Other than cloned livestock what other scientific advancement should we fight?

[RB TexLa]

The Rick Santorum defense of "it ain't natural," is good also the old man at the small town gas station defense of "that ain't the way it's been done," is a good one too.

And of course I guess "lost" jobs is a acceptable, such as all the candle workers electricity will put out on the street.

[Recursion]

1. Fine, dude, call us Luddites

If cloned and GM foods are so safe, then let anybody who wants to put them on the shelves as long as they are labelled as such.

Seriously, if it's safe why are ADM and Monstanto so dead-set against having to admit they use them?

[Cobalt-60]

4. they are fools

If it were safe you could secure the nerd market by hyping up the super scientific nature of the food.
Their bitter determination to slip it in without notice tells me not only that its not safe but that they know it's not safe.

[Orrex]

6. My guess?

Seriously, if it's safe why are ADM and Monstanto so dead-set against having to admit they use them?

Because cloned and GM foods have been so thoroughly demonized that, even if it were proven that a cloned sandwich could safely feed 1,000 people, there would still be luddites calling for a ban, on the grounds that it's ain't natural, or the like.

The unreasoning fear surrounding this technology is remarkable. Sure, the technology needs to be carefully scrutinzied, but so does any new tech. Why this particular advance, with the potential (ultimately) to mitigate a good fraction of the world's famine, should be so particularly villified is hard for me to understand. Even if there is a low-grade health concern, it must be weighed against the benefits. For example, if your choice is that you might die of liver complications in twenty years if you eat GM food or you and your family will starve to death by the end of the month, I don't see the difficulty.

I'm not calling you a luddite, by the way: I'm referring to people who would reject the technology even if it were proven safe. And there are plenty of those.

[Toucano]

16. Even if it were proven safe.

It's impossible to prove it's safe.

There's enough naturally grown and raised food to feed the world. Famine is the result of politics.

[Recursion]

21. I wish I could rec a single post; that's the most important fact here

There's enough naturally grown and raised food to feed the world. Famine is the result of politics.

Bingo. People aren't starving because there's not enough food in the world. It's not even that there's not enough food in their country. The problem is governments use food as a weapon against their people, men use it as a weapon against women, and adults use it as a weapon against children.

[cyborg_jim]

79. Farming isn't natural.

QED.

[Orrex]

82. QED? You're right! Quantum Electro Dynamics isn't natural, either!

That joke keeps getting funnier!

:rofl:

[cyborg_jim]

83. quod erat demonstrandum

[Orrex]

99. NK

No kidding.

:eyes:

[Toucano]

89. After 12,000 years, I think it's well tested.

Of course your right, agriculture is technology.

I should have said "traditionally".

[NashVegas]

55. Well, Gosh, Then, It Looks Like the Market Has Decided, Doesn't It?

"let the market decide," the crusading creed of every corporation selling a bullshit bill of goods.

Until the market says, "no," in which case the government can be bought to override and force the item on unsuspecting consumers.

[Orrex]

61. Are you replying to me?

I didn't mention anything letting the market decide, and I certainly don't advocate that as a societal model.

[NashVegas]

65. Yes and No

Yes in that, it's often the battle cry of laissez-faire promoters, and the argument you presented is similar to those I've seen when a proponent (of anything) encounters opposition to a product or other economic vehicle of dubious merit.

No, I know you weren't saying that, specifically.

[jollyreaper2112]

63. consider the source

Consider who's selling us this bill of goods. The ranchers and cattlemen association will tell you it's perfectly safe to feed cattle rendered byproduct from the slaughterhouses. I.e. we're going to be eating cannibal cows. They'll tell you it's beneficial because it cuts down on the feed volume the ranchers have to pay for. It saves them money. Does it cause any harm to the cows or the people who will eat the cows? Well, this is the cause of mad cow disease, getting prion infections spread throughout the herds. And these same ranchers will lobby against inspecting the cows for disease, telling us it will pass on savings to the consumer when it's really about preventing us from knowing just how far the disease has spread.

The bottom line here is that it's all about the bottom line. Business will tell whatever lie needs told to maximize profits. If actually doing right by their customers makes them money, they'll do it. But they usually figure the minmax chart favors screwing the customer instead.

[Odin2005]

69. A-fucking-MEN

If the anti-GMO people were in charge we would of never gotten out of the Stone Age. The anti-GMO BS comes from the same kind of ignorant nonsense and irrational fear as people wanting to ban dihydrogen monoxide until they are told it's water.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

68. People won't buy them if they're labelled.

The chain of reasoning "if they were safe, their makers wouldn't have anything to lose by letting them be labelled, so they must be risky" is clearly flawed - what matters is that people *think* they're risky, and so it's in their maker's interest that they not be specially labelled.

I think that *compulsory* labelling of food as containing GM would be a bad thing - I think that making anything whatsoever compulsory is a bad thing; that's roughly what being a liberal means; and not labelling these products will do no harm to anyone - but I have no problem whatsoever with products that want to use it as a selling point labelling themselves as GM-free, or with people only buying such food. But the onus should be on the people who want to benefit from it.

[Recursion]

95. Eh?

not labelling these products will do no harm to anyone

Wow, that's a big ass leap to be taking with somebody else's health at stake. You must feel very brave after that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

103. The odds are lower than the stakes are high.

We don't require food containing fish, say, or protein, to be specially labelled.

Sure, there's a possibility that there are some misterious health risks inexplicable by modern science tied to all GM food and no others, but it's not something worth worrying about.

[gravity]

2. Geez, I thought the conservatives were anti science

Cloned meat has been scientifically proven safe. You don't need to fight it.

[Richard Steele]

3. Howzabout the "we don't know enough about it to even GUESS what the dangers might be" defense?

Some of us don't think that feeding it to an unsuspecting
public is the best way to find out, y'know.

[originalpckelly]

8. Back away from the computer.

You never know how safe it may be.

In fact you should probably stop living as well, most people are living right before they are dead. :scared:

[Richard Steele]

10. What a ridiculous mischaracterization of my point. It does you little credit, IMO.

Humans have developed some tried and true methods of
determining the safety of unknown eduble substances,
and perfected those methods over the span of a million
years or so.

"Everyone try it and see if it's safe" is -NOT- an
acceptable method.
And "trust the guy who gets rich if you eat it" has
historically proven to be less than wise as well.

In the case of cloned meat, we're basically being
told to do both of those UNWISE things at once.

[Orrex]

13. Out of curiosity

What, in your view, might reasonably be the danger of ingesting meat from a cloned animal?

[Toucano]

17. When the FDA approved cloned meat,

They said, "cloned livestock is “virtually indistinguishable” from conventional livestock." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372490

So what part is distinguishable? I'd like to know that before I could formulate and answer about the dangers of comsuming cloned meat.

And I'm supposed to trust this corporate controlled FDA after Vioxx and Celebrex debacles?

And why not label it as such? Because successful marketing depends on concealing it's origin? That's no different than lying to people about the reason for going to war. You're selling them something they don't want.

Cloning is only about 20% successful. What goes wrong with the other 80%?

What happens when the cloned animals are bred to organic animals and we introduce an unknown and unintended mutation that results in a compromised immune system? Will our herds be wiped out?

The food that comes from the earth EVOLVED ALONG WITH US. It provides us with all we need to live healthy lives. Everytime we allow corporate greed to introduce another "advance" we suffer ill consequences.

Hell, the cattle are so jacked up with hormones and anti-biotics as it is's hardly food. Girls are getting their periods 2 years earlier on average than in 1920, and the development of secondary sex characteristics is trending earlier for girls and boys.

[Orrex]

34. Holy Cow--you're kind of all over the pasture there

And I'm supposed to trust this corporate controlled FDA after Vioxx and Celebrex debacles?

So everything that comes out of the FDA, including its calls for the removal of Vioxx and Celebrex, is invalid hereafter? That's super--rather than leaving us at the mercy of what you perceive as a corporate-controlled government agency, we'll be left entirely at the mercy of corporations and word-of-mouth. What alternative do you propose in the absence of the FDA? At the very least, you should reveal the means by which you accept some FDA claims while rejecting others.

Anyway, it's ridiculous to throw out the entire agency because of several high-profile cases in which research has been tainted. Do you suggest that the FDA is of no value?

And why not label it as such? Because successful marketing depends on concealing it's origin? That's no different than lying to people about the reason for going to war. You're selling them something they don't want.

If cloned meat has been found to be safe but is still demonized by its opponents, then concealing its source merely protects it against unreasoned fearmongering. When Bush lied to get us into Iraq, he created reams of false data and intelligence to make his case; that's a very different scenario.

Cloning is only about 20% successful. What goes wrong with the other 80%?

Are you serious? I expect that it dies in utero or doesn't implant successfully in the first place. Or do you envision mutant bulls running around the meadow, begetting their mutant offspring on every unsuspecting cow that comes along?

What happens when the cloned animals are bred to organic animals and we introduce an unknown and unintended mutation that results in a compromised immune system? Will our herds be wiped out?

Again, are you serious? You're suggesting that this unintended mutation breeds true and is dominant and propogates through the whole herd to a degree sufficient to cause massive death if this hypothetical super-mutation should happen to be exposed to a pathogen? That simply doesn't seem likely to me. For that matter, the same could occur any time a bull puts the moooooves on a cow; that's the nature of the evolutionary crap-shoot.

Besides which, there's a vastly greater chance that some conventional pathogen (such as BSE, to name just one example) might compromise the conventional herd. In fact, work is being done right now to engineer cattle that are not susceptible to the prion that causes BSE--if that can be accomplished, would you object to it as well?

And I would also submit that there are relatively few "organic" animals in the herd. There isn't even any agreement on what "organic" means as it pertains to food and food-providing animals. Care to offer a definition?

Heck, while we're at it, do you object to human-based gene therapy? What if we cure cystic fibrosis but in the process compromise the patient's immune system? Will our human herd be wiped out?

Everytime we allow corporate greed to introduce another "advance" we suffer ill consequences.

You're right--it would be a far, far better world if all advances were made solely on the basis of fully-disclosed altruism. Pity that this has never been the case in all of recorded human history.

Hell, the cattle are so jacked up with hormones and anti-biotics as it is's hardly food. Girls are getting their periods 2 years earlier on average than in 1920, and the development of secondary sex characteristics is trending earlier for girls and boys.

That's hardly the black-and-white situation that your argument requires it to be. At best, the data are inconclusive. Ethnicity is accounted for very poorly in these societally longitudinal studies, as are diet, economic status, and other environmental factors. At best, we can say that first menstruation in some cases appears to occur sooner, but we simply lack the information to make a definitive statement about a cause. And we certainly can't say that puberty in general "is trending earlier" with any certainty, because "trending earlier" means "trending earlier across the board."

So, from all of that I conclude that your objection is based on the concern that some kind of unintended consequence might result from genetic modification of cattle. Well, I've got news for you: they've been genetically modifying cattle for centuries. Millennia, even.

[Toucano]

94. Genetically modified cattle have thus far been limited to the constraints of

breeding. The amount of deviation was restricted from generation to generation. This isn't the case with GM livestock.

Gene splicing and cloning can introduce new unwanted variables. Cloned animals grow faster and die earlier. Is this what you want for your children? Remember, you are what you eat.

All government agencies are suspect under this administration. The Consumer Protection Agency, FDA, EPA, et al.

If you have to lie to people about something's origins in order to sell it, you shouldn't be selling it.

Puberty IS TRENDING earlier. It's a secular trend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

The age at which puberty occurs has dropped significantly since the 1840s. Researchers refer to this drop as the 'secular trend'. From 1840 through 1950, in each decade there was a drop of four months in the average age of menarche among Western European female samples. In Norway, girls born in 1840 had their first menarche at average 17 years. In France in 1840 the average was 15.3 years. In England the 1840 average was 16.5 years for girls. In Japan the decline happened later and was then more rapid: from 1945 to 1975 in Japan there was a drop of 11 months per decade.

The most likely cause, as is generally accepted, is the increase of weight gain in the world's youth. Some scientists and researches hypothesize it may be caused by hormones and other additions in processed milk and meats.

Increasing frequency of early onset of puberty

The onset of puberty is occurring two years earlier than usual, reaching stage two level, with greater frequency. <1> <2> <3> <4> This is reducing the childhood period, and is adding a greater risk of childhood pregnancy. Contributing factors include environmental estrogens, a sedentary lifestyle and obesity. See precocious puberty for further discussion of the medical dynamics of this issue.

The only people defending GM crops and cloned livestock are corporations, corporate funded research facilities and corporate-owned politicians. Scientists who dare to reach conclusions questioning the safety of GM crops are fired and gagged like Dr. Pusztai.

http://plab.ku.dk/tcbh/Pusztaimemorandum.htm

The benefits of this technology are undermined by the risks.

GM pea causes allergic damage in mice
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8347

Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/334/11/688?ck=nck

Damning verdict on GM crop
Final report on world's most comprehensive field trials says oil seed rape varieties would harm wildlife and environment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1443004,00.html

[Orrex]

101. Your cited excerpt doesn't really support your case

The most likely cause, as is generally accepted, is the increase of weight gain in the world's youth. Some scientists and researches hypothesize it may be caused by hormones and other additions in processed milk and meats.

So "some scientists and researchers have hypothesized." That's nice, but it hardly justifies the decisive assertion that you've made.

Also, when you veer from cloned livestock into gm crops, you're undertaking a fundamentally different argument. Livestock, generally speaking, doesn't scatter its seed to the wind or propgate itself on the fuzzy legs of honeybees. The perils of cross-contamination, whatever they may be for gm crops, are much different for cloned or gm livestock. You can't dismiss one on the basis of the other.

Gene splicing and cloning can introduce new unwanted variables. Cloned animals grow faster and die earlier. Is this what you want for your children?

You seem to be implying that animals that grow faster will yield children that grow faster. Do you have evidence that this is the case, or are you reacting out of fear again? Unless the cloned meat is actually producing some substance that accelerates the aging process, then your argument simply makes no sense.

One other point, as a matter of rhetoric:
Question: What do you have if you cite two sources and one of them is Wikipedia?
Answer: One source.

[Richard Steele]

19. Basically, it comes down to this: Cloned DNA is -NOT- identical to the original.

We do not have the technology to produce exact replicas;
the clones we've managed to produce have DNA that is FAR
less than identical. It is RIDDLED with errors.

As noted above, our best state-of-the art clones DIE 80%
of the time. That's how bad it is- only one in five cloned
eggs produces a viable organism.

And DNA is funny stuff- you start introducing random errors,
and just about anything MIGHT happen. And these animals have
many thousands of random errors.

Mix a few common everday viruses into animals with never-existed-before
DNA sequences, and a whole lot of other "anythings" might happen.
Viruses just LOVE swapping big chunks of DNA with their hosts;
that's why we see new strains of influenza every single year.

We know that, in viruses, a small alteration in a single surface
protein can be the difference between a normal "Flu season"
and a worldwide pandemic like the infamous "Spanish Flu".
And the "black death" that killed half of Europe way back when
was caused by a common fleaborne virus that had experienced a
TINY change in its genetic makeup that altered its reproduction rate.

So, here is clearly RISK in this cloning endeavor. And any risk must
reasonably be weighed against potential gain.
The only potential gain here is the potential of increased profits
for a few large corporations. I don't think that warrants subjecting
the entire planet to risks which are unknown and unpredictable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. That's terrible.

"We do not have the technology to produce exact replicas;
the clones we've managed to produce have DNA that is FAR
less than identical. It is RIDDLED with errors."

That's shocking. I want all of my meat to be genetically identical to its parents, just like nature intends.

"As noted above, our best state-of-the art clones DIE 80%
of the time. That's how bad it is- only one in five cloned
eggs produces a viable organism."

That's horrible. I want to animals to reproduce naturally, where ever sperm implants an egg, and every fertilized egg gets implanted and goes to term. Just like God intended.

"And DNA is funny stuff- you start introducing random errors,
and just about anything MIGHT happen. And these animals have
many thousands of random errors."

That's horrifying. I don't want DNA in my food.

"Mix a few common everday viruses into animals with never-existed-before
DNA sequences, and a whole lot of other "anythings" might happen.
Viruses just LOVE swapping big chunks of DNA with their hosts;
that's why we see new strains of influenza every single year.

We know that, in viruses, a small alteration in a single surface
protein can be the difference between a normal "Flu season"
and a worldwide pandemic like the infamous "Spanish Flu".
And the "black death" that killed half of Europe way back when
was caused by a common fleaborne virus that had experienced a
TINY change in its genetic makeup that altered its reproduction rate."

That's incredible. I can't believe Monsanto invented influenza in the first place.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Well, I am against eugenics for the sake of making prettier people or stronger soldiers.

[Jim Sagle]

7. Bio-engineering should be crushed without mercy.

[w4rma]

11. I like the idea of growing human organs for transplants in cloned pigs. (nt)

[Jim Sagle]

15. Yeah, I guess I do too.

It's just that so MUCH could go wrong, accidentally AND on purpose. The future could be a real live horror show.

[w4rma]

20. Oh I agree. I think the lax and lack of regulations is making everyone cut corners to be

competitive with the other corporations that are cutting all the corners.

Also the businesses are cannibalizing themselves to get higher and higher stock prices while peoples' ability to spend dwindles along with the middle class.

[Odin2005]

71. I bet people said the same thing 10,000 years ago when they discovered how to use metal

That is a typical luddite argument and it's bullshit.

[Jim Sagle]

93. Bullshit right back to your bullshit. Stuff your lectures.

[WinkyDink]

22. I think this is a revolting treatment of another sentient being. And I'm not thinking "Babe" here.

[w4rma]

25. I agree. It's revolting. But, it also needs to be done. (nt)

[WinkyDink]

Oh, I don't know. We could always just do what we've always done: die.

It's not like Dr. Frankenstein is going to make humans immortal.

[w4rma]

29. Because we should go back to an average lifespan of 30 years before medical research.

:sarcasm:

[The2ndWheel]

26. Slavery and genocide needed to be done too, even with all their faults

If they weren't done, America would not exist. There is a price to be paid for progress. That seems to be the human cost.

We don't need to fuck with the DNA of other species for our enhancement. However, if we are going to do it(and we will), first tell me what the goal is. Once you come up with the goal, can we stop once we reach it? If we can't stop, then it isn't a goal. If there isn't a goal, then we're fucking with the DNA of life for our supposed benefit without a plan. What is the endgame of this process that needs to be done?

[w4rma]

28. Except we aren't talking about slavery or genocide here (unless you include farm animals) (nt)

[The2ndWheel]

30. Why wouldn't you include farm animals?

It's nothing new. The logical progression of everything we've been doing for thousands of years would be to turn other animals into transplant mills for our benefit. We can't do it to ourselves anymore, that would be outrageous. So instead we breed species to a specific requirement. They can't fight back, we either breed it out of them or just kill them.

It's all about production. A pig is not productive, a sheep is not productive, but if we can change their DNA to fit our wants, needs, and desires, all of a sudden they can be productive cogs in our machine.

Like I said, I know we're going to do this, and nobody is going to stop it from happening. Nobody did before, nobody will do it in the future. As long as we have the energy required to keep the ever increasing scale of our experiment going, we will reach our goal, even though there doesn't seem to be one.

[Odin2005]

73. If you hate technology so much shut of you computer and go live naked in the woods.

[The2ndWheel]

100. Good one

How about you just freeze yourself until the future finally arives?

I live in 2007 America. I have a job, and I do enjoy human contact. Just because I have a thought about this and that doesn't mean I don't live in reality. Nothing I think makes any difference anyway. Nothing I do has made a dent in anything.

[Crandor]

88. You sure like to complain about not having a goal.

So what's your goal? To go back to how things were 5 million years ago and make sure nothing ever changes again? Guess what, if you could do that, that would be "unnatural" too. Things change, whether you like it or not. At one time the only life on Earth was single-celled organisms. And somehow, even without the influence of us eeeevil humans, evolution produced the wide array of plants and animals we see today. Oh no! Progress! Without a definite goal! The horror, the horror!

[The2ndWheel]

102. I don't have a goal either

I don't think life has one. Why equate progress and evolution? Evolution doesn't happen in a straight direction. Progress, at least the way we seem to define it, has a definite direction. They're not the same.

Change is one thing, the overt control of every microbe and atom of life is another.

"To go back"

Well time is a system of control, and there really is no such thing as going back or forward in time.

"make sure nothing ever changes again?"

No, I don't want that kind of control. That's why I have yet to stop anything. I don't plan on stopping anything. I couldn't if I wanted to. No need to worry, some jackass on a message board isn't bringing anything down.

[Odin2005]

72. The only sentient organimist on earth are us.

Don't tell me you've been fooled by PETA's propaganda exaggerating the intelligence of other animals.

[Forkboy]

74. I'm not fooled by people who exaggerate their own either.

[Toucano]

96. Nice one! n/t

Thanks!

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

75. You're a credit to the field!

[Toucano]

9. DDT, thalidomide, asbestos, depleted uranium, lead (paint and gasoline)

all were perfectly safe.

Don't stand in the way of our profits... er I mean progress!

[TZ]

33. actually thalidomide

in showing promise in fighting certain forms of cancer. Its in end stage clinical trials. So science also has the potential to learn from its mistakes!

[Toucano]

37. It was prescribed to eliminate morning sickness.

Expecting mothers were told it was safe.

The scientists were wrong. I don't trust corporate funded "science".

Nice they can learn from their mistakes while harming 10,000 unborn children.

[TZ]

41. corporations have stricter regulations than the govt labs

Read about Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) at the FDA's website. Thalidomide mistakes were one of the keys driving these regulations being imposed. The problem with the FDA these days, and not up till just the last 6 months or so, is getting the agency to enforce the regs. I have been in the field for years. There is definitely bad, but the checks and balances imposed by GLP and GMP are pretty good in regulating the industry, when applied properly.
And when has ANYTHING in this society (even before Bush) ever changed without tragedy being the driving force?

[Toucano]

87. "When applied properly."

Thank you. I'll follow my instincts and avoid frankenfood.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. "Expecting mothers were told it was safe."

Actually, expecting mothers were told it hadn't been adequately tested yet, it was never approved in the U.S. Expecting mothers had to import the stuff from europe.

[Toucano]

86. I'm sorry, but that's not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Thalidomide could not be sold in West Germany until its effects on animals were documented – usually effects of a drug are demonstrated on animals before the drug is administered to humans, but thalidomide was not tested that way. The sedative effects had not been seen in animals, so the Grünenthal scientists came up with a "jiggle cage" to measure the movements of mice to see if treated mice "jiggled" the cage less than non-treated mice. Grünenthal also pointed out that their "powerful hypnotic drug was completely safe."

<snip>
The company began selling the drug over the counter in Germany in October 1957, under the brand name Contergan. The company claimed that "Even a determined suicide could not take enough Contergan to cause death" and "accidental overdoses by children would be unheard of with this drug." Not one of those statements turned out to be true. Soon the drug was being sold in 46 countries under "at least 37 names,"<3> without any additional independent testing, and was the drug of choice for pregnant women with morning sickness."

<snip>
Under US law at the time, Richardson-Merrell had been legally distributing Kevadon on an "investigational" basis since early 1960, and pregnant women were included as patients after the first three months of the trial. American doctors were told,<3>

"We have firmly established the safety, dosage, and usefulness of Kevadon by both foreign and US laboratory and clinical studies. This program is designed to obtain widespread confirmation of its usefulness in a variety of hospitalized patients. Doctors need not report results if they don't want to..."

<snip>
Years later, it was shown that Richardson-Merrell knew about the risk of nerve damage but failed to disclose the fact to the FDA.<3> Throughout 1961, more unofficial, anecdotal reports of thalidomide side effects surfaced in Europe and Australia.

<snip>
Other countries quickly pulled the drug from their stores and pharmacies. However, Grünenthal continued to dispute the claims that thalidomide was responsible for the defects, saying that their action was "merely a response to the sensationalism."<3>

***************************************************************************

Corporations lie and the pay scientists to lie.

The company told the doctors it was safe and effective. The doctors told their patients it was safe and effective. No expecting mother would knowingly take a drug that might cause harm to her unborn child.

[AndyTiedye]

12. Here Is One That Comes to Mind:

"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"

Rebuilding America's Defenses PNAC 2000.

[Orrex]

14. A valid concern, but consider

That same technology could presumably deliver a tailored treatment to someone with a particular genetic defect or similar biochemical failing. What you're objecting to is not the technology per se, but rather to one nefarious application of it.

I agree with you in opposing that application, but the underyling technology certainly need not be used for evil.

[BlooInBloo]

18. It was only a matter of time before public stupidity turned into the wholesale rejection....

... of things that are not stupid.

[BeFree]

38. Yeah

What the world needs now is nukes, sweet nukes, EH?

Thank Gawd the public is wary of the elite's inventions. Or the mad scientist's laboratory concoctions. Can you say Frankenstein?

[WinkyDink]

23. Nano-technology.

[Bridget Burke]

24. Should we be replying over the internet?

What's wrong with smoke signals & carrier pigeons?

Perhaps pony express for the avant garde?

[WinkyDink]

27. Technological change isn't (necessarily) the same as "scientific advancements", so I'd say

we're safe.

[TZ]

31. What is "unnatural" btw?

Rick Santorum uses that argument with homosexuality, when in reality it ( and a whole lot of other bad "human" behavior) is found in the wild. Ecology says that when an environment reaches its carrying capacity (the maximum population a certain niche can safely support) things like homosexual behavior that tend to reduce birth rates are common. We are well beyond the carrying capacity on the planet, obviously.
Also, even if something is "unnatural" does that mean its wrong. There is a whole lot of fear about genetic engineering because its not well understood. Is some of it done without enough regard for safety? Probably. But look at something like gene therapy that has HUGE potential to eliminate or make treatable many many dangerous and lethal diseases.

[Orrex]

35. Nothing that humans can do is "unnatural"

The word simply has no meaning. We are natural creatures, and as a result everything we do is natural, from taking a dump in the woods to manufacturing depleted uranium. Even "artificial" has no more real meaning than "human-made," and it isn't inherently good or bad.

[The2ndWheel]

43. So is there no limit then?

Will there ever be a time when we can say stop? That's it, we've done enough? Or do we do whatever we can, because we can?

At least give me a goal. What is the point of doing it? What are we progressing towards? There has to be a reason for all that we've attempted to do. All these species that we're trying to alter for our benefit didn't ask to be a part of this experiment, but we're doing it anyway. There has to be a goal. We're either psychotic with a burning desire to control every aspect of life and kill diversity, or there is an actual endgame to this.

[Orrex]

46. I don't know how you got that from my post

I also don't know who has the authority to declare what the limit is or should be. All I said is that, as natural creatures, we are incapable of doing or making anything that is unnatural. How, frankly, could it be otherwise?

Will there ever be a time when we can say stop? That's it, we've done enough? Or do we do whatever we can, because we can?

We do whatever we can, because we can, just like every other animal on the planet. We flatter ourselves to think that our "free will" empowers us to do something more or greater than human nature, but that's an illusion; whatever we humans do is human nature.

At least give me a goal.

The goal, ultimately, is to propagate our DNA. Just like the ultimate goal of every other animal.

What is the point of doing it?

What kind of "point" are you looking for? Do you want a transcendent, metaphysical incentive for it? Sorry, but I've never seen any evidence of that such a justification exists.

What are we progressing towards?

As a species? Who knows? Evolution drives species to be ever more suited to their environment, and those that fail to adapt are weeded out. The fact that we breed cattle and cure polio doesn't change this.

Or do you mean "what are we progressing towards as a society?" Well, who knows? If you ask 100 people, I expect you'll get at least 100 answers. Presumably we're progressing toward a society in which the maximum number of people are able to live in comfort and happiness, but that's just a guess. And on a global scale we're as far from reaching that goal as we've ever been, IMO.

There has to be a reason for all that we've attempted to do.

Again, are you looking for a transcendent, metaphysical reason?

All these species that we're trying to alter for our benefit didn't ask to be a part of this experiment, but we're doing it anyway.

The gazelle didn't ask to be eaten as part of the lion's experiment, either. We've been altering species for millennia, by the way. Do you object to the domestication of wheat or the use of oxen to plow fields?

There has to be a goal. We're either psychotic with a burning desire to control every aspect of life and kill diversity, or there is an actual endgame to this.

That's an emotional appeal to aesthetics, rather than a reasonable argument for one course of action in preference to another.

We're human animals, and we do what animals do. It's simply that we do what we do on a larger scale than do gazelles or oxen.

[The2ndWheel]

60. How did we ever organize a society?

How we did it will so many "I don't know" and "we're just animals" answers is pretty impressive. Not saying it's all up to you to answer for thousands of years of questions, just in general.

"I also don't know who has the authority to declare what the limit is or should be."

Probably whoever has the guns. Or the money to buy the people with the guns. Or someone at the top anyway.

"All I said is that, as natural creatures, we are incapable of doing or making anything that is unnatural. How, frankly, could it be otherwise?"

I agree. That doesn't mean we have to make them. Like you said though, who gets to choose? I don't know.

"We do whatever we can, because we can, just like every other animal on the planet. We flatter ourselves to think that our "free will" empowers us to do something more or greater than human nature, but that's an illusion; whatever we humans do is human nature."

Agreed.

"The goal, ultimately, is to propagate our DNA. Just like the ultimate goal of every other animal."

I would say it's to stop the propagation of DNA, especially in every other animal.

"What kind of "point" are you looking for? Do you want a transcendent, metaphysical incentive for it? Sorry, but I've never seen any evidence of that such a justification exists."

Good enough answer.

"As a species? Who knows? Evolution drives species to be ever more suited to their environment, and those that fail to adapt are weeded out. The fact that we breed cattle and cure polio doesn't change this."

Again, agreed. However, do we adapt? I guess control and manipulation of the environment is adapting to it, in a way. I think we're sick of adapting.

"Presumably we're progressing toward a society in which the maximum number of people are able to live in comfort and happiness, but that's just a guess. And on a global scale we're as far from reaching that goal as we've ever been, IMO."

One more time, agreed. Why are we as far from that as we've ever been though? Is the system we use to create the tools to make such a thought even possible, the same system that makes such a thought impossible?

"Again, are you looking for a transcendent, metaphysical reason?"

I'll take any reason at this point. If it's the drive to propagate, that's fine.

"The gazelle didn't ask to be eaten as part of the lion's experiment, either."

Yet the gazelle can run away, fight back, etc, against the lion. I'm not saying that if the lion could, the lion wouldn't genetically breed that instinct out of the gazelle. It would make it a hell of a lot easier for the lion. Same for the gazelle.

"We've been altering species for millennia, by the way. Do you object to the domestication of wheat or the use of oxen to plow fields?"

Yeah. I'm also, shockingly, not a fan of mechanized agriculture either. But I know there's nothing I can do about it(I even take advantage of it, just like the way my clothes are probably made by a 6 year old girl in SE Asia), and I really wouldn't even want the power to do anything about it, since to change it at this point would be murder on a scale far exceeding all 20th century dictators combined. However, to do nothing, is just making the problem worse. I do what I can, but I know it's not enough. For example, I don't own a car. What has that stopped? Not a damn thing. Well, other than my ability to get a date. Natural selection though. I failed to adapt.

"That's an emotional appeal to aesthetics, rather than a reasonable argument for one course of action in preference to another."

Which makes it what? Rationality and reason created and used the nuclear bomb on people, let alone lower animals. Does that mean rational thinking is bad? Are emotional appeals to aesthetics inherently good or bad?

"We're human animals, and we do what animals do. It's simply that we do what we do on a larger scale than do gazelles or oxen."

The scale is the key. It may be a simple reason, but I know of no other as important. I don't think it's just a throw away reason.

[MilesColtrane]

32. Not sure what you mean by "fight".

As far as cloned and GM food goes, you can't certainly can't fight their development because they already exist.
You can boycott the products and lobby for their elimination from the marketplace.

The most important technology that's still in the development phase is nanotech.

There are a number of dangers that come along with it's unrestricted research and manufacturing. Some of which are listed here.

http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm

(free-range self-replicators are only the most dramatic possible danger)

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and the Foresight Institute are both attempting to provide guidance for the safe development of this technology.

[Junkdrawer]

36. Wall Street has invested $Billions in BioTech...So, open WIDE...

here it comes. And NOTHING will stop it.

Money Talks...

[TZ]

39. actually Wall Street regards BioTech as an iffy

proposition right now. ALOT of companies are struggling financially right now. Layoffs are frequent right now.

[Batgirl]

40. If it's not okay to "fight" is it at least acceptable to ask questions?

Cloned meat will not be a factor in my diet, because the meat producers already lost me as a customer when I read this article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters

But as a citizen, I will continue to be concerned about the possible unintended consequences of any scientific advances, particularly when it comes to the food industry. It's hard for me to understand how any thinking person could have an attitude of uncritical acceptance. That doesn't strike me as any more rational than the knee-jerk Ludditism you seem to be ascribing to those who are questioning/criticizing.

[Auggie]

42. No brainer -- nuclear weaponry

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Insulin

They haven't fully tested using genetically modified yeast for the production of human insulin.

Until then, people with diabetes should fuck off and die.

[Orrex]

47. How much testing would be sufficient?

If, for instance, the yeast-produced insulin is found to be chemically identical to porcine insulin, should we still wait 20 or 30 or 50 years to see if there are any complications?

How do we know when to say when?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. How much testing isn't important.

It's like the gardasil vaccine, all I know is, it hasn't been adequately tested yet.

I say give it another fifty or sixty years, then when all those diabetes patients who took it are dead, it'll show how dangerous bio-engineering is.

[Orrex]

49. Why not wait 100 years, then they'll all have died anyway.

If "how much testing isn't important," then how can you say that something hasn't been adequately tested? You need to establish a standard before you can say that something hasn't met that standard.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. You can't be to safe with this bio-engineering stuff.

It might cause cancer or something. I don't want the government injecting that shit into me. If they're not going to test for safety, they shouldn't even have it. I say get rid of all of it.

[Orrex]

51. I'm not sure that animal skins are safe

We should go back draping ourselves in the whole carcasses of the animals.

[BuyingThyme]

45. Car audio.

[Solon]

52. First you need to separate valid from invalid concerns...

In the case of cloned animals, do they have some advantage over non-cloned animals that I'm not aware of? Granted, research should continue in this area, especially if related to medical applications. As far as food production, if its not necessary, I don't see why it should be done, the problem with cloning, besides technical difficulties that affect the clone's health due to imperfection of the cloning technique itself, is that we would have animal "monocultures". In case you aren't aware, having monocultures in crops is usually a BAD thing, a single parasite or disease would affect ALL the plants, killing them or making them unsuitable for human consumption.

The same could happen in animals as well, while animals do have some natural protections, we know from experience that diseases adapt far too quickly to new methods of attacking them, and having, let's say, a herd of animals with the EXACT same genetic structure would be a recipe for disaster. The problem is the idea of manufactured needs, problems are created through marketing, rather than reality, and something is then used to "solve" this manufactured problem, an excellent example would be the use of RGBH in cow's milk. There was no shortage of milk BEFORE RGBH hit the market, and prices have yet to go down because of the increased production that RGBH helped with, and the health effects of RGBH are by and large unknown.

The rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria has been linked to food production, particularly the overuse of antibiotics in treating livestock for diseases they WOULDN'T get if they weren't penned into factory farms where they don't even have enough room to move around, much less breathe fresh air, rather than just manure that festers underneath them. These antibiotics have been found in food we eat, and our bodies absorb them, and bacteria that affect humans adapt to them, and also end up being immune from the antibiotics that humans are prescribed by doctors. Granted, this isn't the ONLY source for antibiotic resistant "superbacteria", but it is one of the primary factors.

Its not so much the science that's at fault, its how corporations or the government implement and use that technology that is the problem. Should the development of antibiotics never have taken place? No, of course not, but they SHOULDN'T be ABUSED in the manner they are now, same for hormone therapies, cloning, Genetic modification, etc.

A little caution should be called for here.

[Penndems]

54. Not a scientific advancement, but lobbying Congress to ban the importation of Chinese

wheat gluten would be an excellent idea.

[NashVegas]

57. Funny How We Blame the Chinese For This

When the true culprits are ALL of multi-nationals to consolidate to the extent they have, in order to operate in a non-competitive atmosphere.

One company making and selling 50 + brands of dog & cat food: how many times have you heard CNN et al use the word "consolidation" in their stories?

I bet "0".

[Penndems]

64. This is true, Crisco, but the U.S. trade deficit for the fourth quarter of 2006 was $900 billion,

while China posted a surplus of $150 billion in 2005, and $214 billion in 2005. The Chinese foreign exchange reserves have passed Japan's (the previous leader), and probably surpassed $1 trillion by the end of 2006. The PRC is on track to become the world's largest exporter by the year 2009.

China is calling all the shots here.

[NashVegas]

66. This British Had That Same Problem

A century or two ago.

It is not China calling the shots, but American stockholders and other multi-nationals who insist on using China for its cheap labor pool and insist on having free trade to remove the tariffs associated with importing.

And when it gets to the point where we are finally screaming "enough" the Chinese will be far more prepared to deal with us than they were the Brits.

[Penndems]

67. You're correct about British labor practices during the Industrial Revolution,

and the multinational use of China's cheap labor, but the PRC has done nothing to close down sweat shops (and probably never will).

They're not exactly proponents of human rights:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/chn-summary-eng

[NashVegas]

90. I Was Speaking More of Their Trade Imbalance Issues

...

[Penndems]

92. Sorry - I misunderstood

:(

[mudesi]

58. There's a difference between actual scientific testing and corporate lobbying (nm)

[enki23]

59. i'm with you. unfortunately, DU has a lot of knee-jerk anti biotech

mostly informed by massive ignorance about the subject.

biotech is like everything else. there is potential for misuse, and mistakes. there is also potential for great good to come of it.

oh, and there's nothing magical about a clone. the world is full of clones, and was long, long before humans came on the scene.

[Odin2005]

76. Ludditism, saddly, was one one of the negative results of the 60's and 70's counterculture.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. Ludditism was a product of the 19th century.

The Luddites were skilled textile workers who were upset that new weaving machines would make them obsolete. It was a labor movement, and it had something of a point. To call these anti-science nuts "luddites" is an insult to luddites.

The pseudoscientific GM scare we're seeing nowadays is mostly the product of right-wing Creationist Jeremey Rifkin, who found he got better results among gullibile environmentalists than gullible right wingers. If you're going to compare them to anybody, you're better off comparing them to Creationists. The same people are behind it.

No offense to those who object to GM on sound, scientific bases.

[jollyreaper2112]

62. there's smart and there's dumb

As an example, knee-jerk greens condemning ALL nuclear power as unsafe are dumb. We already have decent, solid plans for new designs that would be safer, longer-lasting, and far better for the environment than coal, oil, and hydro power. Then again, the Bush administration is backing the idea so rejecting the Bush plan is not so dumb, I think they'd deliberately replace safe reactor designs with Chernobyl simply out of spite.

There's blame to be cast on both sides. We have knee-jerk luddites who try to hold back progress in order to protect their own little fiefdoms, ignoring how advances can better the world. Then again, we have industrialist pricks who will lay waste to entire sectors of our industry and put millions out of work just to make a few extra trillions for themselves.

As far as cloned meat is concerned, the people who are promoting it have much $$$ to be made off of it and that's more than enough to convince people to overlook the dangers entailed in the product. Look at the wood big business is sprouting over ethanol. Do we need alternatives to oil? Hell, yeah. Do we need solutions that don't exchange one set of problems for another? Hell, yeah. Ethanol would be just as big of a problem for us as dino oil but gee, look at who makes the bucks off of it.

We humans typically come up with an idea and put it into full production before we even consider what the ramifications are. Sometimes the projects are entered into with the best of intentions for improving society and making the world a better place; that road to hell is paved with good intentions. But other times the road to hell is paved with lies and deceit.

I'm sure the scientists involved with the clone meat are trying to make the world a better place. I'm sure the businessmen backing them don't give a shit about the world so long as it makes them some bucks. But we still don't know whether the clone meat is objectively a good thing or a bad thing. We need studies. We need to thoroughly understand the consequences of what's proposed here before leaping in feet-first.

[Forkboy]

77. I'd rather fight for responsible science than against advancement itself.

[SoCalDem]

80. It's not about the "science, per se.. It's about the manipulation AFTERWARD.

I see the marketing as the dangerous part. Look at any "new RX" ad, and tell me I'm wrong. Those goofball ads have managed to convince normally smart people to run to their doctors and pressure them into giving the patient a pill for "indigestion" ...a new pill that may coincidentally give them LYMPHOMA.. The dangerous side effects of these new meds are rattled off at the end of the commercial, in machine-gun style, and in an overtly cheery voice..

As a society, we have become accustomed to NEW...BIGGER..SHINIER..IMPROVED, and of course "the market" is only too happy to oblige.

We were once told, and many believed it, that a NUCLEAR TEST was an event that was safe to attend (field trip style, with box lunches).

Children routinely got their necks X-RAYED when they had a cold..

Shoe stores used to X-RAY feet (to make sure the shoes fit)..

Life is FAST-IN-THE-USA, and the long range effects of so many things, is never allowed to sink in, before the population grabs hold for the ride.

Scientists will always discover new things..It's what they DO. It's up to well-educated, and thoughtful REGULATORS to investigate the safety and efficacy of these new findings BEFORE they allow them to be advertised and unleashed upton the public.

[Rex]

81. You're kidding me? You WANT to eat cloned livestock?

In America? You can't be serious.

[IChing]

84. A really oversimplistic flame baiting thread

Sorta of a "we need to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here argument".

Cloned and genetically modified canola plants cannot be killed by weed killer.
The OP posted this dribble and ran away.

[RB TexLa]

91. Haven't run anywere, I've been watching the thread

[Swamp Rat]

85. The Bushler Clones

:hide:

[GreenTea]

97. Republicans procreating.

[NuttyFluffers]

98. other scientific advancements to stop? bio weaponization for one

virii weaponization also doesn't really appeal to me for some reason.

also work toward AI sentience. yeah, supposedly it's unpreventable or something according to sci if tropes of human progress. but i'm perfectly fine at leaving AI unexplored at some point to ensure that it is firmly and forever under our control as a mere tool, not ever sentient or equal at any point. study AIs all you want, but just make it a better calculator; the goal of sentience just doesn't seem productive.

subliminal conditioning via mass media. i'm sure there is still much to be researched left, but i have zero interest in any more human understanding in creating greater efficiency and power in this field. it'd be nice to find some research available in de-conditioning methods, though, for therapy reasons.

reanimation/immortality/outrageous longevity research. sounds all wonderful and all but who ever thinks of the ramifications? eternal human populations? overpopulation or 100% birth control or sterilization would be an immediate concern. also the permanence of particularly brutal and evil characters with the money to access this. an eternal (or close enough) W. for president is something i don't think would be a benefit from science.

if you think long and hard about it there's certain directions in science that just don't seem terribly productive to the whole of humanity. just because we may have a power doesn't mean we have the wisdom that goes along with it. even now we often feel we are counting the years toward nuclear holocaust -- perhaps we've just been remarkably lucky that fear has so far trumped MAD. science is great, but you also need a humane core to guide it into channels that better serve all of humanity instead of a tyranny of an elite few.

[gollygee]

104. This is a logical fallacy

People here disagree with cloning livestock. Cloning livestock is a scientific advancement. Therefore, people here disagree with all scientific advancements?

Nope. I'm not into messing with our food, but I'm all for most scientific advancements.