WASHINGTON (AP)-- The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, despite claims they might harm the...
Since this is Huffington-Post, I'm surprised by this article. It sets out the issues, presents pro and con arguments. Finally, the author expresses his view. A refreshing change from what's usual here.
Sheldon101: Since this is Huffington-Post, I'm surprised by this article. It
My dividing line for new technologies is the type of answer I'll get to the question "If things go wrong, what happens then?"
Manageable technology:
- You develop a new drug, and it has a lot of previously unknown side effects. The fix - recall the drug.
- A new type of electric car motor gets developed, but shows dangerous instabilities after real road use. The fix - recall and redesign the engine.
There's lots more examples I could give, but you get the idea.
But with other technologies, the key concept is irreversible disaster. For example:
- New technology allows you to drill for oil at extreme depths, but you have no sure way to plug the well if things go wrong. The fix - inadequate or even impossible. And then you inflict incredible damage on the economy and ecology of the Gulf, or even further.
- You release a GM bug into the wild and it shows traits you never anticipated in the lab. The fix - introduce another GM bug to fix the first one, or there is no fix. You have literally created a problem with a life of its own, that can go where it wants, and continue as long as it wants.
The cost/benefit ratio of GM bugs might be worth it to the Monsantos of the world, but the cost/benefit to the people of the Earth mostly likely won't, if one disaster can outweigh all the good benefits.
WestcoastSteve: My dividing line for new technologies is the type of
Evolution has produced all the organisms needed for stable ecosystems with little entropy. Human overpopulation alters the ecosystem, then tries to correct the problems it causes by using genetically modified organisms, something organic farming and disease prevention has done without GMO's or harmful chemicals.
Genetic modification of organisms is a good source of employment for biochemists, but a dangerous, unnecessary burden for a biosphere under siege.
direct_democracy: Evolution has produced all the organisms needed for stable ecosystems
Why not just genetically modify Republicans and those other insects who call themselves "conservatives" to remove their overgrown greed gene? Also modify their
trash-the-planet-for-short-term-profits gene.
thruseer: Why not just genetically modify Republicans and those other insects
I thought that Republican were actually the mutated results of failed GM modifications of pigs which were designed to be released into our environment to eat our garbage.
They mutated into politicians and instead, began feeding the garbage to us.
Fein: I thought that Republican were actually the mutated results of
Are there so few real problems today that these scientists have to f*(k with everything in nature just to amuse themselves? Leave our effing food chain alone and that includes insects. "Unintended consequences" sounds so harmless...man-made plagues, species eradication and "destroying the balance of nature" are much scarier terms.
edejan: Are there so few real problems today that these scientists
The is nothing in Nature that is imperfect except our understanding of it! We go from one form of manipulation to another, and from one paradox to another in the name of "improved methods towards unimproved ends". The question is how can we understand that which we aspire to control without understanding ourSELF? It's playing god without the playbook, except the one that we-the ego-the half perception of the "total", have invented to validate our collective pretension. How can we control interconnected ecosystems, when we ourselves are disconnected by war, economic and strife etc., when we can't even manage our own culture as a sphere (as in Nature) rather than a pyramid (a hierarchical system of inferiors and superiors) which are "real" and (designed) within the perception of Man, but illusory in the actuality of Nature? which is why we still view humans as disposable assets, while making e.g. gold a cherish commodity (an arbitrary assignment) that has no intrinsic value!
It is fashionable for the shallow thinker to marvel at the accomplishments of our empiricist driven science. But those who are "empirically objective" know all to well the many consequenses heaped upon our health and environment, in our zeal to exploit and capitalize on a technology, while not resolving those pesky side effects (the known and unknown) in our equations.
Thus, Nature is not our enemy. The enemy is the human ego-the only demon that makes trophies of Man!
DofG: The is nothing in Nature that is imperfect except our
I highly recommend Stewart Brand's new book, Whole Earth Discipline: an Ecopragmatist Manifesto, for a reasoned discussion of GMOs. He also discusses nuclear power among other things. Brand was a radical environmentalist of the 1970s. Today he says, "Those who know the most (about GMO for example) are not afraid". Educate yourselves.
HeresHoping: I highly recommend Stewart Brand's new book, Whole Earth Discipline:
“What Next?”
What exactly is the pre-prepared containment protocol proposed by GM corporations, in the event of a GM spill? Or are we waiting for it to happen first, before the incumbent CEO is lightly grilled between both sides of government. To reveal that there isn’t an actual recovery plan.
Some might insist that such safeguards are unlikely ever to be needed. Maybe. But even a mad cow might find that difficult to believe.
lastpost: “What Next?†What exactly is the pre-prepared containment protocol proposed
"Some members of the public could genuinely question whether we should be taking on the role of mother nature."
Funny how people like you always use this argument in context of biotechnology. What about architecture? Nobody proposes that we should rather live in trees. You embrace research to find a medicine against cancer or AIDS (biotechnology) yet you doubt that thousands of professionals can't do their job right on an insect.
Just like you said: "yet this emerging field is still in its infancy." EXACTLY! This is why we do it. To get out of this stage. Not doing anything won't get us out of the infant stage.
SilentSolidarity: "Some members of the public could genuinely question whether we
The tension is not between biotechnology and architecture. It is between differing views of the proper way humans should relate to the planet and the life it hosts. Should we dominate or cooperate? Are we part of the world, or are we a higher form of life born to rule and exploit the lower life forms that co-inhabit the environment? Is it our destiny to change everything? As we struggle out of ignorance, out of our infant stage, how do we guide our actions? What does an adult human look like, and how does it behave? Where is the buck, and where does it stop?
ForTheChildren: The tension is not between biotechnology and architecture. It is
I agree. It's all about perspectives. Humans are already dominating the earth. Our expansion to fill the many corners of our planet have devastated habitats and reduced diversity to the point that nature will never fully recover. One example brought to mind is the exploitation of tar sands. We are already exploiting many life-forms. Take animal breeding for example where many dog breeders force siblings to mate. Who's playing mother nature there?
What do people think about genetically engineered bacteria? Scary? Well, what about the ones we put human DNA in bacteria to make insulin for all the Type I diabetics? Get some perspectives, educate yourselves. There are doctors, researchers, and their institutes who are taking painfully careful steps to understand every possible benefit AND risk BEFORE introducing anything novel. Not doing anything will impact or kill millions more from vector-borne diseases.
Neotoma01: I agree. It's all about perspectives. Humans are already dominating
Without humane forms of birth control, it seems that disease, famine, predation and in our case wars, crime, etc. are nature's way of controlling the population numbers of all species. Humans can do this humanely, but conservatives prefer the violent, cruel animal ways of nature, except that they eliminate natural selection with WMD's.
What competition does for animals, appropriate technology can do for humans without suffering, bloodshed or dangerous remedies like releasing GMO's, chemicals and other pollutants into the environment.
BTW, "get some perspectives and educate yourselves" sounds like "I am a condescending and arrogant know it all".
direct_democracy: Without humane forms of birth control, it seems that disease,
If it's just to introduce sterile GM insects into the environment in order to control natural populations, that's one thing (although one that probably needs more thought than "Bug A eats crops or carries disease organism B, so let's wipe it out"). But once you start implanting other supposedly benign properties, that's another thing entirely. If nothing else, all natural organisms that normally interact with these creatures will eventually adapt to the GM changes, in ways that are unlikely to be very predictable. There is a long history of disastrous effects caused by the introduction of totally natural organisms into an environment in which they were previously unknown. The introduction of such animals as starlings and nutria into the US are examples. We really need to learn more before getting heavily into GM bugs, especially since the prime motive for their introduction seems to be making megabucks for big corporations.
whitebeach: If it's just to introduce sterile GM insects into the
Loading comments… 
Manageable technology
- You develop a new drug, and it has a lot of previously unknown side effects. The fix - recall the drug.
- A new type of electric car motor gets developed, but shows dangerous instabilit
There's lots more examples I could give, but you get the idea.
But with other technologi
- New technology allows you to drill for oil at extreme depths, but you have no sure way to plug the well if things go wrong. The fix - inadequate or even impossible
- You release a GM bug into the wild and it shows traits you never anticipate
The cost/benef
Genetic modificati
ecosphere is insane.
trash-the-
They mutated into politician
It is fashionabl
Thus, Nature is not our enemy. The enemy is the human ego-the only demon that makes trophies of Man!
What exactly is the pre-prepar
Some might insist that such safeguards are unlikely ever to be needed. Maybe. But even a mad cow might find that difficult to believe.
Funny how people like you always use this argument in context of biotechnol
Just like you said: "yet this emerging field is still in its infancy." EXACTLY! This is why we do it. To get out of this stage. Not doing anything won't get us out of the infant stage.
What do people think about geneticall
What competitio
BTW, "get some perspectiv