This GM food carry on

[Ech0]

Just how terrible is the so called threat of Gene Modified food?

I mean we have had test tube babies since the 70's and it hasn't altered the species (well not that much anyway!) has it. We already know we could, and it's probably in wide use if the money is right, modify genes so that the amount of people born with handicaps and defects would diminish. What harm could manipulating a mere spud do?

Excuse my ignorance on these matters if I'm way off target.

[pup]

think you're right echo... cant see anything wrong in using science and technology to make our food better if it can.

not sure you are right about genes and humans though... dont think genetically enhance babies has been allowed, the test tube babies are about implanting a normal egg into a womb and not a genetically manipulated one i think?

[mrcol]

I think the issue is that if they have made a major fuck up pissing around with things they shouldnt have.

If one is wrong then it spreads to all the normal strains. Think of it like changing from using MS Word to another program to do text files, now all your .doc files open with a new program. Eventually you find MS Word was much better than newer application except now you can't ever go back.

Thats the issue, they are fucking around with the unknown long term consequecies and fuckng the natural strains (via normal air bourne pollunation) in the process. There is NO control over the way they do it as they cannot influence atmospheric conditions to isolate the GM crops.

In the real world of genetics, genes mutate on there own and natural selection kicks in, survival of the fitest. Although we already fuck around with that by supporting people that cannot support themselves(or wont). For instance, people born with handicaps that give them limited movement in the legs, in reality they would die of starvation if they were not bloody good at something else, instead of making them fight to see if they can develop other skills which would be benefitial, we give them wheel chairs and feed them and sometimes a house and wad of cash each week, where's the motivation to see if that mutation has a benefit? on the other hand they are pan bread if it dont have any benefit, but thats natural selection.

If we start to fuck around and get to choose what our children are going to be like, i can assume everyone will want smart, athletic good looking children which fits a perfection mould (at this minute). Eventually, the gene pool is full of good looking smart people and if any would be overy mutated genes are found, then destroyed at embrio level, we essentially become clones and no better of than a bunch of hillbillies (shagging your mother, sister, aunt ...) and progress is ended or substantially slowed.

More to it than just "test tube" babies.

[Ech0]

Yep I see your point but if wide spread famine were to break out lets say for instance that global warming took a real hold, then GM crops, the type that were hardier than the normal strains, could be a real life saver. I mean haven't we really been messing around with nature since we arrived anyway?

It's also true that the yanks haven't taken a blind bit of notice anyway and are already producing tons of GM produce. I think it's only a matter of time before europe starts up.

Good to see the wider picture about these issues though, cheers Col.

PS
Point taken re-the test tube babies Pup my point was really that we are manipulating with nature by bringing kids into the world that wouldn't of been here had it not been for science, without doing any harm. As for messing with the genes I meant that there could be docs who given the right amount of money would screen embryos for diseases and manipulate them if need be.

[Wags]

Blimey, the forum has been invaded by intellectuals :sqshockedl: :sqoot:

[mrcol]

hehe, had to study genetics as part of an evolutionary algorithms module a few years ago.

Basically you mimic genetics to solve problems for you.

Say you have a problem with billions of possible answers that could take a computer 50 years to search to see what the best one is you have a population of answers, each with a fitness (closeness to soutable answer) and then use techniques to breed the solutions to create a child, sometimes adding a mutation as to keep the gene pool good. You generally kill off the weak from your population, replacing with stronger children.

You are not guaranteed the best answer with X amount of time, but you will mostly always get a one good enough.

A good example that is often used is imagine 10 people are going hiking and there are 1000 differently wighted items to take between them all and you want everyone to take the same weight. Thats a lot of possible combinations! It might not be possible for everyone to take the same weight, but in theory, with a decent algorithm, you should get it fairly close in a reasonable amount of time.

BTW it is very clear to see what happens in the algorithm if you dont mutate, the population becomes very very similar very quickly and no matter how long you run it, you dont get a better answer. Technically you become stuck, the mutation offers a different route that might by chance just be better than taking the best attributes from both pairents.

[pup]

so mutation wont happen if we fully invest in gm food or even gm people and vegitables will get stuck and they wont evolve and change like they have done for millions of years

in the short run gm food might be good. but in the long run it might be bad

same would happen with people too i guess

[Cataclysm_J]

The way races evolve is by there being mutations, as col says the disadvantaging mutations hinder the create in a way that causes them to die before being able to reproduce therefore preventing that mutation from being passed whereas the beneficial mutations allows these more superior creatures to reproduce safely and slowly become the new normal. If everyone started creating the 'ideal' human then human evolution would stop as there would be no better.

In crops this isn't the onlying problem by far. The serious issue is that farmers get pissed off with insects eating their crops so they make crops that are poisonous to the insect or are resistant to strog fertaliser. This decreases the population of this insect and therefore decreases the population of the creatures that feed on these insects. This would force a fast evolution of the strongest hunter to be able to survive on the little food avalible but as their numbers decrease so do the numbers of every other creature in the food chain. Plants are required for the foodchain to stay stable for the insects to feed and be fed on if these plants arn't avalible the whole thing colapses in on itself.

GM crops could effect other wild plants nearby and they could become resistant to the insects too. This is obviously a long term process but its the effect that farmers trying to rid their crops of pests could have.

The other word on genetics is whats there to stop someone like Bush from breeding human for war becuase they would feel no moral obligation not to do it. Its an inexpensive source of man power superior to enimies. Snipers would have incridible eye sight, assult troops would have increidible hearing and muscular structure, artilery men would have unatural maths skills. The whole thing could go to shit.

[r1ncewind]

your all talking utter bollocks.
ask a parent who's child has just been born with a hereditory disease if they had the chance, would they change it.
mankinds sole purpose is to exist and better itself. to do this we need to experiment.
nature and time has done ok so far with evolving but the next step for us is on a genetic level.

why not re-design food so it is bigger and better for starving countries at the same price?
i dont feel cloning ourselves is a good idea. but why not use this technology to better ourselves and progress in evolution.
x-men springs to mind. :razz:

its 12.00 and ive just re-read what ive written........its all bollocks. :shock:

[Ech0]

Snipers would have incridible eye sight, assult troops would have increidible hearing and muscular structure, artilery men would have unatural maths skills. The whole thing could go to shit.

You've been spectating me online haven't you?

Good post though mate.

Rince, shut up! ;-)

[willofgod]

Rince, shut up! ;-)

Actually Rince is in good company. Stephen Hawking has publicly supported the advancement of human beings through genetic modification. His arugument is that one of these days we're going to build an artificial intelligence or artificial life, and when this happens we're going to find we're no longer the top dog in the food chain. Obviously an AI or AL is probably going to prefer some electrical juice to a human burger, but its a foregone conclusion that we'll suddenly have the IQ of a race of half witted chimps compared to a silicon based intelligence... probably. He therefore supports the idea that we SHOULD make ourselves as intelligent as possible so as to be able to understand these silicon peers.

Everyones views are bound to be polar on this one, but I think he has a bloody good point.

[Ech0]

Shut up, Willo. ;-)

[mrcol]

To be top dog you have to achieve the ability to kill/overcome all preditors /advisories.

Having intellect cant make you top of the food chain unless you are willing to slaughter anything that gets in your path.

Perhaps Mr Hawkings should stick to appearing on the Simpsons :-?.

[willofgod]

Not read this yet... past the first couple of paragraphs anyway, but it seems cover Hawkin's ideas:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[russellg81]

your all talking utter bollocks.
ask a parent who's child has just been born with a hereditory disease if they had the chance, would they change it.
mankinds sole purpose is to exist and better itself. to do this we need to experiment.
nature and time has done ok so far with evolving but the next step for us is on a genetic level.





[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Cataclysm_J]

Lol, ^ just sums it up. Theres no hope for a better human race.