h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...but first a few caveats
This post is intended to start the sort of discussion which is followed by a few pints of your favourite organic, veggie beer (or other preferred tipple), *not* name calling and vowing never to speak to each other again
A free and frank exchange of views is encouraged, but only so long as it retains respect for the individual: to paraphrase, or horribly mis-quote.

'I may disagree with everything you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.

So, to the point ('Hurrah...at last.' I hear you cry ):

'Vegetarians should not eat GM foods as they might contain genes derived from animals.' Now, I don't know much about the actual process of genetic modification, and on a purely personal level I don't agree with it, but doesn't this seem just a little weak as an argument?

Forgive me...I am just leaving a bookmark here, because I want to come back to this discussion (and I sure hope it becomes a grand discussion) a bit later. Great topic, BluesSlider!

Well I'll join in with the first point - the air we breathe contains molecules from animals, and how many fish have died and decomposed in the water we drink? Likewise plants and vegetables feed themselves on soil which has been mixed in with organic remains of plants and animals.

If you're going to take things down to the molecular level, it gets quite difficult to do anything without animal products being involved in some way.

I agree...

After all, if it's never been alive, what's the problem? And DNA certainly isn't alive...

Why not take it to the next level... should a vegetarian eat the vat-grown meat that turns up in so many sci-fi novels?

26199

Good question. I suppose it depends on why you are veggie. Personally, I'm veggie because I don't think it's necessary to kill animals to survive (certainly in a place like the UK). Assuming your vat grown meat didn't involve the death of animals I wouldn't have a problem with it .

BTW, I'm not sure the H2G2 DNA would agree with the second part of your initial preposition .

LOL You were kind of setting yourself up there 26199. If BluesSlider hadn't said it, I would have. This is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind for the HVS. Great idea. Anhow, I'll answer the "meat vat" question first, since it's easier. I don't see any ethical problem with eating meat that was never alive, at least on the basis of animal rights. It is rather a scary prospect though, and I might avoid it all the same. I'm not exactly "religious" in the sense of believing everything it says in the Bible, but I do believe in a higher power, and there are certain things that are better left to (for lack of a better word) "Him". But I digress. Geneticly enhanced food products, then. Again we must ask ourself if we really think we know better then Mother Nature, but this isn't the issue presented. I don't really know all the details of this, but assuming that no animals are harmed in the process, the idea of animal products doesn't seem wrong to me. I agree with BluesSlider 100% in the idea of not killing when it isn't nessecary to survive. I feel that our advantage over other animals presents us with a responsibility to only take what we need. Mankind has utterly failed in this throughout history, and it grieves me much to see destruction all around me, all created by my fellow man. In places and times where meat is nessecary to survive I don't have a problem with it. If I were starving to death and the only thing that could save me was a cute little lamb, granted that I still had the will to live, I would gladly bludgeon the little bugger to death and scarf it down, feeling regret, but not guilt. I try not to bring evil into the world, but I'm no martyr. That's my philosophy; do what it takes to survive, but cause no unnessecary harm. So to finally answer your question, if the genes were taken in an uncruel way, I would have no moral objection to eating a product that was made with them.

*catches breath*

Hey Hey Hey everyone good topic. Although I am not a full vegetarian I do totally disagree with the scientific world alterring our food. If "HE" you know who I am talking about wanted it that way then he would have done so. I understand all of us are from differn't parts of the world so here is a link that tells of restaraunts every where that does not or does use GM Food. http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gmwho.html
This next site tell of some basics that the science industry is doing.
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/john.rose/
This is some safety issues that are being talked about
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/john.rose/
The rest are miscellaneous I know I spelled that wrong but oh well. Check them out maybe your view point will change or be enhanced if you need any more you can ask em for them or just do your own search! Thanks
http://www.oneworld.org/consumers/campaigns/food/index.html#biotechnology

Thanks Bobbie!

Hey Zarquon, this is spooky. I usually use the example of me on a desert island with a pig. If it's me or the pig, the pig gets it...and I didn't like pork even when I did eat meat (23 years ago).

Oh dear... I hope this isn't going to turn into a religious argument, they're the worst kind...

So I'll just state that I have no problem with science altering food and leave it at that. As far as I'm concerned, anyone using arguments about what He wants shouldn't be entitled to use a computer, 'cause clearly He didn't create computers, science did. If you still use a horse-and-cart to get to work, your argument is somewhat stronger. Anyone out there not using toothpaste? Worrying about how unnatural modern preventative medicine is?

Look, science has changed every aspect of life on this planet. To complain about science changing food is to imply that food is somehow different from every other aspect of our lives, which to me stinks of superstition. Sorry.

Safety issues are, of course, entirely worthy of consideration. But I don't see any reason to panic about it.

26199

I agree that science has changed a lot of things in our lives, but not always for the better. As far as genetic modification of food is concerned I just feel that this is just in its infancy, I'm not afraid that deadly veg. will result though, just not sure we really know the effects. Anyhow, I hadn't intended this to be a GM discussion. I guess we're just getting thread creep .

Ahh... when you say 'I'm just not sure we really know the effects'... have you any contact with the scientists whose job it is to know the effects? I haven't, so I really can't comment on that particular aspect of the GM debate...

Leave it to the scientists, or, if you're really worried, talk to the scientists. That's what I reckon, at least.

26199

There's a difference though. Nongenetic technology just uses the things that are already there and builds things with them. Genetic alteration is taking the very recipe for life and screwing around with it. I'm not saying it's morally wrong; I'm just if we're going in this direction, we should proceed with extreme caution. I looked at those websites, and one of them (the argonet one) claims that a geneticly modified food product killed some people and made others sick before it was recalled. If that is true, then they need to do some better testing. Also, they should have to label them, I think. However, I am not anti-science, and if there really are possible benefits to GMs, I support research in this subject. I just think maybe we are getting ahead of ourselves, trying things without knowing the full consequenses. The story of Pandora's box springs to mind. I really don't think relgion comes into it; atheists know better than anyone that humans are not always the wisest creatures in their decisons.

One more thing. I don't want to bring any hostility to this forum, but the "thread creep" comment; I understand where you are coming from, however, she told me via Instant Message that she had links for me about the GMs, and I encouraged her to post them herself since she is new here. I thought they would help inform us of the situation, so we could understand our topic better. She had no intention of usurping the thread, and she wouldn't have even posted them herself if I hadn't asked her too. She may be opinionated but so are all of us, I think. Remember the "disagree but defend" quote at the top. I'm not trying to preach; I just want to clairify the situation before she reads it and reacts. I don't want to see a fight between my friend and the members of my new society. Bobbie, please try to understand that there are people who go into threads leaving a comment that is intended to redirect the topic, and then leave. It was very reasonable for him to assume that. Please don't get angry. And if I misunderstood the comment, I thouroghly apologize. I just didn't want any trouble.

Oh Mike no worry LoL although I can tun into a major never mind you know where that is leading. I think he is right all I am saying is that you shouldn't cross things with others that is wrong now making computers is something totallt different I wouldn't use my computer if it functioned on the DNA of an Ape because that is morally wrong. Computers and food crossing with animals is two different discussions. Whether they realize this or not is up to them. Oh yes and sorry if I may have caused any uproar posting them sites like Mike said I am new adn mayeb I just shouldn't have done it but I did and guess what I am proud of it Well I don't eat genetically modified food if anyone cares. It's kind of scary to me!!!

Hey, no worries guys I was just trying to nudge the thread gently back to the original topic which was not GM per se but a specific, 'supposed' vegetarian dilemma. It was *never* intended as a criticism of anyone I like it when one topic sparks off another but to avoid confusion why not open a new thread? Apart from anything else this stops the development of one totally un-loadable thread with about four different discussions in it.

Incidentally, it's the animal genes into plants that concerns me, not particularly from the vegetarian angle, but from the plants have been known to cross fertilize, animal species have been known to interbreed, but at anything higher than say lichens I ain't heard of an animal/plant cross.

*Having carefully contributed to the thread creep, lies back and gives in to the inevitable After all, this *is* H2G2.*

Don't worry 'bout posting links to sites; 's not a problem. Thread creep can be annoying, but in this case the original discussion seems to have died off so we might as well make use of the thread for a new one, hmmm?

Anyway. I propose that genetic engineering of foods, even using genes from animals, is no more new or different than, say, the production of vaccines. Both are simply biological/chemical techniques which have certain results.

I am entirely supportive of caution - this is a new technology and a terribly complicated one. But a lot of the public reaction disturbes me; they were labelled 'Frankenfoods', a label which is entirely appropriate. The story of Frankenstien is a tragedy about irrational fear of the unknown and general lack of understanding.

I would be interested to hear the reasoning behind genetic modification being morally wrong... certainly there's nothing in *my* moral code which says anything of the sort. Religious reasons, possibly. But they ain't moral reasons.

26199

Quick take on the the vegetarian question that precipitated the discussion. Jasegroom's comment about organic remains of animals finding their way into the food supply pretty much convinces me that the caveat about vegetarians eating GM foods is indeed based on a weak argument. Having said that, the "thread creep" (icky phrase!) does provoke some interesting asides.

_Frankenstein_ is also about man creating something which he then loathes and fears. The monster in the story is the creator, and the monster in GM foods may well be the creator. I am not a Luddite, but I wonder if technology is moving too fast on this one. This isn't a hot issue in the States, so I am not as well informed as I should be. And since I've only added to thread creep, I will go do some research and maybe contradict myself later this weekend.

Ahh, but the creator is only a monster 'cause of the fearing and loathing, not because of the creating... right?

I think. Grin, talk 'bout thread creep, we could be getting into a debate about literature here...

Personally, I wish it (GM) wasn't a hot issue over here, either. There are far more important things to worry about... I'm put in mind of something one of the founders of Greenpeace said. He said they formed Greenpeace to do something about nuclear testing. This being something which might well get everyone in the world killed. He said there's no need for any kind of agressive (environmental) protest nowadays, and he thinks the environmental movement has gotten out of hand... (paraphrasing from memory here, folks).

Why not worry about the things which are dangerous instead of worrying that something you don't (I don't and most people don't, that is) know anything about. Makes much more sense.

Any thoughts? Does anyone want t' see if they can steer the thread around t' the topic of... ooh, pick something random... the role of tropical fish in the media? Now there's a challenge...

26199

tropical fish? Personally I feel they are being outrageously exploited. I blame Jacques Cousteau . (Spelling might be a bit out but it's late Friday night here and I can't be bothered to check .)

I guess my paranoia machine needs retuning, cause I keep worrying about nothing. Anyways, I agree with those last comments up until a certain point. The thing that doesn't go down right with me is the part about (and I'm paraphrazing here) 'Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on dangerous things instead of things most people don't know much about.' Now in my experience, the most dangerous things have always been the ones that most people don't know much about. Maybe if the public was better informed their wouldn't be so much resistance in the first place. I also think that highly experimental procedures with possible risks of serious consequences should be tightly monitored by the government(s). Now maybe it already is, agian it is hard to make an argument without knowing what you're arguing about, and it's true that those links were pretty onesided. So I am very restricted in what I can say. All I can say is from what little I do know this sounds like something that could potentially be very good or very bad, and those involved should consider safety before profit. But of course they won't, at least as long as the biotech industries remain in private hands, because the very definition of business is the pursuit of profit. Also, although I am still undecided about where I stand on this, I can understand how some people could have a moral objection to genetic engineering. It can be seen as the mutilation of nature. A horse gene in a corn plant, a frog gene in a wheat plant, whether you believe in a higher power or not, it is obvious that we are changing the recipe for life on Earth, life that prospered for so very long before we came into the picture, life that made our existence possible. This is taking "unnatural" to a whole new level and I really think it is different from other types of technology. But that's just one scope of it. I have enough issues with morality and ideology as it is, and this is one thing I would rather stay apathetic on at least for now. Oh God, that sounds terrible, but I just don't need any more though questions. I am more concerned with the physical consequences. They could be far reaching and irrevocable. I once heard a true story about an endangered species of fish (possibly from Last Chance to See?, if not I think it was from a book by Farley Mowat called the Siberians). They were dying off and they were only found in one lake in the world. So they moved the fish to another lake that seemed perfect. They checked it out to the best of their ability, and they couldn't forsee any problems. Well they moved the fish, and at first it seemed like a big success. The party turned sour however when a large population of the lake's native species showed up dead. It turned out their new neighbors were hogging the supply of a special kind of microscopic organism that was vital to the lake's ecosystem. It was a total disaster, and no one had seen it coming. My point (and I do have one, believe it or not) is that humans screw up. Bad. It's happened before, and it will happen again. Advanced technology like genetic engineering has a shot at making the world a lot better. But that means we're upping the ante. I guess I'm just not much of a gambling man. I prefer to trust nature, and assume that it knows itself better than we know it.

I always wished I lived in a simpler society. As much as I love technology like computers, stereos, TVs, phones, cars, etc, and of course comforts like climate control, and protection like manufactured medicene, I would trade it all in a heartbeat to restore the Earth to its former glory, before the ravages of man. I guess I am pessimistic about humanity. I feel that we have acheived more harm than good, and that is why I, as a member of humanity, feel a responsibility, an obligation even, to repair as much harm as I can. But I am weak, and I do far less than I could if my will was stronger. And it's hard when so many people just don't care. I can picture myself as Atlas, with the weight of the world on my shoulders, and the people I am holding up don't care at all, and I finally get fed up and hurl the planet into the depths of the underworld. Of course that probably sounds pretty conceited, but I don't feel important or powerful. I just feel like I was born with a debt to pay, a debt I can never pay in full. So I will pay as much as I can and pass the rest on to my heirs, hoping the interest rate doesn't rise too much in the meantime, and also hoping my analogies aren't getting on people's nerves. I'm sorry, I really really got offtrack. I need to stop talking about myself. Then I will have a lot less to say.