress'.

What you're suggesting though, (consciously or not) is that we don't use these viable technologies for saving a dying population in third world countries from things like blindless, disease, and eventually death. We hold a responsibility with these technologies to use them for rescuing humanity from a blight that's plauging everyone, including the global economy. And the reason is not only because it will affect us adversly, but also because we would expect the same, and we're fighting for the same cause.

So what's holding you back? The fact that it May cause a problem. Considering that the chances of that happening are equally strong and less important than other dangers that we face, including disease, hunger and nuclear bombs, it's pretty damn worth it.

I conclude that if we don't stabilize the world with our new technologies, we'll face much bigger problems than allergies or super-intelligent-carnivorous rice. (Trust me, WWIII and the plague are much worse.)

EDIT:
To clarify myself, by slagging off, I meant allowing the people(lower end of the economy and global pop.) to die atrocious deaths through disease and hunger.
And DDT will never degenerate, but will dicipate. So it's just as well.

Originally posted by Canute
By the way DDT will be in the environment forever since, guess what, they found that it's not biodegradable. Where the heck did you hear that? DDT is quite biodegradable; it biodegrades into dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane. It also breaks down spontaneously upon exposure to sunlight, oxygen, and moisture. DDT has a half life of about 2 days in the open air. If it soaks into soil it can have a half life of up to 15 years – a long time, but hardly 'forever.'

Originally posted by Elbaz
My goal isn't to insult you, Canute. I get very frustrated with people who think we should just ignore new technologies when they are are ONLY hope in solving immediate problems like world hunger or disease. Here and abroad.
Fair enough - but generally I can't help reacting badly to being compared to Stalin.

I did not misinterprit and I also don't base my argument on the concept of progress alone. Progress has many definitions and components. It would be naive of anyone to think they know 'progress'.[/B]
Nevertheless you argue that we should develop GM despite widespread concerns and opposition. Not all opponents of it are stupid or scientifically ignorant.

What you're suggesting though, (consciously or not) is that we don't use these viable technologies for saving a dying population in third world countries from things like blindless, disease, and eventually death. We hold a responsibility with these technologies to use them for rescuing humanity from a blight that's plauging everyone, including the global economy. And the reason is not only because it will affect us adversly, but also because we would expect the same, and we're fighting for the same cause.[/B]
I quite agree that there are problems in the world. However I disagree that GM represents a solution to them rather than just the dawn of a bigger problem. I also find the 'saving the third world' stuff rather patronising. Especially since it's exploitation or interference by the 'first' world that has caused many of those problems. I note that when third world countries try to refuse GM products they are forced under threat to accept them, as has happened in Africa (and soon the EU). Now why would that be? I'm all for solving problems, but some solutions are better than others. Every new technology is a solution to some problem or other - that does not mean all new technologies are ultimately beneficial.


So what's holding you back? The fact that it May cause a problem. Considering that the chances of that happening are equally strong and less important than other dangers that we face, including disease, hunger and nuclear bombs, it's pretty damn worth it./B]
I think you're wrong. GM is in its infancy. As we get better at doing it the potential problems will dwarf those of bombs or disease. And GM will not get rid of bombs or disease. It is very doubtful if it will do much to reduce hunger in the long run, since the number of people will always increase to just beyond sustainable levels. It always does.

I conclude that if we don't stabilize the world with our new technologies, we'll face much bigger problems than allergies or super-intelligent-carnivorous rice. (Trust me, WWIII and the plague are much worse.)[/B]
You seem to be saying that although we've buggered up the world with our previous advances this one will be different. You may be right - but history is on my side. I note that all the supposed benefits of GM will accrue to the human species alone, the main one being that we can keep our population at a higher level without starving.

To clarify myself, by slagging off, I meant allowing the people(lower end of the economy and global pop.) to die atrocious deaths through disease and hunger. [/B]
You're right that I was suggesting doing something to control our mindless habit of over breeding now that we have got rid of most of the natural checks and balances. However I was not suggesting eugenics or gulags or letting people starve.

And DDT will never degenerate, but will dicipate. So it's just as well. [/B]
I shouldn't have risked the DDT point. My information is that it did not (or elements of it did not) biodegrade. I will try to check my source. No matter - my general point about the unthinking adoption of new technologies is unaffected.

We obviously disgree big time about this. However there is no way my argument can be won. In fact it's been lost already. All new technologies will be adopted as fast as we can develop them, and regardless of any opposition. That's just the way the economy works. There is always too great a commercial interest in their adoption. Please just excuse my despair.

Canute,

Could you explain some of these problems you have with gm foods? All I can pull out so far from what you have said is:

1. GM foods help the human rabbit pop grow.

Yep that’s true, nothing good old fashion WW5 (the idiot administration claims we are in WW4 right now... what the heck happen to WW3???) won’t solve. Sorry but the talking monkeys will do anything to survive, even eat their own mothers, mmmmmmmm "soil and green". Judging from the history of it human society is rather unstable and eventually the human race will blow its self up… most likely they will survive to try to start again but by then the earth will be sooo f|_|cked up that survival will be unlikely. I personally plan on evolving beyond the talking monkey form and getting the heck out of here... but that’s just a personal plan.

2. DDT is really bad.

aaaaaah ya red haring fallacy DDT has no connection to GM foods.

3. GM foods is just a means to solve problems that we started!

Yep your point is?

I would like to see you responded more to the points of mine and other peoples post here. I feel your input is very valuable but so far you just ranting.

I don't quite get this. Ask me a straight question and I'll do my best to answer it straight.

I did many post ago, but I'll repeat my self:

what are the specific fears that you have about GM foods?

That's a bit unfair since I already did that. Still...

There are many. We will become dependent on it, and on the technological and legislative paraphaenalia that goes with it. We will develop socially so that society becomes unable to operate without it. (This is true for most significant new technologies - try taking away the internal combustion engine, the TV, the telephone, refridgeration of food, factory farming, aeroplanes, you name it.) Thus GM will become indispensible (and any intelligent GN entrepreneur knows that). With more food will come more people (yippee) and soon guess what, more starvation unless we take the next technological step.

We run the risk of creating a situation in which 'nature' will no longer be able to feed us, and perhaps one in which it actually ceases to function properly. (This latter already happens regularly on a limited scale - and, ironically, we usually we employ scientists (conservationists, biologists, etc) to try to repair the damage (if we bother to try). Just at what point the whole thing starts to fail we don't know, although it seems we're hell-bent on finding out. We already need thousands of experts to deal on a daily basis with over-fishing, de-forestation, soil depletion, pollution, starvation, species extinction, failure of local ecosystems etc ...

Once we are free of a dependence on the functioning of the natural system (the one that doesn't need experts to keep it running) then we will be free at last to build over what's left of it. On past evidence then if we can do this we will.

If we can feed more people then we will have more people. Maybe this is a good thing. IMO it isn't. I feel like a crowded rat already and I live in what some people (who haven't grown up able to know anything better) would these days call the country.

Hmm. That's all a bit wishy-washy. Still I'm talking long term here, and the long term social effects take some thinking about.

In summary I feel we would be better to control ourselves rather than start messing with nature to this extent, and I don't want to do anything that will speed up the complete urbanisation of the world.

There are also other fairly obvious reasons for opposing GM - like where the power that control of it will lie, or what long term damage it will do to species, and to biological diversity in general.

To be fair you should give your reasons for thinking that GM is such a good thing. Is there a point to it? Or is all new technology a good thing? And when was the last time we did not introduce a technolgy that made money - whatever the opposition or the possible damage? Isn't there always someone who complains that people are just ill-informed or afraid of change? It's such an easy argument to make.

This is pretty badly argued I must say. But it's late and I busked it. Please note that this is not actually anti-science. It's just anti the idea that the obsessive practice of self-interested and specialist science does away with the need for common sense and a broader and longer evolutionary view.

Who knows what horrors GM crops will bring. Do you remember that cloned sheep and how it appeared in perfect health? Well it died a few months back from arthritis and premature ageing. My point being that although the external may seem outwardly normal, the internal may be biologically impure.

Canute,

Unfortunately that’s what the human animal does. You can blame selfish genetics. Most technology has been to the benefit of humanity and to the downfall of nature, GM foods being just another. Are best hope now is that genetic engineering, robotics and cybernetics might make a new species that knows better.

ben nevis,

GM foods will most likely bring about only the same problems like selective breeding and hybrid have.

Well I hope you're right but think you're not. Time will no doubt teach us the usual lesson.

THis response is a bit late, but here goes...

Fair enough - but generally I can't help reacting badly to being compared to Stalin.

You took my comment too seriously. I still stand by my reasoning that just letting a population die when you can help them is irresponsible and lame.

Nevertheless you argue that we should develop GM despite widespread concerns and opposition. Not all opponents of it are stupid or scientifically ignorant.

There are widespread concerns and opposition. I fully acknowledge that. That's why development incorporates all of that criticism to improve the process and deliver something better. People who deny this are stupid/scientifically ignorant exactly because of the fact that ethics is an essential to science. We can't stop idiots from doing irresponsible things, but I'd much rather live in a world full of crime and talking corn than one where new technology is looked down upon.

I quite agree that there are problems in the world. However I disagree that GM represents a solution to them rather than just the dawn of a bigger problem. I also find the 'saving the third world' stuff rather patronising. Especially since it's exploitation or interference by the 'first' world that has caused many of those problems. I note that when third world countries try to refuse GM products they are forced under threat to accept them, as has happened in Africa (and soon the EU). Now why would that be? I'm all for solving problems, but some solutions are better than others. Every new technology is a solution to some problem or other - that does not mean all new technologies are ultimately beneficial.

You bring up some good points. I've heard some terrible stories of how these African countries have turned down GM foods under the cloack of environmentalism. Now I wonder, -why would the UN try to force them? The reality is that governments don't necessarily care about the people. I'll bring up the words of a ficticious character, Dr Brodsky: "We are not concerned with motive, with the higher ethics. We are concerned only with cutting down crime (or in this case stimulating the economy)". Right now, it's alot more profitable to have people die so that you can rake in more tax dollars and industrialize. They don't care about the suffering that their people would have to endure. And with the suffering that people across Europe and North America had to go through to get through industrialization, there's no need to let it happen that badly again. Give 'em an education, teaching them to grow crops and stuff, - and feed them what they don't have, and eventually these African nations can become self-sustaining. As always, these African governments care more about the 'now'.

And on your last statement
"Every new technology is a solution to some problem or other - that does not mean all new technologies are ultimately beneficial. "

So you would rather be an animal with no technology at all? Without the ability to have control over your surroundings and one day become as strong as God? Yes, I agree that many technologies bring negative implications. That's a fact of life. But it will ultimately be for the better. In the end.


I think you're wrong. GM is in its infancy. As we get better at doing it the potential problems will dwarf those of bombs or disease. And GM will not get rid of bombs or disease. It is very doubtful if it will do much to reduce hunger in the long run, since the number of people will always increase to just beyond sustainable levels. It always does.

NOTE: Recombinant DNA has been around since the 60's. Even though we didn't discover a single gene until the 70's.

Now before we go any futher,

There are many. We will become dependent on it, and on the technological and legislative paraphaenalia that goes with it. We will develop socially so that society becomes unable to operate without it. (This is true for most significant new technologies - try taking away the internal combustion engine, the TV, the telephone, refridgeration of food, factory farming, aeroplanes, you name it.) Thus GM will become indispensible (and any intelligent GN entrepreneur knows that). With more food will come more people (yippee) and soon guess what, more starvation unless we take the next technological step.

As technology grows, we become less dependant on things like weather and environment. This is essential to becoming a higher civilization.

We run the risk of creating a situation in which 'nature' will no longer be able to feed us, and perhaps one in which it actually ceases to function properly. (This latter already happens regularly on a limited scale - and, ironically, we usually we employ scientists (conservationists, biologists, etc) to try to repair the damage (if we bother to try). Just at what point the whole thing starts to fail we don't know, although it seems we're hell-bent on finding out. We already need thousands of experts to deal on a daily basis with over-fishing, de-forestation, soil depletion, pollution, starvation, species extinction, failure of local ecosystems etc ...

Always, under absolutely any circumstances, every single population from every species will always have a slightly higher (proportionately) population than is sustainable. This is a fact of ecology. And right minded scientists will tell you that this is no excuse since we can always create new technologies to solve problems, and we have done much of this already. It's all just part of *controlling are surroundings through superhuman technology.

You seem to be saying that although we've buggered up the world with our previous advances this one will be different. You may be right - but history is on my side. I note that all the supposed benefits of GM will accrue to the human species alone, the main one being that we can keep our population at a higher level without starving.

When the universe was created, it wasn't intended for virtue. It was intended for the strong. For that reason there will always be some level of starvation and povety beyond our control. GM doesn't wish to solve the problem of starvation because it CAN"T. It intends to make our crops more sustainable and less dependant on droughts or weather. No matter, the environment always has away of balancing things out, so control of our surroundings will still be out of reach.

I maintain, we are headed in the right direction.
(I'm not trying to harsh or anything, but this is what I've learnt)

You're right that I was suggesting doing something to control our mindless habit of over breeding now that we have got rid of most of the natural checks and balances. However I was not suggesting eugenics or gulags or letting people starve.

We can't control our overbreeding. We will always have a population slightly higher than we can sustain. It's called - evolution. Throwing out GM can't and wont control our habit of over breeding more than the middle ages was beneficial for mankind.

And would you please care to explain how we've removed all of these checks and balances? I've always been under the impression that nature reigns supreme and will always have checks and balances. The Gaia hypothesis illustrates this perfectly. The earth is an organism that is far more powerful than us.

"However I was not suggesting eugenics or gulags or letting people starve. "
Once more, I'm not trying to illustrate you as a crook. But what you're suggesting is a throwback to older technology when the world was localized. It's no longer the same place as it was 200 years ago.With food we need to bring them an equal amount of education. I always stand by that. Because without it, I agree, will be causing bigger problems in the long run.

We obviously disgree big time about this. However there is no way my argument can be won. In fact it's been lost already. All new technologies will be adopted as fast as we can develop them, and regardless of any opposition. That's just the way the economy works. There is always too great a commercial interest in their adoption. Please just excuse my despair.

I'm under the impression that you're only seeing the cons to GM. But this statement was a very healthy one because at least you realize there's no point in trying to stop the human train. Technology will always be moving. So it's way more beneficial to work with the system to improve itself than to work against. The commercial interest only respond to and provide for the winter strawberries and seedless grapes you demand in your home. Which by themselves aren't much of threat anyways.

To be fair you should give your reasons for thinking that GM is such a good thing. Is there a point to it? Or is all new technology a good thing? And when was the last time we did not introduce a technolgy that made money - whatever the opposition or the possible damage? Isn't there always someone who complains that people are just ill-informed or afraid of change? It's such an easy argument to make.

Yes there is a point. The driving force behind any civilization is technology because the whole aim is to control our environment and become self-sufficient. Money is just how we allocate demand for the things we need most. And honestly, I think you are a bit ill-informed because it's not technology that's causing the problems; it's the social system.

Originally posted by Elbaz
You took my comment too seriously. I still stand by my reasoning that just letting a population die when you can help them is irresponsible and lame.
I couldn't agree more, and it hardly needs saying. .
[There are widespread concerns and opposition. I fully acknowledge that. That's why development incorporates all of that criticism to improve the process and deliver something better. [/B]
You mean to deliver the same thing by getting around the objections by making the issue more and more complicated and throwing in a few concessions to the objectors.
People who deny this are stupid/scientifically ignorant exactly because of the fact that ethics is an essential to science. [/B]
Not true I'm afraid. It's just your opinion. And although some ethics are essential to good science, its only of a very limited kind related to intellectual honesty etc.
We can't stop idiots from doing irresponsible things, but I'd much rather live in a world full of crime and talking corn than one where new technology is looked down upon.[/B]
Recognising the longer term dangers and downsides of new technology is not to look down on it. And in view of your comments here you can't tell me you don't look down on people who are not technophiles.
You bring up some good points. I've heard some terrible stories of how these African countries have turned down GM foods under the cloack of environmentalism. Now I wonder, -why would the UN try to force them? The reality is that governments don't necessarily care about the people. [/B]
This is quite clearly untrue. The UK (and the EU) are equally being forced by corporate pressure, backed by political support, to accept GM foods unwillingly.
[They don't care about the suffering that their people would have to endure. And with the suffering that people across Europe and North America had to go through to get through industrialization, there's no need to let it happen that badly again. [/B]
You rather naively (IMO) assume industrialisation Western style is the only way to go.
Give 'em an education, teaching them to grow crops and stuff, - and feed them what they don't have, and eventually these African nations can become self-sustaining. As always, these African governments care more about the 'now'.[/B]
This is so patronising and badly informed that I don't know how to respond. The voice of white supremacy speaks.
[And on your last statement "Every new technology is a solution to some problem or other - that does not mean all new technologies are ultimately beneficial. " So you would rather be an animal with no technology at all? [/B]
No
[Without the ability to have control over your surroundings and one day become as strong as God? Yes, I agree that many technologies bring negative implications. That's a fact of life. But it will ultimately be for the better. In the end.[/B]
Yeah - jam tomorrow and Godhead via technology. Try reading 'Science as Salvation' by philosopher Mary Midgely for a complete analysis of the irrationality of this faith-based view.
[As technology grows, we become less dependant on things like weather and environment. This is essential to becoming a higher civilization.[/B]
What!?
[Always, under absolutely any circumstances, every single population from every species will always have a slightly higher (proportionately) population than is sustainable. This is a fact of ecology. And right minded scientists will tell you that this is no excuse since we can always create new technologies to solve problems, and we have done much of this already. It's all just part of *controlling are surroundings through superhuman technology.[/B]
On this argument then in the future we would be best to continue everything we've been doing in the past, learning no lessons from our mistakes. Truly science is the new religion. What is 'superhuman technology' for goodness sake?
[When the universe was created, it wasn't intended for virtue. [/B]
Oh
It was intended for the strong. [/B]
Amazing what one learns on the internet.
GM doesn't wish to solve the problem of starvation because it CAN"T. It intends to make our crops more sustainable and less dependant on droughts or weather. [/B]
GM is being developed to make money. It might be used in all sorts of ways, some of them beneficial, but if you look you'll notice that GM is a commercial development project, not some public spirited piece of altruism.
...control of our surroundings will still be out of reach.[/B]
Destruction of it by our attempts to control is an achievable goal however.

You cannot 'learn' that we are heading in the right direction. You can only hope.
We can't control our overbreeding.[/B]
Damn. And there was I thinking that humanity was quite clever. So we can fly to Mars, solve the riddles of the universe and become Gods surrounded by 'superhuman' technology but we cannot do this. How strange.
We will [I]always have a population slightly higher than we can sustain. It's called - evolution.[/B]
I don't think so. It's called having a higher population than we can sustain. However I agree that it has an evolutionary impact. [/B][/QUOTE]
Throwing out GM can't and wont control our habit of over breeding more than the middle ages was beneficial for mankind.[/B]
Agreed. However introducing GM will encourage it. (Don't understand the middle ages bit - do you think they were a bad thing?
And would you please care to explain how we've removed all of these checks and balances? [/B]
We haven't - but we're in the process. It's the whole point of our attempt to conquer our natural environment and replace it with an artificial one managed by experts.
I've always been under the impression that nature reigns supreme and will always have checks and balances. The Gaia hypothesis illustrates this perfectly. The earth is an organism that is far more powerful than us.[/B]
I thought you said we were heading for God-like power over our surroundings. I don't know what it means to say that the earth is 'powerful'.
But what you're suggesting is a throwback to older technology when the world was localized. It's no longer the same place as it was 200 years ago.[/B]
Technology isn't better just because it's newer. This seems to be your unthought out underlying assumption. It's a common one. Technical standards improve but 'better' has a wider meaning than that (or should have).
With food we need to bring them an equal amount of education. I always stand by that. Because without it, I agree, will be causing bigger problems in the long run.[/B]
Bring who an equal amount of education? Me? You? Them? Do you mean we should give everyone the same education as you had, so that everyone will love new technology and believe that 'progress' is something to do with technology? Education for what purpose? So that 'they' can create western style industrial societies I suppose.
The commercial interest only respond to and provide for the winter strawberries and seedless grapes you demand in your home. [/B]
You clearly haven't ever been in commercial management. The job of any business is to persuade people to want what they are able to sell whether they currently want it or not, and regardless of whether they need it. This is called marketing. And they're damn good at it, as the nature of contemporary western culture shows. These days most people think they would cease to exist if they didn't have a mobile phone. We've even been persuaded that they're a fashion item. What do you think drives demand for new technology?
The driving force behind any civilization is technology because the whole aim is to control our environment and become self-sufficient. [/B]
Balderdash and humbug.
I think you are a bit ill-informed because it's not technology that's causing the problems; it's the social system. [/B]
Ah. I agree. But it's the social system that drive technological development. After all we've already got all the technology we need on which to develop a fairly idyllic society (for all those who don't want to live on Mars or rule the phenomenal Universe that is). However our best brains tend to choose to put their efforts into technology rather than society, proclaiming the coming of some scientific utopia as if it was the second coming.

Perhaps we should both shorten our posts a bit!