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

All fair points, and I can't really say I disagree any of 'em.

On the other hand, my own personal opinions differ slightly...

I've never really had a problem with 'unnatural', though, having absolutely no regard for nature except in terms of what's actually there. That is, I can appreciate how wonderful various bits of nature are and how terrible it is that they're being destroyed - but if they were man-made, I would feel exactly the same way. The fact that they got there by themselves is entirely irrelevant - it's what they are that counts.

So. With that sort of attitude, 'mutilation of nature' doesn't mean anything to me. It's the end product that I need to look at to decide whether it's a good thing or not.

That fish you mentioned, incidentally, is a great example of how it's possible to screw nature up without genetic engineering. It's also something that's taught to every single biology student... so, hopefully, we've got something of a better idea of the risks, now.

Call me an optimist, but I have faith in the ability of those involved to not make a complete mess of this. I also have faith in the ability of anti-GM campaigners (however much I might disagree with them) to make the GM people think twice about important decisions...

I also think that the human race has got a really great future - if we don't blow ourselves up, that seems to be the only other way to go.

26199

Oh don't get me wrong. There are many manmade creations that I consider to be priceless. I'm not suggesting tearing down the Pyramids to make a desert resrve. All I'm saying is that we have killed off a lot of beautiful things and it is a terrible trgedy. And the "unnatural" thing wasn't really my personal opinion, it's just something I understand as a moral objection. I am still pretty much neutral to this whole phenomenon. But it is an interesting discussion. I don't mind the thread creep thing. It keeps things interesting.

Me neither... seeing as we seem to have run out of differences of opinion, we could really use some right now

26199

OK, so let me get this straight. GM could be a good or bad thing, but basically, a concerned public should be there to keep the GM companies on their toes. Sounds a bit like the nuclear issue to me, we have to be concerned about the long term consequences and at this stage I'm not sure anyone knows what they are.

I've tried to look through the whole conversation so far and I don't think anyone has raised what I think is one of the most important points (of the GM debate, not the original - sorry BluesSlider). That is that, scientists (especially plant ones - that is ones dealing with plants not made of) started testing in the open air too early - and EVERYONE knows that pollen etc spreads not matter what you do - ask any hasyfever sufferer - you can't get away from it. So they KNEW the GM-ed seeds/pollen or whatever would get out. Now - was that on purpose the thrust the stuff upon us? I mean they really have bullied the world into liking or lumping more or less.

Now, I'll also say that I still aint sure about the good-or-bad question, but I think it was all very underhand and bullying (boo-hoo, sob - I'll get my big brother on you you nasty corporation!)

88425

I just thought of something. Couldn't this type of technology also be used for biological warfare? The "pollen spreading" analogy made me think. What if two countries were at war with each other and one of them decided to starve them into submission by sending their troops in to plant genetically modified crops designed to spread their seed and then wither and die. Or something like that. I haven't got the specifics down but I bet it's doable. My question is, what if they are already developing such weapons? Even if they are, that doesn't nessecarily negate the positive worth of such technology. There are many ways to harm people, and that would just be one more. But it is an interesting proposition. I've heard that certain races of people are more vulnerable to some kinds allergic reactions and other such things (ie black people are much more likely to be lactose intolerant than white people). Perhaps genetic modification could even be designed to commit genocide. I guess I'm just in a morbid mood today. *grin*

Whoo hoo! GM as a weapon of mass destruction, let's hope the tabloids don't get hold of that one . But it is an interesting slant on the subject.

Well, would you believe it - I just spent ten or fifteen minutes crafting an intricate and well-worded reply to various points, only to have my internet connection give up on me upon my hitting the 'send' button.

So I'll just post the main points, in the interest of keeping things moving...

Genetic modification could, indeed, produce biological weapons... but there are already some extremely nasty weapons out there. This is something to be worried about, but not a reason to halt all GM research...

Scientists are, in fact, a lot more worried about the effects of pollen and other spreading things than they are about direct ill effects on people's health. This means that a great deal of research has been done to ensure that no damage is done to the enviroment or to people. I, personally, am entirely satisfied that GM crops don't pose a risk to those in their surroundings, and would not object if I lived next to a farm producing GM crops. In fact, it could well be safer... less pesticides, and all that.

I have to disagree with 'we have to be concerned about the long term consequences and at this stage I'm not sure anyone knows what they are', about the Nuclear industry... there are people whose job it is to work out the long-term consequences, and I'd talk to them before making any kind of judgement. Meself - it's not something I worry about.

26199

Stumbled across this thread... here's my say

"it is obvious that we are changing the recipe for life on Earth" That's how you breed a mule... No one's been morally objecting to that.

"I would trade it all in a heartbeat to restore the Earth to its former glory, before the ravages of man."
Environmentalist though I am, I always have trouble with this argument. People are just animals, at least from my atheist perspective. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the image of us corrupting the purity of the earth. Nature is not pretty. I don't think I should be cutting down trees, but neither do I think my ability to do so makes me a corrupter of nature.

As for the biological weapons argument: Now that the GM technology is out there, it *will* be developed to whatever uses countries want it to. At this point stopping it will only cut off its potential beneficiaries... who have not come up yet. Millions more people will have food if this is properly implemented. Drought will not mean certain death. Et cetera.

As I think I have said elsewhere in this conversation, I agree crossbreeding animals and crossbreeding plants has been going on for a long time. I don't personally have any particular stance on the morality of GM, I'm just not sure about the concept of effectively crossbreeding amimals with plants. I guess the obvious answer is that I should go and find out more about it .

I also agree, with a heavy heart, that now the technology is out there someone is bound to try and exploit it for nefarious purposes.

Now, the 'feeding the world' issue is, in my book, a whole different ball game which I'm tempted to start in another thread.

I gave in to temptation

http://www.h2g2.com/forumframe.cgi?forum=37448&thread=53658

Ioreth: I agree with you about the biological weapon thing. But when I said "the ravages of man" well first of all I was in a dramatic mood, but the fact is we are very different from other animals, because of what we are capable of. Our species has damaged our ecosystem more than any other animal ever has or could have. We are also different because we have a sense of morality and consience. OK I can't prove that dolphins don't have a sense of right and wrong, but I think you get the point. I think of this as a responsiblity we are entrusted with, not to use our power destructively. This is just my opinion, but I live by it. We have the capability to cause mass destruction to our planet, and we have done just that, tearing down rainforests, speeding up the extinction rate by a ratio that is too extreme to even conceive, and poisoning the air we breathe and the water we drink. That's what I meant by the ravages of man. And no, I don't want to be a caveman or anything like that. I just would prefer to live on a pristine and unpoisoned planet than the place we call home, and I would be willing to give up an awful lot of material comforts for such a thing. I just want to clairify myself (without the use of fish glands )

"entrusted with"

By whom? I think your argument is an essentially religious one. (not that I don't respect it, just that it don't work for me)

Good point. I guess my belief in a higher purpose to life does inevitably influence my thinking, although I never really conciously thought of it as that. What I really meant by "entrusted with" was a sense of responsibility as a direct result of our sentience, whether it is coincidence, destiny, or a higher power that made us what we are. I honestly think I would feel the same if I was an atheist, but I guess you never know. But let's not turn this into a religous debate. I've had my share of those, and most were rather unpleasant. So Ioreth, not to put you on the spot, but what exactly IS your stance on conservation? In case that sounded hostile, I assure you that isn't my intention. I'm just curious.

Apologies for butting in on this but I'd like to support Zarquon in as much as I believe we have a responsibility to the planet. I'm an atheist myself but I believe that our intelligence should lift us above blind destruction and give us greater respect for the planet that gives us life. Just a thought . And, yeah, let's try and keep religion out of it, there's plenty of other places to discuss that on H2G2 . Big hugs and no hostility / offence intended.

Glad we can stay amiable.

My stance on conservation is 'don't pollute, it's stupid.' At least for now, we gotta live here. Also important, pollution is ugly, unhealthy, and unpleasant. I don't feel any responsibility to 'mother earth' but I'd like a clean planet as much as you.

*hugs all around fo the geniality*

I tried to post a reply to this but my system shut down. So I'll make it brief - re conservation etc:

I agree with Ioreth to some extent - don't pollute, it's stupid. I also, however, have the question - are we (humans) really that big-headed as to think that we make that much of a difference, to a system as complicated as the earth?

I mean, for example - in the dark ages (or some time like that) there was a major climate change event, spanning some decades, where the temperatures rose significantly. That obviously wasn't anything to do with industrial pollution or anything - just nature.

The worst human life-threatening/killing things are naturally sourced.

The most significant events in our geological history are due to earthquakes, volcanose etc.

Do we REALLY make that much of an impact, or is it natural cycling?

You see what I'm saying?

88425 (...and all I could say was - OK...)

You're right. I take relief in knowing that it is virtually impossible for us to completely destroy the Earth. But we have screwed up pretty badly. And "pollution is stupid" is also true. I certainly prefer a clean environment to a dirty one. But I also think it's important that we don't kill off species of plants and animals without a very good reason. BluesSlider put it very well. We're smart enough to know what we're doing, so we shouldn't cause unnessecary harm. I mean, that's why I'm a vegetarian. Killing animals isn't nessecary to survive (at least not where I live) so I don't think we should do it. I guess I don't have any fundamental justification for my reasoning, but that's just how I feel about it.

Yes, we have responsibility, but... to whom?

As far as I can see, if we spoil things, we're only spoiling it for ourselves. As a species, it's hard to blame humans for destroying the environment because, basically, we're digging our own graves doing so. Similarly, there's no need to feel guilty about what we've done because we're the ones suffering the consequences.

Considering people as individuals, things are somewhat different. Everyone has a responsibility to everyone else not to cause problems. Those who do cause problems for everyone else have every right to feel guilty about it.

All this, of course, is taking the view that animals don't matter all that much. But, despite being vegetarian, I take the view that humans are a *lot* more important than animals. Animals are still important, which is why I avoid eating 'em. But I think that whatever problems people are causing are going to be noticed a lot more by us than by them (the animals)...

Also... I'm not entirely convinced that we have made as much of a mess as environmentalists will claim. I mean, there were some pretty inhospitable places around before we came along... and the earth is ridiculously, hideously big. Talking about 10,000 square miles of polluted land (for example - I just made that up) sounds impressive until you work out how much land there actually is.

Anyway. Er. Not trying to argue that pollution is a good thing, here, but that it's not as bad as some people make out and we're the ones suffering anyway.

26199

I'm not sure I agree with that last point. Last time I checked other animals breathe the same air as we do. Pollution affects the entire ecosystem. And it is important to remember that it is a "system". Everything is connected. Granted some things more than others but when we cause mass destruction to natural resources or directly cause the premature extinction of an entire species of plants or animals, we are hurting more than ourselves. I'm involved with an organization called Defenders of Wildlife, and one of our major issues is the restoration of the North American gray wolf. Even though the majority of citizens of the reintroduction areas support it certain factions are against it. Anyways, my point is even though predators do help humans by keeping herds of prey healthy and reducing disease, I think it's hard to say that the nearly successful attempt to wipe the wolf from the earth only hurts humans. However, I understand your point about humans being more important than other animals. I don't see it quite that way but I think when there is a conflict between our species and another that can't be resolved in a mutually beneficial way, we should be loyal to our own species. I have no problem with survival of the fittest. I just don't think we need to do a lot of the destructive things we do. And althought I always say "we" I know it's not everyone. I don't feel guilt for the deeds of others, just regret.