PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Engineering


Reise
September 21st, 2016, 05:03 PM
I wasn't planning to make this thread but after watching last Kurzgesagt's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnzcwTyr6cE) I thought "why not".

This will also permit to some people to answer to the previous (illegitimately locked) thread about GE.
Especially Paraxiom and ImCoolBeans

I had talked about my personal views previously, to those who wonder i have no real problem whatsoever with "editing nature" and modifying the human genome.

I do believe though that the first steps will occur in agriculture (by that I mean way greater changes on GMOs that we're actually at) and of course health with for example the eradication of diseases.

Anyway, thoughts people?

--------------

Original name was "Genetic Engineering Hype Train".

mattsmith48
September 21st, 2016, 07:03 PM
Ive said before that this is how horror movies starts. I think purposely changing the DNA of animals and plants should be taken to a case by case basis.

Ghaem
September 22nd, 2016, 01:53 AM
Experience has taught me that anything that enters the ring of Business, no matter how good it is, will be overran by Evil.

Let us just say this. Genetic Engineering itself is just a field. Neither good nor bad.

When it is used moderately, solely for services, step by step and little by little, it can help. But when it is for business, which it actually is going to be, needs ask for productions to be increased, clamor for apparently better products will raise, the main goal will get forgotten and better earns will take its place and guess what, unwillingly genetic engineering will become a new type of unintended Weapon.

So let me just say that minor changes under condition of Moderate Action permitted, any major changes in Genetics must be encountered.

The same thing for full human cloning.

Flapjack
September 22nd, 2016, 01:40 PM
I am very happy to have GM foods and animals that we eat, I would love for them to remove genetic diseases however and dead against 'designer babies' and GE babies to make better solders.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2187276/U-S-Army-Soldiers-able-run-Olympic-speed-wont-need-food-sleep-gene-technology.html

phuckphace
September 22nd, 2016, 03:20 PM
the problem I have isn't so much the GMOs themselves but rather biotech's potential for abuse, in this case the possibilities are more alarming than most. obviously there's nothing wrong with wanting to combat disease and hunger, but the way only the upsides are advertised is suspicious. capitalism is unfortunately entrenched beyond hope, and we've already seen what happens when capitalists get their hands on something - the shift immediately refocuses from discovery and the greater good to profit margins, to which all else is subordinate.

in other words:

what's supposed to happen: animal, human and plant diseases eradicated, food reaches post-scarcity, everyone lives happily for an average life expectancy of 500 years ever after

what will actually happen: lobbying, DRM/copy protection added to plant genomes, lobbying, lobbying, lobbying, suddenly food can only be consumed with a licensed Monsanto-brand fork, all food is passed undigested unless you accept the user agreement and buy a Monsanto EatNow! monthly subscription, lobbying

Kahn
September 22nd, 2016, 03:48 PM
I am for genetic engineering, but against progressing it at the moment because I feel there is no proper body to regulate it and ensure it will be used for the greater good of humanity, not just a society, or for profiteering.

I don't have the answer as to how we will, who will, or what should regulate it (I've come to learn I'm a broad thinker, not very good at developing detail or nuance). But I am of the opinion advances in this area need to be approached with heavy ethical scrutiny.

phuckphace
September 22nd, 2016, 03:57 PM
I think another issue is that regulatory capture will occur as a given, so just saying "we need better oversight" is pointing out the obvious but isn't useful otherwise. the only way I can see this being prevented with certainty is rule by an autocrat who opposes it, but even then that's only good for as long as he's around.

again, lots of things have been corrupted by rent-seeking but our food supply is the one thing we don't need messed with, and letting the corps get as big as they have we're already in trouble as it is.

Vlerchan
September 23rd, 2016, 03:22 PM
the shift immediately refocuses from discovery and the greater good to profit margins, to which all else is subordinate.
I'm sceptical that other industries that rely on a stock of well-educated individuals - and eating well fosters the sort of development they are interested in - would be willing to let companies capture regulators to the extent that it becomes ruinous for the rest of us.

It's just not in capital's general interest even if it is in the interest of some arms for it.

[...] dead against 'designer babies' [...]
I don't see a good means of regulating this - in general, genetic modification - that doesn't just result in corporations transferring their premises to somewhere developing and then only making it more difficult for normal people to access the services.

Zenos
September 23rd, 2016, 08:35 PM
Ive said before that this is how horror movies starts. I think purposely changing the DNA of animals and plants should be taken to a case by case basis.

And yet the majority of fruits and veggies we buy from stores have been genetically modified

Paraxiom
September 23rd, 2016, 08:44 PM
I wasn't planning to make this thread but after watching last Kurzgesagt's video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnzcwTyr6cE) I thought "why not".

Kurzgesagt's videos are quite good at the efficient explanation/illustration skill, I find.


This will also permit to some people to answer to the previous (illegitimately locked) thread about GE.
Especially Paraxiom and ImCoolBeans

Justice!

I might as well respond to what you said in that thread that I couldn't reply to, which will start now:

- - - - - - - -

No I'm rather talking about the raising process.
For example the way your parents feed you, what they authorize you to do and what "customs" they teach you are significant factor for your way of life as an adult and thus on your body.
I agree this is not really at the same level as s modified phenotype though.

Our personality/self is hugely influenced in its progression by our parents, yes, but the personality/self was not planned in foresight with technological precision for meeting the desires of the parents, nor is the personality irreversibly 'fixed' within a certain range of change - someone can be rebellious/hurt/etc enough to change as a person when older.


Not everyone will be disturbed by such kind of things. And if customs spread it is very likely that only future conservatives will be against it.

I know most people would not be, but I am taking the (unusual, perhaps) stance that the desire to change quite core unnecessary aspects of other bodies to satisfy our own noticing of imperfections and our own views of body beauty, is not to be encouraged.


Though I understand the idea to stay along with some sort of "classic" process in order to keep some stability to the very concepts of family, parenthood, how humans represent themselves etc.

I'm with that.


What I mean is that the "consciousness creation" process, and thus the development of the child is a so complicated process (or at least the complexity of the structure is astounding compared to what it's based on, aka simply DNA) that the very "you" won't simply exist if your DNA wasn't that way.
That's also why I find some questions like "imagine you were born a girl" stupid.

Oh, I agree. Our self is strict in its form, and copy-pasting us into a different scenario of environment and/or memory necessarily has some of our self literally losing meaning along the way. With the example you give, I cannot imagine myself as a girl, because I am not a girl, my self cannot be that, though I can sacrifice parts of it to try to imagine nevertheless. I was not lucky to be born here and not in starvation, because I have to be here, there was no contingency in that. (I probably will make a thread on that offshoot idea, as it happens.)

- - - - - - - -

I had talked about my personal views previously, to those who wonder i have no real problem whatsoever with "editing nature" and modifying the human genome.

I don't blanket-oppose the intention to modify the human genome either, but I am specifically not for modification for cosmetic reasons, which I mentioned above.


I do believe though that the first steps will occur in agriculture (by that I mean way greater changes on GMOs that we're actually at) and of course health with for example the eradication of diseases.

Hopefully.


Original name was "Genetic Engineering Hype Train".

Reminds me of the time when I misread a biology book's description of the biochemistry of photosynthesis, seeing 'electron transport train', instead of 'chain'. :D


the problem I have isn't so much the GMOs themselves but rather biotech's potential for abuse, in this case the possibilities are more alarming than most. obviously there's nothing wrong with wanting to combat disease and hunger, but the way only the upsides are advertised is suspicious. capitalism is unfortunately entrenched beyond hope, and we've already seen what happens when capitalists get their hands on something - the shift immediately refocuses from discovery and the greater good to profit margins, to which all else is subordinate.

in other words:

what's supposed to happen: animal, human and plant diseases eradicated, food reaches post-scarcity, everyone lives happily for an average life expectancy of 500 years ever after

what will actually happen: lobbying, DRM/copy protection added to plant genomes, lobbying, lobbying, lobbying, suddenly food can only be consumed with a licensed Monsanto-brand fork, all food is passed undigested unless you accept the user agreement and buy a Monsanto EatNow! monthly subscription, lobbying

Yes! This is the main problem, and


I think another issue is that regulatory capture will occur as a given, so just saying "we need better oversight" is pointing out the obvious but isn't useful otherwise. the only way I can see this being prevented with certainty is rule by an autocrat who opposes it, but even then that's only good for as long as he's around.

[...] letting the corps get as big as they have we're already in trouble as it is.

agreed.


[...] our food supply is the one thing we don't need messed with [...]

Food supply is one of the foundations to human civilization as we know it now; even mass shutdown of supermarkets for a day would cause major problems, I imagine. If only this actually happened but instead just with MacDonald's as a whole :P . (even those Japanese adverts can be done without...)


And yet the majority of fruits and veggies we buy from stores have been genetically modified

mattsmith48

Funny how organic vegetables/fruits/etc generally have higher carcinogenic content than those through industry, due to natural biochemical defence against pathogens and such.

I'm not putting out a set implication here as such, more instead just showing the subtle complexities/inconveniences in this all. There is no perfect way out of this, and I actually am good with that.