Geneticall Modified Food - what do you think?

Discussions and related news items
Post Reply
Martha
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm

Geneticall Modified Food - what do you think?

Post by Martha » Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:41 pm

I'm watching that ANIMAL FARM series on CH4, about genetific-modification of animals, e.g., transplanting the fluorescent gen from jelly fish into pigs - that then glow in the dark.

These scientists may (or may not) be well-intentioned, but, it seems to me they are meddling with Mother Nature in a totally unnatural (speeded-up) way. What do you people think?
CatHerder
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:57 pm

Post by CatHerder » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:04 pm

I’ve heard a concern about species-specific viruses jumping between species but generally speaking I think advances in genetics are exciting. I can’t see the need for glow in the dark pigs however.
Martha
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:47 pm

Post by Martha » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:29 pm

CatHerder wrote:I think advances in genetics are exciting. I can’t see the need for glow in the dark pigs however.
Some og thos advances might be, but the general impression I get is that there is a hidden agenda there, that is not for the benefit of humanity -..... large profits on the horizon! Its just the latest version of the Control Freaks in our midst wanting to OWN the planet and everything and everyone one it. Sick.
FXR
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Geneticall Modified Food - what do you think?

Post by FXR » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:43 pm

Martha wrote:I'm watching that ANIMAL FARM series on CH4, about genetific-modification of animals, e.g., transplanting the fluorescent gen from jelly fish into pigs - that then glow in the dark.

These scientists may (or may not) be well-intentioned, but, it seems to me they are meddling with Mother Nature in a totally unnatural (speeded-up) way. What do you people think?
Pigs wot glow in the dark! Aw go on! Next theyll be breeding them to fly to the slaughter house on their own!
Human communication is a very rickety rope bridge between minds. Its too narrow to allow but a few thoughts to cross at a time. Many are lost in the chasms of noise, suspicion, misinterpretation and shooting the message through dislike of the messenger.
brianmmulligan
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Sligo

Post by brianmmulligan » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:44 pm

I have no objection to people making a profit if they provide a useful service. Genetically modified crops have much greater value to the developing world than to the rich world that can afford to spend extra on their traditional, natural or organic foods. Geneticall modified crops may also be better for the environment. For example their resistance to insects can be more specific thus reducing the need for spraying with indiscriminate chemicals that kill insects that do not effect them and thus have a greater impact on the local ecology. No doubt the developers want to make a profit but that does not mean that they want to do harm. In fact they are more likely to make a profit if they do more good than harm.
Brian
brianmmulligan
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Sligo

Post by brianmmulligan » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:46 pm

People tend to think that natural is good. Does that include natural disasters?
Brian
Rincewind
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:08 pm

Post by Rincewind » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:47 pm

Seen a documentary a while back where only one in 9 are sucessful. For every one dolly there are 8 failures where the animal has cell problems due to the size of the cell. I don't mind the experiments but they seem to have not nailed down any kind of real process to lead to sucess which means they are doing it without full knowledge of what is happening. The worrying part is if a virus mutates down to the genitic makup of the animal. I am not an expert but if the are worried about the bird flue transfering to humans what could happen if a pig geniticly engineered for human anibiotics got a flue. It's unlikely anything major could happen but the the question is are we willing to take the risk of fast progress ahead of controlled progress.

Rincewind
Last edited by Rincewind on Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FXR
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Post by FXR » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:48 pm

And how natural is the cross breeding that has led to the varietys of animals we have been consuming since my grandfather held the horse for Brian Boru.
Human communication is a very rickety rope bridge between minds. Its too narrow to allow but a few thoughts to cross at a time. Many are lost in the chasms of noise, suspicion, misinterpretation and shooting the message through dislike of the messenger.
Rincewind
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:08 pm

Post by Rincewind » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:01 am

This a good point but only certian animals nature only allows cross breeding with a group, unlike a deer and a heffer which some idiot of a TD suggested could hapen last week on the last word.
Geneitic engineering want to jump ahead or cross these barriers. I'm not against it but I think that if they are creating a 100 in order to get 10 and then even these have a short lifespan then they are not in contol, they are using statistics and propability as a tool and not controls.
There is a lot of potential in this area but when people like Dr Severino Antinori who wants to clone humans when we still can't produce a healthy animal of lower DNA there are lines being crossed which we are not ready for yet.

Rincewind
lostexpectation
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:28 pm

Post by lostexpectation » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:34 am

brianmmulligan wrote:I have no objection to people making a profit if they provide a useful service. Genetically modified crops have much greater value to the developing world than to the rich world that can afford to spend extra on their traditional, natural or organic foods. Geneticall modified crops may also be better for the environment. For example their resistance to insects can be more specific thus reducing the need for spraying with indiscriminate chemicals that kill insects that do not effect them and thus have a greater impact on the local ecology. No doubt the developers want to make a profit but that does not mean that they want to do harm. In fact they are more likely to make a profit if they do more good than harm.
gmo will do little for the developing world, the (developing) world suffer mostly as did we in the famine for problems of food distribution, not necessarily yield or disease, but when a combination of these come and the is a general level of poverty and unfair distribution this is what cause mass starvation, most of these people aren't doing science (science an indisputable word?) but industry. the gmo companies keep infering that it will solve world hunger and are setting up lab in 3rd world countries and 'accidently' releasing their seeds in order to insipitentally gain market share before anyone has the chance to consider the implications, meanwhile they've ruined large parts of the inidan and american rice industries...

trapping poor farmings into using only one type of seed for one year with only one type of fertiliser is disgracful but highly profitable practice yes, it will be good for shareholders
Post Reply