The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 70    Average: 4.4/5]
124 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 18614
Rating: 4.4
Category: Science
Date: 04/15/10 08:00 AM

124 Responses to The Fear Of Science Will Kill Us

  1. Profile photo of blonde_8080
    blonde_8080 Female 13-17
    50 posts
    April 14, 2010 at 10:18 am
    Link: The Fear Of Science Will Kill Us - A couple minutes longer than what I-A-B usually runs, but this guy makes interesting points about society and science.
  2. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:17 am
    Now what will global warming deniers say?
  3. Profile photo of Tinkerbellio
    Tinkerbellio Female 18-29
    1001 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:19 am
    That`s Roy Walker from Catchphrase..

    It`s good, but it`s not right.
  4. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:21 am
    Good points well made
  5. Profile photo of Taipan
    Taipan Male 18-29
    156 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:25 am
    this guy is suuuuuuch a douche
  6. Profile photo of NotAllowed
    NotAllowed Female 18-29
    526 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:32 am
    good speech.
    i liked the part where he said: "science is not a company, not a country...it`s an idea.."
  7. Profile photo of barrooo
    barrooo Male 30-39
    414 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:36 am
    `That`s Roy Walker from Catchphrase..

    It`s good, but it`s not right.`

    Say what you see
  8. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4809 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:43 am
    People against GE foods, such as green peace, are responsible for millions of deaths because of pure ignorance and propaganda.
  9. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:46 am
    I saw this on Tuesday, and I agree with everything.
  10. Profile photo of pui
    pui Female 18-29
    3574 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:54 am
    I watched this yesterday! I quite enjoyed it. I hate people who won`t get their damn kids vaccinated.
  11. Profile photo of MamboPoa
    MamboPoa Female 18-29
    5 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:59 am
    About vaccinations: there are a certain percentage of people with immune systems that react very badly to the MMR vaccine; it`s not a one-size-fits-all solution even if it doesn`t correlate with autism. Giving them to the whole population indiscriminately is like prescribing peanuts to everybody, regardless of allergies. Immune systems and their reactions to vaccines should be better researched and understood along with the development of new vaccines.
  12. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:00 am
    GE food is so young and not well understood that we do not know what the long term effects are. to act like being afraid of it because of that is retarded. science is exactly what we need, so long as it is tempered with caution and study. we move too quickly and before we know the long term effect of something it is too late and BOOM we have climate change, pollution, acid rain, etc.
  13. Profile photo of pui
    pui Female 18-29
    3574 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:05 am
    @MamboPoa: there is always someone who is allergic. I doubt that will ever change.

    Also, vaccines work, in part, because almost everyone is vaccinated. Vaccines are not 100% effective, but if 98% of the population is vaccinated, then a disease has no chance to spread. So, people who are allergic to a vaccine are still technically protected. If more and more people do not get vaccinated though, then we have a problem.
  14. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4809 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:06 am
    Google "Norman Borlaug" the greatest man who has ever lived.
    He is credited for saving 1 BILLION lives because of his research on GE foods. That`s 1 Billion, with a B.
  15. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:08 am
    Creationists - this includes YOU!
  16. Profile photo of DeutschDude9
    DeutschDude9 Male 18-29
    473 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:10 am
    YEAH- Let us Microbial geneticists, and all other geneticists do our job to make life better for you. Stop resisting.
  17. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7470 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:20 am
    i completely agree with him; he hit all of his arguments correctly, and he did so logically.
  18. Profile photo of Salted_Eggs
    Salted_Eggs Male 18-29
    774 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:25 am
    I wish more people were like this.
  19. Profile photo of Slings
    Slings Male 30-39
    36 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:38 am
    @ MamboPoa - Just because one size doesn`t fit all, doesn`t mean you throw out the whole system. If a miniscule percentage of the population is allergic to peanuts, you shouldn’t ban peanuts. The percentage of children that MAY have an adverse reaction to a vaccination is much lower than those who would die without them…

    @Jaime76 - GE food is not young, we just have a better understanding of how biology works and don`t have to modify through selective breeding. I thank you for siding with reason and I agree with your caution, but let us not allow caution to prevent our advance.

    As a side note, arguing with people that have extreme belief systems (based on religion or misinformation) is futile because they don`t listen to facts and refuse to self-analyze.
  20. Profile photo of dracokain
    dracokain Male 18-29
    266 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:40 am
    Bravo sir
  21. Profile photo of Kadinsky
    Kadinsky Male 18-29
    575 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:40 am
    His voice is terrible. I stopped halfway through just because of it. He sounds like a 14-year old teen in his puberty.
  22. Profile photo of mac_n_cheese
    mac_n_cheese Male 13-17
    148 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:41 am
    back in the day, farmers used to ensure a good crop by mating a strong healthy male with a strong female plant.this made good crops. this meant the strong genetic traits were kept
    now they ensure a good crop by doing the same, only this time they change the genetics directly
    its almost the same idea, but alot quicker
  23. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 30-39
    2588 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:51 am
    this just wasted my last 15 mins before work. if you like hearing some whiny pretentious failface rant about nothing new or revolutionary.. go ahead..
  24. Profile photo of Oystah
    Oystah Female 40-49
    4032 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:55 am
    That was a refreshing dose of common sense. Poor people - we just listen to whatever`s coming out of the TV and the celebutard of the day`s mouth and don`t use our own minds. Poor, scared people being controlled by marketers.
  25. Profile photo of Clayboy
    Clayboy Male 18-29
    651 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:07 am
    the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  26. Profile photo of yumyum1
    yumyum1 Male 18-29
    129 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:18 am
    its just the US, not the rest of the world. US is not the world.
  27. Profile photo of spiralraisin
    spiralraisin Male 18-29
    30 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:20 am
    Lots of other videos at TED.com
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32829 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:35 am
    Whiner! He says how great it is that there`s billions of people around, living longer & etc, BUT then he points out (accidentily) the problems that huge population causes.
    In other words, he`s clueless about cause = effect.
  29. Profile photo of Evil_Eye
    Evil_Eye Male 18-29
    1442 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:35 am
    I agree with him, but he isn`t the right man to say it. No offence to the guy, but the idiots you are going to have to convince are the same idiots who just listen to the person with the most charisma, whitest teeth and loudest voice. A working brain is just a bonus.
    Explaining it to them like an adult will do nothing... they will just say something like "Don`t like his voice!" and don`t bother finishing.
  30. Profile photo of zazuch
    zazuch Male 18-29
    286 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:36 am
    @notallowed
    good speech.
    i liked the part where he said: "science is not a company, not a country...it`s an idea.."

    You mean a process. He also said its not a idea but a process.
  31. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 11:07 am
    @5cats

    Moron. He`s pointing out that these problems need to be fixed, and the best way to fix them is use of the scientific method.

    Would you prefer the wholesale slaughter of billions as a cure?

    You are clueless when it comes to listening apparently.
  32. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 11:09 am
    You would think that by 2010 it would be obvious that science is our future... I guess we still need to evolve a lot of more *sigh*
  33. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 11:53 am
    Evil_Eye - I agree, but then there are still people who support Bush and he couldn`t even tell a `why did the chicken cross the road` joke without f***ing it up. People only listen to facts that are consistent with previously established beliefs, no matter how stupid or sinister or flat out incompetent the person is who is saying it. If tomorrow scientists discovered evidence that completely charted every step of human evolution, it still wouldn`t be enough to convince anyone who was taught their whole life to believe what the bible says. I love the concepts America was founded on, but its often wasted on the close minded and ignorant.
  34. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 11:57 am
    Hey, any mods out there who can help me out? I changed my profile pic two weeks ago and it still shows baby Sloth.
  35. Profile photo of pui
    pui Female 18-29
    3574 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    Brassbull, I had that problem. I would just try changing it again.
  36. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    Hey, whaddaya know. Thanks Pui! Must have done that 20 times the other day but it didn`t work till now.
  37. Profile photo of peloos12
    peloos12 Male 18-29
    3822 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    I smell a segue to ICP!
  38. Profile photo of peloos12
    peloos12 Male 18-29
    3822 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 12:37 pm
    Brass - trying to change it more than once in one day usually doesn`t work. If it ever happens again, wait 24 hours and try again.
  39. Profile photo of Brassbull
    Brassbull Male 30-39
    1610 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    Thanks Peloos. That was the problem, i was toying around with different pics but it got stuck on slothboy.
  40. Profile photo of sgrin27
    sgrin27 Male 18-29
    77 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    So is this guy a motivational speaker?
  41. Profile photo of Tiredofnicks
    Tiredofnicks Male 30-39
    5097 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Slings: Your peanut-allergy analogy is both inaccurate and accurate at the same time. It`s inaccurate because science has found the cure for peanut allergy, and it`s accurate because, well, science has found a cure for peanut allergy.
  42. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    an opinion is not always fact!!!!!!!!!!
  43. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    Africa has the arable land, resources, and manpower to take care of itself. If only we gave them the technology and ability to do so.

    The biggest scourge in Africa is not AIDS, It`s Malaria. Malaria is completely preventable, Just kill the mosquitoes. America and Europe killed them with DDT and it worked fabulously, Then some quack claimed it hurt fish and birds (which has since been disproved) and they banned DDT. We even banned DDT from other countries, Like those in Africa, When they had no say so about it.

    Why do we still ban it ? Elitism, The powerful countries of this world do not want Africa to prosper, They are afraid they would compete with them and win. The ban on DDT is nothing more than elitist population control and colonialism.

    Now that ban is coming back to haunt us. Bedbugs have returned and exploded in population in America and Europe when they were nothing more than a line in a children`s song a few decades ago.
  44. Profile photo of mamba
    mamba Male 18-29
    628 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 2:01 pm
    firstly time machines can only go forwards theoretically (or to the time they were built)

    secondly america has one of the worst ave life expectancy to national wealth in the world
  45. Profile photo of idiotfilter
    idiotfilter Male 18-29
    3916 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 2:02 pm
    but, fatninja, you are always annoying...
  46. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 2:21 pm
    Bedbugs are now immune to the pyrethrins we normally use to kill insects. These little vampiric monsters are becoming epidemic because they are tough to get rid of. DDT is cheap, It`s effective and poses only minor risks. Compared to the alternative (non-pyrethrin) insecticides sold over the counter DDT is much safer.

    To sum up he`s exactly right, We`ve let hysteria and suspicion cloud our reason when it comes to the science of controlling pests, Engineering better foods, Inventing better vaccines, And creating energy.

  47. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1677 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    He`s not really making a point. "Science is good" really would have sufficed. He`s going back and forth between what`s good for wealthy countries and what`s good for poor countries. Sure, genetically modified food that`s injected with nutrients or whatever would be good for Africa, but I personally don`t want molecular-freak foods in my body. And what was he saying about taking vitamins in the morning? That it was pointless? Yet then he supports putting vitamin A in rice. He`s making sweeping statements. I`m sure vaccines are good overall, but guess what, a lot of crap in them is filler. Just filler chemicals.
  48. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1677 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:12 pm
    And organic food is about reducing the chemicals ingested from pesticides and whatever else. He`s kind of being as much of a dumbass as the people he`s ridiculing by playing with fear in the same way. Don`t fear science or you`ll get the plague! Guess what? The FDA is supposed to test poo for safety, and things that are totally fine one year are pulled off the market for causing death or hysteric diarrhea or whatever the next. I`ll take natural approaches over having a doctor throw pills at me to treat the symptoms and not the cause. My lame hippie colours are showing, but his excuse for some sort of argument against.. I don`t even know what certainly didn`t make me want to eat some genetically engineered corn.

    Science is good yes, but that doesn`t mean everything it creates is.
  49. Profile photo of yellowsquare
    yellowsquare Female 18-29
    1545 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    Boadicea, you`ve just illustrated the point he`s trying to make. There`s absolutely nothing wrong with genetically-modified foods. They`re not "molecular freaks". They`ve had their DNA altered a little bit, but we`ve been doing that since the dawn of man, using selective breeding.

    Actually, genetically-modified foods can reduce the use of harmful chemicals and pesticides. Insect-resistant crops can and have been made!

    I don`t understand the movement against genetically-modified foods. I guess the word "genetically-modified" sounds scary, but it`s really not.
  50. Profile photo of SomeShoes
    SomeShoes Male 13-17
    2056 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    on the subject of gene switching:
    "As The Future Catches You" by Juan Enriquez
  51. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:36 pm
    Comparing genetic engineering with selective breeding is dubious.

    There are many failsafes built into selective breeding. That`s not the case with genetic engineering. One mistake, one thing overlooked, one unexpected mutation could blight the planet or even make it uninhabitable. Maybe we do need to genetically engineer food on a massive scale, but there are huge risks and saying it`s the same as selective breeding is simply wrong. We should be scared of genetic engineering because it`s so extremely powerful. In some ways, it`s more powerful than nuclear fission or even fusion. We could create entirely new lifeforms and introduce them into existing ecosystems...but can we be *sure* of the results?

    I agree with his basic point, though. We either improve technology or billions die soon and human civilisation, maybe humanity itself, becomes extinct with the next major problem. Maybe a plague, maybe climate change, maybe asteroid impact, maybe something else.
  52. Profile photo of SomeShoes
    SomeShoes Male 13-17
    2056 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    Boadicea, by vitamins, he means those things that are shaped like the Flintstones you take at breakfast each morning.

    @yumyum1, you`d be surprised how influential the US is
  53. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    I should point out that this fear is nothing new. It is in fact ancient. Case in point:
    Galileo Galilei.
  54. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    There`s absolutely nothing wrong with genetically-modified foods. They`re not "molecular freaks". They`ve had their DNA altered a little bit, but we`ve been doing that since the dawn of man, using selective breeding.

    That is not true.

    I don`t understand the movement against genetically-modified foods. I guess the word "genetically-modified" sounds scary, but it`s really not.

    It is if you know enough to realise that what you wrote above is not true.

    Genetic engineering goes way, way beyond selective breeding and without the failsafes.

    A random example...do you think you could cross monkeys and jellyfish with selective breeding? There are monkeys alive today with jellyfish genes added by genetic engineering. It could be done with humans just as easily. DNA is a universal language - any cell can process any DNA from any other animal or plant.
  55. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:46 pm
    It goes past even that, actually. There are people today who are close to being able to create entirely new lifeforms from scratch, writing their DNA to order. A computer, some chemicals. The lab fits in a cabin in a small boat.

    No, it is not the same as selective breeding.
  56. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1677 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    "Boadicea, by vitamins, he means those things that are shaped like the Flintstones you take at breakfast each morning."

    Okay well how can he say those are ineffective or useless when he`s promoting putting that into foods? A vitamin is a vitamin. If you didn`t eat enough nutrients in a day, topping yourself up with a multi doesn`t seem useless at all. He`s denouncing taking vitamins in the morning why?

    This guy is a turd.
  57. Profile photo of matsuri_aka
    matsuri_aka Female 18-29
    252 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    I know that this is very easy for me to say; since I do live in a priviledged country, but if we all lived to be 90-100 years old then there`d be too many people.
  58. Profile photo of yellowsquare
    yellowsquare Female 18-29
    1545 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 5:48 pm
    Angilion, yes. Selective breeding is modifying genes. I refer you to Mendelian genetics--specifically Mendel`s peas. There is the simplest definition of genetic modification. I`m not wrong about this.

    You`re right. The technology we have today is much more powerful, and because of this we need to be very, very careful. The possibility of a massive catastrophe is huge. But it`s not huge enough to ignore the great good this technology can do. Mankind could literally solve world hunger and poverty.
  59. Profile photo of yellowsquare
    yellowsquare Female 18-29
    1545 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    Boadicea, he`s saying that as citizens of a privileged country with not only basic amenities, but also a wealth of nutritional resources, we really don`t need the vitamins we take in the morning because we already get them in our diet.

    He`s advocating the insertion of vitamin A into rice because people in those parts of the world that don`t get enough nutrients have diets based around rice.
  60. Profile photo of beeyooteeful
    beeyooteeful Female 18-29
    546 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 5:59 pm
    Lol the entire audience is white
  61. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1677 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    Uh, but we do need them in our diet. Living in a wealthy country doesn`t mean we`re automatically healthy- we`re just well fed. People shoving big macs in their mouths 5 times a week could do well to take a drating multivitamin. I really don`t think that was his point- he`s just ripping on naturalists (even though multivitamins are not natural anyway).
  62. Profile photo of Boadicea
    Boadicea Female 18-29
    1677 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    oh my drating god spammers go drat yourselves. jesus drating christ.
  63. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 6:07 pm
    Okay well how can he say those are ineffective or useless when he`s promoting putting that into foods? A vitamin is a vitamin. If you didn`t eat enough nutrients in a day, topping yourself up with a multi doesn`t seem useless at all. He`s denouncing taking vitamins in the morning why?

    Probably because of the lack of evidence that your body actually takes in any of the vitamins taken in that way. It appears that they pass straight through you and are passed out in your urine.
  64. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 6:14 pm
    Angilion, yes. Selective breeding is modifying genes. I refer you to Mendelian genetics--specifically Mendel`s peas. There is the simplest definition of genetic modification. I`m not wrong about this.

    There are very big differences, so it is wrong to say they`re the same thing.

    Walking along a pavement is superficially the same as walking along a rope suspended between two balloons 10,000 feet up. They`re both walking. They`re not the same thing, though. Not at all.

    You`re right. The technology we have today is much more powerful, and because of this we need to be very, very careful. The possibility of a massive catastrophe is huge.

    Which isn`t the case with selective breeding. They are not the same thing.

    Mankind could literally solve world hunger and poverty.

    Humanity could delay hunger to some extent with genetically engineered food, at an unknown cost. It is not a simple and perf
  65. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    You say "Walking along a pavement is superficially the same as walking along a rope suspended between two balloons 10,000 feet up. They`re both walking. They`re not the same thing, though. Not at all. "
    This is true, but do you go from the pavement to the rope right away? no, you do it a little higher, then a little more, and so on. Thats the process of science. GM foods arent going to mess the planet up because scientists -DONT- go from walking on a pavement to walking 10,000 feet up. There is too much risk involved in making large leaps without proper research, and this is the point he is making. You can`t say GM foods will destroy the worl when in fact its the only logical answer to both the question of quality and quanity. We need more food every day, organic food is good for you by example but can`t be produced on the scale required by the world today. GM foods do, and for you to say that they might "destroy the world" is such a short sighted and, we
  66. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    @ Angilion

    Mate you take the biscuit for retarded by a long long way. So what he was saying about beliefs, and people being so wrapped in them that they can`t be freed.

    GM foods are the future, to put it quite frankly. You talk about monkeys having jellyfish DNA in them; this is a process, not a rule. We aren`t going to see monkeyjellyfish everywhere, it`s part of the process to see what can be done in a controlled envirionment, to get a list of all the things that could go wrong by making weird combos and trying to break it. Thats science, thats the process. The process of science is exactly what will prevent GM crops from being disastrous (i cant even believe you think that to be honest, its so obtuse). Sure, we can do all these things with genes but we won`t because we know the potential consequences. GM foods are modified in tiny, tiny ways and undergo HUGE testing (10+ years) before being considered for production on any kind of scale.
  67. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 7:39 pm
    *continued from below*

    and for you to say that they might "destroy the world" is such a short sighted and, well, thick to be quite honest. If you cannot see and accept that we need to do something now to ensure the availability of food in the next 40 years then there is no hope for you. Science isn`t trying to make a super crop that will wipe everything out. Science is making a series of adjustments to enchance the output of crops, to reduce the use of pesticides (thus also helping the environment) and to increase the nutritional values of food. They can do this reliably, all day every day, and you say that this is a bad thing?
  68. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 7:43 pm
    What you said: "I agree with his basic point, though. We either improve technology or billions die soon and human civilisation, maybe humanity itself, becomes extinct with the next major problem. Maybe a plague, maybe climate change, maybe asteroid impact, maybe something else."

    Cool, so you agree that we need to make the changes to save our planet, but here is a change right in front of you and you say "NOOOOOO! GM IS BAD, NO CHANGE!". Cool story bro ^^
  69. Profile photo of britt566
    britt566 Female 18-29
    2290 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    man, he is sexy!
  70. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:24 pm
    Angilion: I can understand people being afraid of GM Foods, Advanced Vaccines, etc... We`ve had a very lively science fiction library of books written over the past 200 years. They were meant to scare people, Scaring people sells more books. It also sells at the movie theater.

    Unfortunately it adds a false pretense to the collective psyche of humanity. I`ve read your atheist comments about how the bible is nothing but stories written to influence behavior. So it surprises me that you put more `faith` in science fictional Frankensteinism than into real science.

    Science just can`t create DNA from scratch they have to separate it from existing DNA chains in order to piece into another chain.

    I once thought that scientists were `Playing God` with genetics, But after reading just how it all works I came to realization that it`s not much different than what we`ve already done successfully with breeding.
  71. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 8:26 pm
    If these scientists started to create `Super Humans` or similar I`d be one the first to raise the warning flag. Adding vitamins to rice does not pose a danger to anyone.
  72. Profile photo of Slings
    Slings Male 30-39
    36 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 9:59 pm
    As a reminder to folks, there is nothing we can say to each other to change the opposing points of view. People will either accept new information, or they will reject it. The people who make claims against research-based topics either don’t understand the science, or have investigated answers through other sources (philosophy, religion, etc.). This does not make the science *wrong* any more than their sources are *wrong*. Science bases its claims on testing and experiment, repeated experiment. Philosophy is based on reasoning out answers. Faith is based on filling in the gaps of science and philosophy with magic and gum-drops.

    If there are people with science-based information, then let them post sources. Otherwise, they should not comment on the findings or research proposed by people more educated, except to ask questions for clarity.

    Flame on…
  73. Profile photo of cagel
    cagel Female 18-29
    275 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:03 pm
    Boadicea: What filler chemicals are in vaccines? What exactly makes food genetically altered in a lab more freakish that those altered by time and farming techniques?

    And do you have any sources for your "sweeping statements" or should we just take your word for it? (And if so, what`s your credibility?)
  74. Profile photo of Slings
    Slings Male 30-39
    36 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:10 pm
    Also, the vitamins mentioned in morning supplements are of the herbal variety, not real vitamins like A, B-12, etc. Supplements like acia berries, Echinacea, and other pseudo-science additives that have no proven *or sometimes even researched* effects. This is quite different than adding vitamin A to rice, or adding nutrients to the cassava or potato.
  75. Profile photo of taintedwayz
    taintedwayz Male 18-29
    14 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:34 pm
    "Faith is based on filling in the gaps of science and philosophy with magic and gum-drops." LOL Slings!
  76. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:37 pm
    I`d still go back to the 70s. Great music (prog rock, not disco), cheap pot ($15/oz.), free sex (no AIDS), hot chicks (no bras), fast cars and cheap gas, and you could smoke anywhere except church, school, and the library.
  77. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:42 pm
    Cool, so you agree that we need to make the changes to save our planet, but here is a change right in front of you and you say "NOOOOOO! GM IS BAD, NO CHANGE!". Cool story bro ^^

    Are you really the proselytising fanatic idiot you`re portraying yourself as being, or are you just playing at it for some reason?

    You`re either lying about my position or you genuinely think that anything other than unthinking devotion to the cause of genetic engineering is unthinking opposition to it and that causes you to hallucinate text that was never actually written.

    Bad or mad...which are you?
  78. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 10:58 pm
    Unfortunately it adds a false pretense to the collective psyche of humanity. I`ve read your atheist comments about how the bible is nothing but stories written to influence behavior. So it surprises me that you put more `faith` in science fictional Frankensteinism than into real science.

    Ah, another true believer.

    There`s a lot of ground in between unthinking devotion to genetic engineering and unthinking opposition to it. I`m on that ground. Some people at each extreme see I`m not with them and assume I`m at the opposite extreme because they don`t see any position in between.

    Science just can`t create DNA from scratch they have to separate it from existing DNA chains in order to piece into another chain.

    Today, yes. In a few years time, probably not. I did not say they could do it today. I said they were close to being able to do it.
  79. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 11:08 pm
    Here`s a brief interview with one of the people working on it. Note that he`s more realistic than the advocates of genetic engineering on this thread, because he knows more.

    Like me, he knows and acknowledges that there are risks.

    Like me, he thinks it should be done anyway.

    Do any of you need help understanding that position? You`ve done a very bad job of understanding anything other than unthinking advocacy so far.

    Brief interview for an entertainment science TV program

    " [.."> write the genetic code. So we start with the digital code in the computer and four bottles of chemicals and we actually build the DNA molecule from scratch."

    You should learn more before you advocate so strongly and without caution.
  80. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 11:11 pm
    I once thought that scientists were `Playing God` with genetics, But after reading just how it all works I came to realization that it`s not much different than what we`ve already done successfully with breeding.

    I initially thought that genetic engineering wasn`t much different than selective breeding, because that`s what I had repeatedly been told.

    Then I learnt a bit about genetic engineering and genetics in general, which made me realise that genetic engineering is very different indeed from selective breeding.

    I`ve given a well known and easily confirmed example of the difference. Confirm it or ignore it as you please.
  81. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 15, 2010 at 11:19 pm
    What filler chemicals are in vaccines?

    Most of a vaccine is filler, obviously. All sorts of things have been used. The best known is mercury used as a preservative, but there are others. Mercury is one of the most toxic naturally occuring substances.

    What exactly makes food genetically altered in a lab more freakish that those altered by time and farming techniques?

    The way life works. You can splice DNA from anything into anything else - that can be done now. You can make DNA from scratch - that will be done soon. There are far, far fewer constraints than there are with selective breeding. That means that far more "freakish" stuff can be done and done extremely quickly.
  82. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 12:06 am
    Angillion - I`d like to think I`m on the middle ground you talk of. Though probably further away from the GM end.

    It`s comments like this from MildCorma that scare me.

    "The process of science is exactly what will prevent GM crops from being disastrous (i cant even believe you think that to be honest, its so obtuse). "

    The early GM UK trials involved trialling a new crop in an open field with a couple of metres to seperate it from the next crop - that`s not exactly a controlled environment. That`s not scientific process that`s just suck it and see.

    The only solution to world hunger, on a finite planet, is population control.
  83. Profile photo of ctimlock
    ctimlock Male 13-17
    41 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 1:07 am
    Hey Angilion, China called, they want their wall back.
  84. Profile photo of FlameOfUdun
    FlameOfUdun Male 18-29
    1222 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 1:43 am
    Oh, hey, CNN. *hits the back button*
  85. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 2:05 am
    The only solution to world hunger, on a finite planet, is population control.

    Agreed.

    Say we succeed in screwing over the ecosystems of the Earth to monocrop GM plants that out-succeed natural plants. They will do, of course, partly because they will be created to do so (no point creating plants that are less successful than ones that already exist) and partly because farming for maximum yield requires killing off other plants.

    That removes the habitat and food sources for many animals, which will obviously become extinct.

    So we end up with intensive farming over most land that isn`t built on and very little biodiversity...but we can feed 10 billion people on an efficient diet. Maybe 12 billion.

    Great. What happens when the population reaches 13 billion? 12 billion healthy people becomes 13 billion very quickly. Also, where do they all live?
  86. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 2:08 am
    Hey Angilion, China called, they want their wall back.

    You`d better give it back, then. What are you talking about, anyway?
  87. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 2:16 am
    Good example, MattPrince.

    Science has very little to do with genetic engineering in the real world. The driving force is profit. Anything that works is taken out of the scientists` hands very quickly.

    I agree that you`re probably further from the GM end of the middle ground than I am. I think we must go with genetic engineering. The knowledge exists. There`s no getting the toothpaste back in the tube.

    It`s the most powerful technology ever invented, which makes it both the most promising and the most dangerous. It`s folly to do what people in this thread are doing - completely ignoring the danger. You may as well give nukes to children.

    But I am saying that we need to run with it. It`s there, we have to understand it. Sooner or later, someone is going to engineer something extremely dangerous or something engineered is going to mutate into something extremely dangerous. More knowledge is our only hope for coping with that.
  88. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 2:24 am
    Angilion: "Most of a vaccine is filler, obviously. All sorts of things have been used. The best known is mercury...."

    Mercury has been a well known poison for over 100 years now. No modern vaccines use mercury as a filler. Quit trying to scare people with bull crap.

    "There are far, far fewer constraints than there are with selective breeding. That means that far more "freakish" stuff can be done and done extremely quickly."

    So you believe scientists lack ethics and will grow or create `monsters` just for fun ? These experiments cost a lot of money, They don`t waste it trying to create something that will cause public uproar over their ethics. There has already been controversy over what they`ve created that is `Good` and will help people.

    Skepticism is healthy, It keeps people honest.
    Scaremongering over Vitamin A rice and Swine Flu vaccine is dishonest and it needs to stop.
  89. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 2:31 am
    It`s the most powerful technology ever invented, which makes it both the most promising and the most dangerous. It`s folly to do what people in this thread are doing - completely ignoring the danger. You may as well give nukes to children.

    We allow children to make melted cheese sandwiches in microwave ovens and `nuke` them. (Yes, I know it`s not nuclear radiation and Yes, I`m being absurd)

    My point is, It takes several years of university education to be able to manipulate DNA in a laboratory environment. You equating these highly trained people as `children` is very condescending and misleading.
  90. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 3:26 am
    @CrakrJak: It`s actually not taking several years of college education to do basic biotech. It`s actually started reaching the high school level.

    This is a good thing.

    This isn`t even as dangerous as it sounds. Agrobacterium and other dna transfer methods have limits to the amount of dna that can be transferred. You`re not going to see serious rewrites anytime soon or possibly ever.

    Biological scientists are also acutely aware of the effect of changing geno- pheno- type ratios in a given area, and are aware off the effects of cross hybridization and how it could displace genes.

    I do take issue with his "organic elites", there are quite a few issues not with modern GM foods, but modern farming practices (antibiotics, hormones, etc.) that crops that are grown organically don`t have. We`re not altogether aware of the FULL extent of the byproducts produced by these methods. We do see increases in things like autism, early onset puberty, tha
  91. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 3:27 am
    *that aren`t explained. Science needs to find causes of those things first. I think it`s okay for people to want to be cautious, not elitist.
  92. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 3:37 am
    You can splice DNA from anything into anything else - that can be done now. You can make DNA from scratch - that will be done soon.

    Not really. Splicing DNA works best with plants, because plants can be kept in a sort of stem cell state, or be brought back into seeds. DNA splicing with animals is still VERY hit and miss, and given the costs, are still very prohibitive.

    One of the problem with inserting DNA into animals is that you can`t really keep the DNA in a stem-cell state. Another problem is that animal gene expression is very tightly regulated and we`re REALLY good at shutting genes completely off, and it`s not so easy to build the necessary regulatory structures because we have limited space in what we use to transport the genes to the host

    As far as building DNA though, we can do that already, biggest problem for a complex creature is that it takes too much time, the genome is too large.
  93. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 4:09 am
    "My point is, It takes several years of university education to be able to manipulate DNA in a laboratory environment. You equating these highly trained people as `children` is very condescending and misleading. "

    Crackerjack - I had several years of university training for a Physics degree. During that time I learnt a lot of things, mostly centred around alcohol abuse. Intelligence is not the same thing as common sense.

    What`s more I wouldn`t trust a scientist with a vested interest to make ethical desicions about the dangers of their own research.

    Nor would I trust giant corporations like monosanto, driven purely by philanthropic reasons of course!
  94. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 5:04 am
    MattPrince: Like I said, It`s fine to be skeptical. But there is a point where it gets ridiculous. The people that invented the Vitamin A rice (Golden Rice) are willing to give it away and make no money on it. That`s hardly `profit motivated` is it ?

    Problem is now, The people that are phobic of GM food have fed misinformation about it to the countries that really need it, So several won`t even take it now. That kind of insanity has to stop.
  95. Profile photo of osmandias
    osmandias Male 40-49
    205 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 5:21 am
    Angilion: "Science has very little to do with genetic engineering in the real world. The driving force is profit. Anything that works is taken out of the scientists` hands very quickly."

    I think that`s the main point. Science in itself is neither good or bad, it`s a tool. It can be used in both ways. And if you don`t understand it, it can and will be used against you.
    Without science we wouldn`t be able to feed 6 billion people today. Without science we wouldn`t be able to kill 6 billion people 20 times over.

    Science is not what is going to save the human race, never was. As long as there are people in power who think war is a legimate tool to handle problems and profit has higher value than human lives, we are in danger.
  96. Profile photo of
    JJdagdelen
    101 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 10:22 am
    Wow... This guy has just said everything that I have been thinking for the last year but could not put into words efficiently.
  97. Profile photo of SpoonFork
    SpoonFork Male 30-39
    1265 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 11:13 am
    Science made bombs.
  98. Profile photo of AlienPoison5
    AlienPoison5 Male 18-29
    192 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    "Science made bombs."

    Religion made wars to use them.
  99. Profile photo of bigbangbilly
    bigbangbilly Male 13-17
    698 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    i agree with it but it is just the GM corporation`s amount of greed i don`t like (a little bit of greed is good but too much is bad) (greed is good (wall street) and i agree)
  100. Profile photo of bigbangbilly
    bigbangbilly Male 13-17
    698 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 2:21 pm
    what i meant is gm food corporations
  101. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 4:12 pm
    "The early GM UK trials involved trialling a new crop in an open field with a couple of metres to seperate it from the next crop - that`s not exactly a controlled environment. That`s not scientific process that`s just suck it and see. "

    You are convieniently forgetting about the years of lab research beforehand. The tests that they did in a controlled environment, over and over again to minimise the risk as much as possible. At some point however you have to take it into the outside world, it can`t sit in a lab forever. You seem to think scientists just throw this stuff together in a few days then say "well we shall see how that goes then" which is not the case at all. When we talk about scientific process we are talking about a pre-planned, well thought out and documented process, with the for each carefully noted down and then repeated hundreds of times to be sure the results are accurate and not subject to outside controls, then step it up, rinse and
  102. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    *repeat. It`s not a "suck it and see" approach unless you are an uneducated moron with little care for how science actually works to try and make this world a better place. "Early" trials by the way meaning "early external trials", not "early startup trials", two completely different things seperated by 10 years of research and development.

    @ Angillion

    Sorry for quoting what you actually said, didn`t mean to upset you there. You state your oppostition to GM foods which is the only really viable solution for the proposed increase in population, and then say im lying about what you said? And fanatic? Whos the "fanatic?" im not the one telling everyone mercury is a filler in pharmaceuticals. I`m not fear mongering because I don`t like the idea of having food created by man, even though there is drat all wrong with it nor any chance something could go wrong. Get a grip pal!
  103. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    @ Angillion

    Sorry for quoting what you actually said, didn`t mean to upset you there.

    Either you are lying or you are insane enough to be genuinely hallucinating. What you falsely claimed as a quote from me came entirely from your own head.

    So it`s still a case of you being either bad or mad. Either way, no-one should take you seriously.

    You state your oppostition to GM foods

    I didn`t.

    which is the only really viable solution for the proposed increase in population

    It isn`t.

    and then say im lying about what you said?

    Either lying or delusional enough to think I actually wrote the babble you made up.

    im not the one telling everyone mercury is a filler in pharmaceuticals.

    It`s a filler in the sense of it not being the active ingredient. It`s used as a preservative. It`s certainly toxic enough to be effective as
  104. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    I`m not fear mongering because I don`t like the idea of having food created by man, even though there is drat all wrong with it nor any chance something could go wrong. Get a grip pal!

    I`m not fear mongering, as anyone who can read what I have actually written can tell. You`re fervently preaching the cause of genetic engineering as the Saviour and wrongly claiming there cannot possibly be any risk. I`m not blinding myself to the risks inherent in such a powerful technology and I don`t want others to be blinded to them.
  105. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 4:48 pm
    Mercury has been a well known poison for over 100 years now. No modern vaccines use mercury as a filler. Quit trying to scare people with bull crap.

    It`s still in use today. It`s not a secret. You can find information about it on the FDA website (and elsewhere, of course). The levels are probably not dangerous, but it`s there.

    Thank you for providing such a clear example of how failing to toe the line results in wild and completely inaccurate accusations.
  106. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 4:50 pm
    My point is, It takes several years of university education to be able to manipulate DNA in a laboratory environment. You equating these highly trained people as `children` is very condescending and misleading.

    It would have been, if I had done that.

    But I didn`t. So it`s just a case of you being wrong.
  107. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 4:56 pm
    So you believe scientists lack ethics and will grow or create `monsters` just for fun ?

    As I am slightly bored, I will divert myself by asking you to explain how you arrived at that conclusion about my point of view.

    Please don`t waste your time making any statements about me not answering the question. We both know that it wasn`t a question.
  108. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    "Either you are lying or you are insane enough to be genuinely hallucinating. What you falsely claimed as a quote from me came entirely from your own head. "

    mm hmm, yep, I copy pasted what you said from my head. Here are some more of your quotes:

    " far more "freakish" stuff can be done and done extremely quickly."

    Yes, it can, but will it? No. To presume so is fear mongering, you arrive at a conclusion with no evidence to back it up.

    "Humanity could delay hunger to some extent with genetically engineered food, at an unknown cost. It is not that simple"

    It`s not that simple no, but GM foods would certainly make a massive and undeniable difference. As for the "unknown cost", that`s fear mongering as well. It`s a precise science, not jamming some strains together for a laugh. For you you to insinuate otherwise is offensive to scientists everywhere.
  109. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 5:56 pm
    " One mistake, one thing overlooked, one unexpected mutation could blight the planet or even make it uninhabitable."

    Way to go space cowboy. There could be consequences yes, but blight the planet? To make the earth uninhabitable? Do you really think science would let that happen? that if there were a chance anything bad could occur, that they would still use GM foods? On any scale?

    "We could create entirely new lifeforms and introduce them into existing ecosystems...but can we be *sure* of the results? "

    Why would we want to? Sure we can, but would we? No! This is my point, you are trying to say that we can never be sure of the consequences and you are in some extent correct. Scientists will never say "there is no chance of this going wrong" because in reality, there is always a chance however small or infinitesimal it may be, there is always a chance. However saying that GM foods might screw the world is like saying we
  110. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 6:02 pm
    @Crakrjak and Angelion

    Mercury clarification:

    First, it`s not mercury it`s a mercury compound. There are two types of mercury compounds you need to know: ethylmercury and methylmercury. Ethylmercury passes through the system in a few weeks and is generally considered less of a threat, while methylated mercury is retained in the human body forever.

    The mercury that is used in vaccinations is an ethylmercury compound known as thimerosol. While studies indicate that ethylmercury compounds are less toxic than methyl- compounds, we simply don`t have enough compiled data on ethylmercury compounds and have used methyl data for toxicity levels.

    Thimerisol isn`t a filler, it is a preservative, it`s one that works by killing any bacteria that come into contact with multidose batches. It is not used as a preservative in single dose vaccinations.

    Yes it is used, but its well within guidelines. Using it in the way you used it however, is kind of
  111. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 6:04 pm
    ..we might get hit by an asteroid tommorow. We might, but we probably wont. All scientists will agree that the statistical probability is high enough for it to be an -almost- impossibilty. Fear mongering again. Oh and telling people mercury is a filler followed by:
    " The levels are probably not dangerous, but it`s there." followed by:
    "It`s used as a preservative"
    Filler is a defined term used to describe the amount of a chemical in an item. Saying mercury is a filler is -not- the same as calling it a preservative, two very different things but easy for someone with no idea to get confused I suppose.

    I hope that answers your question, sorry if I misquoted your quotes that i copy pasted again.
  112. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 6:25 pm
    We could create entirely new lifeforms and introduce them into existing ecosystems...but can we be *sure* of the results?

    We can`t do that yet. Remember the vectors to transplant genetic material are limited in size and scope.

    Also note that genetics isn`t like programming. There isn`t a single gene that codes for tentacles and another that codes for wings. We won`t be making cthul`hu anytime soon. Genes code for a single gene product, a single chemical.

    We`re not even close to the level of sophistication needed to create a "new" species that`s beyond the level of bacteria or virus. We can add/change chemical production ratios in an existing organism (and we`re limited even then) and that`s about it. We aren`t coding new functionality, we`re moving one or two genes from one organism into another, usually at the expense of an existing gene. Don`t get all sci-fi.

  113. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 11:36 pm
    mm hmm, yep, I copy pasted what you said from my head.

    Feel free to point out where I posted this text:

    NOOOOOO! GM IS BAD, NO CHANGE!

    Free clue: I didn`t.
  114. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 11:41 pm
    It`s not that simple no, but GM foods would certainly make a massive and undeniable difference. As for the "unknown cost", that`s fear mongering as well. It`s a precise science, not jamming some strains together for a laugh. For you you to insinuate otherwise is offensive to scientists everywhere.

    For you to believe that scientists can know all consequences and have full control over what anyone does with genetic engineering and can prevent any undesirable mutations occuring in the wild is ridiculous. You`re treating "scientists" as a single omnipotent and omniscient deity.
  115. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 11:50 pm
    We`re not even close to the level of sophistication needed to create a "new" species that`s beyond the level of bacteria or virus.

    Does that mean there`s nothing at all to have any degree of concern about because bacteria and viruses can`t possibly have much effect on anything?

    Here`s a simple scenario. Adding resistance to an antibiotic to bacteria that don`t currently have it. Please tell me if it`s impossible. By "impossible", I don`t mean "can`t be done with current understanding and technology".

    That relies on deliberate malicious intent, but that isn`t the only potential cause of harm. Greed, desperation, a wish for money and power...there are many other motivations on the part of the people controlling the technology (who won`t be the scientists who develop it) that could cause harm. Lack of omniscience could also do so via unforeseen consequences.
  116. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 16, 2010 at 11:55 pm
    There could be consequences yes, but blight the planet? To make the earth uninhabitable? Do you really think science would let that happen? that if there were a chance anything bad could occur, that they would still use GM foods? On any scale?

    Do you really think that scientists is (you treat `scientists` as a single entity) an omnipotent and omniscient deity?

    Are you seriously arguing that there cannot possibly be *any* bad consequences of any use of genetic engineering implemented out in the open? You appear to be, but I`d like you to confirm your position.
  117. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 17, 2010 at 12:00 am
    For you to believe that scientists can know all consequences and have full control over what anyone does with genetic engineering and can prevent any undesirable mutations occuring in the wild is ridiculous. You`re treating "scientists" as a single omnipotent and omniscient deity.

    Dude, stop. You seem to have a real problem between science and science fiction. You are fear mongering.

    Of course scientists can`t predict mutations in a controlled experiment, but guess what!?!?! Every change we`re making almost already (with some exceptions) already exists in the wild, but in some other creature. It already undergoes mutations in the wild. EVERYBODY PANIC!!!

    Or not...

    You however, are expecting that mutations can just happen...you`re neglecting that mutation already naturally occurs, and most mutations are not beneficial. Your glowing cat will not suddenly shoot freaking laser beams. The X-Men are not real.

    Get a
  118. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 17, 2010 at 12:12 am
    Are you seriously arguing that there cannot possibly be *any* bad consequences of any use of genetic engineering implemented out in the open? You appear to be, but I`d like you to confirm your position.

    For the most part, the biggest problems with genetic engineering is that the modified organism will out compete wild types and cause an existing allele to vanish. Those alleles could be useful in some other application.

    Genetic engineering requires its users to be controlled. It requires that you know first what a gene DOES. It requires that you implant it into the new organism in a controlled way. It requires that you test the organism to make sure it has both the gene and can express it. All of this has to be done in a controlled environment before it can reach an extended trial on the outside.

    I`ve said it before, we can`t just make whatever changes we want.

    Yes, there is risk, but not nearly on the scale you imply.

    L
  119. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    April 17, 2010 at 3:21 am
    Exactly what Janus said, and pretty much what I said before anyway angillion. I never said there is no chance, there is -always- a chance, just such a small chance it`s not worth considering, really. Scientists never have full control, to say so would mean that they know all the outcomes before doing the experiment. I said this before, please feel free to go read my comments again before opening your fat, unintelligent mouth on this thread.

    FYI there is a big difference between your version of consequences and the actual version. Your version = world disaster. Actual version = one seed does not grow, or grows shorter, or isn`t immune to insects, etc. Big difference pal, stop talking about things you don`t understand.
  120. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 2:49 am
    Yes, there is risk, but not nearly on the scale you imply.

    Well, that`s a nice change. A fervent advocate of genetic engineering being polite and acknowledging that it isn`t an utterly risk-free solution to everything.

    It`s a shame that comments like that are not the norm.

    It`s also a shame that the extremism from such people tends to alienate most people and harden them against genetic engineering.

    That`s annoying for people, like me, who think we should research and very cautiously use genetic engineering but aren`t fire-and-brimstone preachy about it and don`t treat it as the perfect answer, like it was some sort of messiah.

    In one sense, the scale is obviously extremely large, because we`re talking about global changes at the bottom of multiple food chains as the very minimum.

    I think the degree of risk is larger (due to the very large scale and the power of the technology) than you think it is.

  121. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    April 18, 2010 at 2:58 am
    For you to believe that scientists can know all consequences and have full control over what anyone does with genetic engineering and can prevent any undesirable mutations occuring in the wild is ridiculous. You`re treating "scientists" as a single omnipotent and omniscient deity.

    Dude, stop. You seem to have a real problem between science and science fiction. You are fear mongering.

    Go back and re-read my comment and your reply to it.

    Do you still think your reply is reasonable?

    Are you so convinced, as MildCorma is, that scientists have such absolute power and knowledge that they can and will prevent any use of genetic engineering that could have any negative consequences?

    That`s what I wrote the comment in reply to.

    Treating genetic engineering as the messiah and scientists as a single omnipotent god is not a good way to convince people you`re right. It`s a good way to convince people yo
  122. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    April 19, 2010 at 5:17 am
    Ok, I`ll do some scare mongering - you`re re-engineering the tree - whilst sitting on one of the branches.

    We are in the dark ages when it comes to tinkering with genes - and I do mean tinkering. At least this stage is done in a controlled environment. For the record I`m not opposed to this.

    Once the item moves out into the wild then to say that it has been thoroughly tested in the lab is risible. The interactions of the natural world are not fully understood, therefore thorough testing would be prohibitive in cost and time. Instead it will be tested to do what it was supposed to, and maybe some biological interactions with common biological agents and close relatives.

    Anyway - you`ve missed the main point - increasing production will not solve the problem of human population requirements on earth.

    Population control is the only solution, anything else is delaying the inevitable.
  123. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 12:37 am
    I do think my reply is appropo and reasonable. Let me also explain why I think you`re fear mongering.

    First, the mercury statement still bugs me. You haven`t acknowledged that mercury isn`t in its element form wrt vaccinations. Your descriptions of mercury and its effects are similar to saying we should ban water because it contains oxygen, which is highly corrosive and found in explosives, and rocket fuel. Admit that elements in compounds have different properties than the elements themselves.

    Second, you can make the same "can you say for sure" argument to any branch of chemical, biological, or physical branch of the sciences. Can you be sure some evil engineer won`t use those photoelectric cells to power some evil laser, possibly attached to sharks? Can you!!?!? I mean, seriously, no...they`re engineers, that`s why we love them.

    You seem to still ignore the facts on what changes we can make (really `freaky`), and display a complete lack o
  124. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    April 20, 2010 at 12:52 am
    Are you so convinced, as MildCorma is, that scientists have such absolute power and knowledge that they can and will prevent any use of genetic engineering that could have any negative consequences?

    No, there will always be someone willing to weaponize the fruits of science, but you shouldn`t let it stop you from understanding the science.

    What I`m saying is the process is so controlled that we won`t be blighting the earth unintentionally.

    We don`t go directly from the gene splice to the field. It stays in the lab until ready. Our changes are in the order of a few gene products, a few chemicals that the organism produces. If the changes overwrite something vital, the organism dies in the lab before reaching maturity by the organisms own machinery. Same for toxins the plant can`t handle. You need to verify the organism produces the changes and lives the expected life cycle before you get the money to creating enough seeds for a field.

Leave a Reply