Genetic Engineering

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, suanni!

In the arguments that I have read against here, constant reference to films crops up. Fiction portrays mankinds hopes and fears, very few of the sci-fi films will become a reality. Or are we going to admit that blood sucking vampires really do exist? If that's the case and you know where they are, gimmee Lestat

I knew it would bite me on the tail sooner or later. I refer to films sometimes because it gives most people a frame of reference to work from. I am not sure I understand what a vampire has to do with the subject, other than a sarcastic jab I probably deserve. However, the homunculus that became the Frankenstein legend is once again making the rounds as the test-tube clone of modern laboratories. Fantasy meets fact. I referred to GATTACA and Blade Runner, because, while they are films, they deal specifically with this subject matter. Yes, there is drama added to make for an interesting story, but the underlying theme is to get people discussing the subject.

[juantoo3]

(Please don’t put me in a pickle jar—I’m Clausen-phobic)

That's Kosher classic!

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Natural

The good old days were not so good, in fact they were terrible.

v/r

Q

i disagree. some may live longer today & that is a good thing, but then- people still loved each other & watched out for each other, reguardless of there stink & there lack of knowledge.
buisnesses helped each other & were not out to destroy each other.
i think there was time of real progress in the U.S., but now i see a flipside to it all.

today we still have stink, pollution, just as much disease, hunger & lack knowledge & with all the modern inventions the planet does not look nearly as good as it did then...and the possiblilty of something worse than EVER just waiting to pop out of someones portable lab.
we live in a time of sudden destruction & stress & everything that goes with it.
pretty sad when the childrens worst fear is being bombed by nuclear when in those days it may have been we dont have any milk this week.
but hey that is all just my observation.

and i am suppose to just say ok?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Bandit!


you are as smart as you think you are, and a lot smarter than you give yourself credit for. Just learn to mean what you say, and say what you mean.


Is my skin supposed to be turning slimy and green?

i have been saying what i mean & meaning what i say & have not changed.

no, i want your skin to stay the same but just consider ALL the possiblities about this & not just some of them that is the only thing i have for you in my science project.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Natural Gas, Oil and Coal are burned, which in turn is used to create super heated steam under high pressure, which turns turbine wheels, which turns generators, which create electricity.





v/r

Q

yah. see this is not destroying anything to accomplish something else & as far as i can see electricity is not going to throw us into cave days & it is not causing any enviromental hazards. i think electricity & the way it is today is something we are supposed to have.

however, the lack & interruption of it would certainly put a stop to just about everything we are about today.
don't you think?

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Bandit

yah. see this is not destroying anything to accomplish something else & as far as i can see electricity is not going to throw us into cave days & it is not causing any enviromental hazards. i think electricity & the way it is today is something we are supposed to have.

however, the lack & interruption of it would certainly put a stop to just about everything we are about today.
don't you think?

Well, maybe a little more than trying to return to one-income households, which I would personally prefer, but I see no way to return. (Edited to add: except when necessity dictates)

However (and therefore), I do understand what you are saying. I think you just want to honor creation the way it was created. I think you are saying that God knows what He is doing. Hmmm.....maybe you are on to something....

Great thread, ATF! (Guess it will be a while before we have anything definite with which to solve the mystery.)

Hey, juan--(thanks for the great response)--I suppose that if my corny joke is a Kosher classic, then that brings us back 'round to the conversation between Phyllis and Alexa, which I found quite interesting. And suanni? LOL on the Lestat remark!

InPeace,
InLove

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by InLove

Well, maybe a little more than trying to return to one-income households, which I would personally prefer, but I see no way to return. (Edited to add: except when necessity dictates)

However (and therefore), I do understand what you are saying. I think you just want to honor creation the way it was created. I think you are saying that God knows what He is doing. Hmmm.....maybe you are on to something....


InPeace,
InLove

yes & like you have said, there is a point of no return. Absolutely!
God made it the way it is for a reason not for us to deliberately change the ecosystem because we think we can do a better job. but many in these labs today do not care about the creation, it is all about me me me & power & it does not matter who & what is destroyed doing it. I dont understand how some can be so gung ho & absolute about something that we know nothing about & that is where i see danger. no, i do not see this as the same thing as mowing the grass & keeping our drinking water clean.

i want to say this just this because i think you will understand. in the eighties i talked to many about the possibilities & ways the World Trade Center could be bombed. Everyone but my father laughed at me & said it could never happen.

no one is going to listen to what i am trying to say unless & until it directly effects them. when i think of the complications & possibilities of disaster through this, when we create something from life that has to be destroyed, or destroy to create, that is not progress & that is what this science in part is doing all to create an immortal sense of being. which is a lie.

so we find a couple of ways to clap & smile about, but will all the mess that is left behind be worth it.

so, maybe tomorrow or, in 5 /20 years from now when some crack pot gets into the lab & when a Government decides for the the new plague of human/mouse/monkey genes to go flying around the world, someone will remember what i have said & know that part of what I have said is true.

DOES SCIENCE CREATE GENETIC GENOCIDE MACHINES?
either no one is understanding or simply not acknowledging me.

thanks for listening either way

[suanni]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, suanni!


I knew it would bite me on the tail sooner or later. I refer to films sometimes because it gives most people a frame of reference to work from. I am not sure I understand what a vampire has to do with the subject, other than a sarcastic jab I probably deserve. However, the homunculus that became the Frankenstein legend is once again making the rounds as the test-tube clone of modern laboratories. Fantasy meets fact. I referred to GATTACA and Blade Runner, because, while they are films, they deal specifically with this subject matter. Yes, there is drama added to make for an interesting story, but the underlying theme is to get people discussing the subject.

Thankyou for the reply juantoo

Vampires were the first sci-fi characters that came to mind. They embody man's hopes and fears. Man would love to be able to live forever or rather escape the grave but at the same time the vampires are the bogey men, they are also considered 'unnatural'. The legends have been with mankind forever and are in every continent in one form or another so we 'understand' them.

Yes the media can encourage discussion about scientific advances but at the same time they can spawn unneccessary fears about them. We wouldn't be interested in a film that showed sci-fi in nice terms would we? We like to be scared half to death and rely upon an author's twisted imagination to scare us. Think about it, how many 'nice, kind, heart warming sci-fi movies' are there? And the scariest tales of all are the ones that man considers can come true. There are a couple that come to mind with me that has the possibility of the ring of truth in them are, one I cannot recollect the title of it but it was about a genetically engineered chimera of a man and a great ape; the other is Mimic, again genetically modified insects that evolve rapidly into terrifying creatures. Man is distrustful of science because for the most part he doesn't understand it and the more man watches the possibility of horrors with science, the more he distrusts science.
Discussions based upon media concentrate on one aspect, what could go wrong and how there will always be the Dr. Jekyll or Dr. Frankenstein in the lab.

[suanni]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i disagree. some may live longer today & that is a good thing, but then- people still loved each other & watched out for each other, reguardless of there stink & there lack of knowledge.
buisnesses helped each other & were not out to destroy each other.
i think there was time of real progress in the U.S., but now i see a flipside to it all.

today we still have stink, pollution, just as much disease, hunger & lack knowledge & with all the modern inventions the planet does not look nearly as good as it did then...and the possiblilty of something worse than EVER just waiting to pop out of someones portable lab.
we live in a time of sudden destruction & stress & everything that goes with it.
pretty sad when the childrens worst fear is being bombed by nuclear when in those days it may have been we dont have any milk this week.
but hey that is all just my observation.

I think you're looking to the past with rose tinted glasses Bandit. Business is business regardless of what time frame you are in. When business helps another out it is in the way of profit...or the other is not in competition with that business.

The past was much worse, even my gran called the past 'the bad old days', she looked to the past clearly unlike many of her peers.
Yes we still have war, we still have disease....the organisms that cause disease evolve in order to survive, but to survive they must live off mankind.
We have always lived with the possibility of something terrible happening on a massive scale. Plague, invasion, catastrophies in weather, famine and that's for the western world! Stress is just a new name for worry and much of today's stress we create for ourselves. No, you never heard of stress in olden times because it is a new terminology and everyone has to have it to a certain degree. Do you not think that the young woman who was having her first baby in Victorian times wasn't stressed, stressed whether or not she was going to survive the birth, stressed that she was going to be able to feed and clothe the child?
It was a great deal more than do we have any milk this week in the past.
So progress has slowed...man has stepped back to see the damage he has inflicted upon the environment.As for progress...like everything it has its own rhythm...what is considered real progress - considered the industrial period- commence in Europe in 1750 with the invention of the steam engine. Mechanised industry followed and great expansions followed. But it wasn't a rosy life, it was anything but. In the highly industrialised towns life was appalling for the lower classes and although the rural community had it a little better, it wasn't that much better.
You were lucky to live beyond the age of 5, that's if you got beyond a year old. Women died regularly in child birth, and it was safer not to have a doctor present. There was little policing...it wasn't rosy. Today's society is much safer than it was then despite what the media portrays.

The burning of fossil fuels to produce electricity and to run vehicles of all shapes and sizes has damaged the environment...so electricity isn't so good, is it?

yah. see this is not destroying anything to accomplish something else & as far as i can see electricity is not going to throw us into cave days & it is not causing any enviromental hazards. i think electricity & the way it is today is something we are supposed to have.

the only way that the production of electricity is not going to cause environmental hazards is to produce it by water turbine, wind turbine or solar power. The burning of coal and oil produces masses of CO2, and with coal there are the added pollutants added to the atmosphere. The 'Great Smogs' of London were cause by the burning of coal http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Air_Qua...lder/Smog.html
So burning coal...any fossil fuel causes a massive environmental impact. Eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuel unless alternatives are found and will have to return to the old ways.

[Bandit]

here are a couple of articles for anyone interested

http://www.thehumanfuture.org/commen...as_genism.html



& some more news here of which some we have already covered.
Center for Genetics & Society

Stem Sellouts: Progressives and Stem Cell Research Beyond California

Published on TomPaine.Com, July 20

Recent developments—both technical and political —have once again brought stem cell research to the front pages of newspapers across the country. Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., are the sponsors of a bill in the Senate that would largely undo President Bush’s restrictive federal funding policies. It’s already passed the House, and is scheduled for a Senate vote this month. But now conservatives are working to dilute support for it by introducing several competing bills that would fund stem cell research that does not destroy human embryos.

Progressives are inclined to react to these reports by strengthening their support of stem cell research as an effective wedge issue to split Republicans. But before we move ahead with simplistic calls for more funding and fewer restrictions, we should pay heed to troubles with California’s new stem cell research agency— and to the larger implications of biotech boosterism.


continue reading...

___________________________________
& Those Calling for Bans on Species-Altering Technologies

with quotes & footnotes.

http://www.genetics-and-society.org/...opponents.html

"[G]erm-line genetic alteration [poses] many risks and potential harms, without any clear benefit to any individual. It…jeopardizes, rather than protects, those who are vulnerable….Genetic enhancement raises the prospect of a society where…people are treated as things that can be changed according to someone else's notions of human perfection."


“The push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature.”

[Bandit]

I think you're looking to the past with rose tinted glasses Bandit. Business is business regardless of what time frame you are in. When business helps another out it is in the way of profit...or the other is not in competition with that business.

The past was much worse, even my gran called the past 'the bad old days', she looked to the past clearly unlike many of her peers.

i am trying to look to the future with rose colored glasses & that is not the way my gran & my dad puts it about the bad old days. i also feel there was more love, integrity, respect, family values & the whole ball of wax...at least where i grew up in the U.S.
I cannot account for those in the woods or big city who did bad things to each other.

& i suppose that is why the service industry is almost obsolete for things manufactured today with a one year throw away guarantee. when 40 years ago an appliance would last 40 years.
& i suppose that is why the mom & pop shops are all closing up because corporate is determined to be king & put us right back into king & slave era.
they are also eating up the small man with online business, making it impossible for him to buy & sell at fair competition with wholesale pricing.

of course i can just ignore all this & watch my business go right down the tubes, but i stay on top of the lies & beat them to the punch.

The burning of fossil fuels to produce electricity and to run vehicles of all shapes and sizes has damaged the environment...so electricity isn't so good, is it?

then you better stop using electricity & save more for me?
i already stated the things I would give up to make the environment better, yet i have not seen anyone here say what they are willing to give up to make it better.
but i am not allowed because we have already passed the point of no return.


the only way that the production of electricity is not going to cause environmental hazards is to produce it by water turbine, wind turbine or solar power. The burning of coal and oil produces masses of CO2, and with coal there are the added pollutants added to the atmosphere. The 'Great Smogs' of London were cause by the burning of coal http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Air_Qua...lder/Smog.html
So burning coal...any fossil fuel causes a massive environmental impact. Eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuel unless alternatives are found and will have to return to the old ways.

i agree & we are going to end up back in caves. i think CO2 is a natural element, depending on what else is mixed with it. Who knows for sure today.
i think they have this way under control today.

Today's society is much safer than it was then despite what the media portrays.

We disagree. when i can leave my front door unlocked the way we used to without any fear then we will be back to the good old days.

[Bandit]

Do you not think that the young woman who was having her first baby in Victorian times wasn't stressed, stressed whether or not she was going to survive the birth, stressed that she was going to be able to feed and clothe the child?

very good point & yes no doubt about that, but i think that was part of the curse to begin with.

so today they have the stress of knowing before hand wether or not there child is going to be born with an illness or defect & should they keep it or have it destroyed.
so many options today. choices that someone who really loves would consider?

one good thing that i am for is the test tube baby, some of the stem cell research & adoption that gives parents & children both the opprtunity, that they never had before.

any way, I am pretty much over the topic of GM for now & it was pleasure to meet you suanni & welcome to CR.

[Bandit]

just so everyone knows, enjoy the further discussion among yourselves, yet i wont be replying to any more in this. i have already said more than enough of how I feel & I have hogged enough postings.

so when i dont reply. i am not ignoring anyone, i just dont want to talk about it any more. if you want to PM, that i will reply to.
& thanks again everyone.

[alexa]

What about your science project, Bandit ? As I can see, a nice conversation is going on in here only because of those naughty pickle jars. Maybe you would like one for yourself ?

You know, as long as we are just talking, no harm done. Our world changes, faster every day. We cannot stop most of the changements, but we can talk and prepare ourselves mentally for the changement.

I think you'll like what Dr George Wald believed about genetic engineering.

“Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution.”

“Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The nub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms. The respts will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled.”

“Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbours.”

“It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain. For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.”

(Dr. George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine, 1967 Higgins Professor of Biology, HarvardUniversity. From “The Case Against Genetic Engineering” by George Wald in The Recombinant DNA Debate, Jackson and Stich, eds. P. 127-128 (Reprinted from The Sciences, Sept./Oct. 1976 issue)

Unfortunately Dr Wald died in 1997 and I cannot ask his opinion 40 years later. I believe genetic engineering is still # 1 ethical problem for the science. Scientists have to put on balance all the advantages and disadvantages for this field of genetics.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you for your post!

I wanted you to know I was not ignoring you, I haven't had time the last couple of days to participate.

I like what you posted from Dr. Wald. I think he says much better than I my final conclusion on the matter. I do see a great deal of ethical struggle around the subject, and it will only get worse before it begins to resolve. Even if so-called "Christian nations" were to boycott the science, other nations not of Christian orientation would continue. The genie is out of the bottle. The argument can no longer be whether or not to proceed, the science will proceed. Which means the argument should now be how best to maintain an ethical posture while proceeding with the science.