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

Wonderful exchange of opinions, indeed! I'd like to join in from a different point of view!

Let me make an ass of myself by speaking outside of my profession which is computer science, and massively parallel systems in particular! When I studied that a long time ago (in Michigan) there was also a course on "adaptive systems" which covered all kinds of exotic stuff including DNA controlled living beeings and their ways and means (and ends!) of adaptation. In consequence I also read Watson-Crick and Dawkins later in my life - which BTW was a greater gain of knowledge than some of the fuzzy JAVA language books I have to suffer through today.

But no diversions! What makes genetic engineering so dangerous and promising at the same time is the accelerated adaptation required to make it work on a broader scale. This leads us from mere evolution to coevolution of first and higher degrees. In mere evolution, if a gene is wrong the individualk afflicted suffers or dies. Death without progeny is the easy end of the story - the "wrong" gene is weeded out (good!) , ... but the other genes in the afflicted cell group go as well (most of the times, this is "bad" or at least "sad"). Consequence: genes need "populations" to survive in mass!

Well everybody knows that much (or should at least) when talking about "genetics". As for politicians, I am convinced that more than half of them don't know, but also more than 90% don't talk, so the danger is contained in another way!

In coevolution then one species thrives or starves based on the available volume of prey (like ladybirds and aphids for instance). If aphids die out slowly the ladybird might adapt, e.g. by migration or inclusion of other nutrients or god knows what, which is the next major problem, because god might know and might care, but do we when letting loose new genes on the environment? (Which brings me to the rather shocking and saddening French Chemist that dumps engineered bacteria through the drain! To shoot that person is much to soft - she should be forced to drink the sewage and be kept in isolation ever after ...) which is nonsense of course - but it reads really harsh!

Now what about these first and higher order coevolution mechanisms of interspecies interaction? This is really heavy mathematics with differential equations (mostly even partial differential equations and hence hard to solve analytically and time consuming if approximated numerically on powerful and massively parallel computers) and the outcome is outragiously hard to predict! And the same applies to good mother nature!

Minor distortions in the zillions of feed back loops can (not must!) lead to dramatic new equilibria, some "better", some "worse" and by simply starting the process in "good faith" we only display or profound lack of caution! Having survived for so long, "natural" evolution can cope and does cope with run away effects - we are used to call this an epidemic: Large percentages of populations die - and evolution (including coevolution) starts all over again!

So where is the point now? The point is that the current network of feedback loops in the open environment will absorb only a very limited amount of abuse. The current dose of release of "artificial" genes is so minimal that no real cathastrophy has happened yet. But once the total dose gets more and more mankind will find out (a short time later) when we have exceeded the critical acceleration of change ... only then it may be too late!

Wonderful exchange of opinions, indeed! I'd like to join in from a different point of view!

Let me make an ass of myself by speaking outside of my profession which is computer science, and massively parallel systems in particular! When I studied that a long time ago (in Michigan) there was also a course on "adaptive systems" which covered all kinds of exotic stuff including DNA controlled living beeings and their ways and means (and ends!) of adaptation. In consequence I also read Watson-Crick and Dawkins later in my life - which BTW was a greater gain of knowledge than some of the fuzzy JAVA language books I have to suffer through today.

But no diversions! What makes genetic engineering so dangerous and promising at the same time is the accelerated adaptation required to make it work on a broader scale. This leads us from mere evolution to coevolution of first and higher degrees. In mere evolution, if a gene is wrong the individualk afflicted suffers or dies. Death without progeny is the easy end of the story - the "wrong" gene is weeded out (good!) , ... but the other genes in the afflicted cell group go as well (most of the times, this is "bad" or at least "sad"). Consequence: genes need "populations" to survive in mass!

Well everybody knows that much (or should at least) when talking about "genetics". As for politicians, I am convinced that more than half of them don't know, but also more than 90% don't talk, so the danger is contained in another way!

In coevolution then one species thrives or starves based on the available volume of prey (like ladybirds and aphids for instance). If aphids die out slowly the ladybird might adapt, e.g. by migration or inclusion of other nutrients or god knows what, which is the next major problem, because god might know and might care, but do we when letting loose new genes on the environment? (Which brings me to the rather shocking and saddening French Chemist that dumps engineered bacteria through the drain! To shoot that person is much to soft - she should be forced to drink the sewage and be kept in isolation ever after ...) which is nonsense of course - but it reads really harsh!

Now what about these first and higher order coevolution mechanisms of interspecies interaction? This is really heavy mathematics with differential equations (mostly even partial differential equations and hence hard to solve analytically and time consuming if approximated numerically on powerful and massively parallel computers) and the outcome is outragiously hard to predict! And the same applies to good mother nature!

Minor distortions in the zillions of feed back loops can (not must!) lead to dramatic new equilibria, some "better", some "worse" and by simply starting the process in "good faith" we only display or profound lack of caution! Having survived for so long, "natural" evolution can cope and does cope with run away effects - we are used to call this an epidemic: Large percentages of populations die - and evolution (including coevolution) starts all over again!

So where is the point now? The point is that the current network of feedback loops in the open environment will absorb only a very limited amount of abuse. The current dose of release of "artificial" genes is so minimal that no real cathastrophy has happened yet. But once the total dose gets more and more mankind will find out (a short time later) when we have exceeded the critical acceleration of change ... only then it may be too late!

Right, back to battle.

If I said to you that you should not watch MTV because the diet will pollute your soul, or not to buy McDonalds because industrial food is bad, it is possible you may listen to me, but you will surely not take action (personal freedom!) although both are paid for in dollars somewhere down the line. I am not sure why you should prevent the African farmer from doing the same, assuming he can afford it. If something is shown as 'good for the purpose', are you saying you do not want the poorer countries to have access. Double standards, methinks.

Of course there is a tie between bad government, of whatever type - and including wars - and inefficient agriculture/distribution. On the whole, my feeling is that the world situation is slowly improving, with regard to food supply. That may be, in no small part, due to the democratisation of certain countries. I am not sure where the right to insist on another country's structure comes from, but, generally, point conceded.

Your aphids feed only on specific plants, e.g. roses, that are bred by man over centuries, in your man created garden. No roses = no aphids = no ladybirds. The pests starved out by neighbouring GM super crops would be something else, something specific to that crop. The point is that GM crops can be made specifically to resist a very particular pest, there need be no more blanket pesticides.

I understand your point about Scientists lacking an overall vision, but my point is that this stuff is so esoteric, so specialised, that only those with a very narrow vision, a very specific education and experience, can get there. These should be teamed and managed with and by others from 'outside' the speciality. This surely happens, in Academia, in Companies, in Government. I dont feel that there are any mad scientists out there working on some narrow self-appointed task to save/destroy the world. Scientists are people too, and need to earn a living, which means they must necessarily be part of a wider world. Oppenheimer was employed, not working alone. The direction of his work was set by Politicians, that is to say your and my representatives. I really don't like this demonisation of Science and Scientists.

And, X, are the scientists employed by Shell (for example) different, or more correct, or better motivated, from the scientists employed by Greenpeace (for another example)? (This is a trap...be careful)
Scientists are fallible, as are fathers in law. (Fathers, of course, are perfect, as are daughters!)

My basic conclusions are:

1- There may be some good to be obtained from genetic engineering. Lets keep an open(ish) mind
2- Governments are by no means in control, but ultimately the people are. If you have thoroughly argued through the case for and against and don't like the idea, then don't support the product, the products of the product, the by-products of the product etc etc.
3- The dangers are unproven, some benefits are obvious.
I don't understand about candles and games!

I know your last comment (witches) was jocularly meant, but think on......there lies prejudice, bigotry etc.

X....By The Way (or am I missing a joke)

I read some months ago about plants being grown for use as fuel, and thought at the time, what a good thing. Then I read on and saw that the crop (A type of mustard???) was being genetically engineered to limit CO2 output etc etc., and I thought 'Hmm...'. But the point is simply that not all results of this technology need be bad. I wish I had kept the article. Maybe a need to do some surfing.

Hey Timefink, we are all asses here, don't worry about it! (Its the genetic engineering, you understand!) "So dangerous, so promising"....absolutely right.

Just a quick one - for a change!

Key to the African Farmer question is "assuming he can afford it" - a huge number of the problems in the 3rd world come about just because they cannot afford hard currencies.

I don't insist that other countries should be democracies; I am very very doubtful about imposing values on other cultures, democracy included. Democracy is like magic, it only works when people beleive in it. I slung in the Democracy thing to point out that famines are man-made, and preventable given sufficient political will.

I'll concede a truce about the aphids - I need to do some more reading here.

I am not demonising scientists. One problem is that the word "science" is singular in English, in other language it is plural. Scientists do not study "science" they study "A science" and it seems to me that the Government are listening to geneticists talking about the enviroment and not envirommental scientists talking about the environment. I am repeating myself here I know...

Greenpeace vs Shell: If I wanted to know about refining oil, lubricating engines, and practical geology I would go to Shell. If I wanted to know about the migration habits of whales, climatic change in the last 200 years, and the best shape for blades on a wind turbine I would go to Greenpeace. If I wanted to know the "best" way to drill in the ocean, taking into account the geology and the wales, then I would have to go to both. (Actually I wouldn't go to Greenpeace, I'd go to an academic Whale-man). This is presicely my point. Scientists are SPECIALISTS! But the Government metaphorically - accepts whatever Shell may say Whales and Wind Turbines, even if it is only based on the fact they see lots of Whales from the rigs, and its pretty blowy out there too. Actually the oil companies are getting pretty geared up to alternatice sources of energy.

Your conclusions:

1 Yes there may be some good, but the risks of introducing GMO crops into the open have been completely ignored.

2 You laughed at me when I spoke about Civil Liberties, it is my turn now to laugh when you say that people control the Government. In our dreams!

3 The benefits are unproven the dangers are obvious (to me, anyway!)

The game is not worth the candle - the potential benefits of gambling (the game) are not worth the known costs of playing the game (of burning the candle to see by).

I am going to be out of the loop for a couple of weeks or so, but I will do some checking up about the 3rd world.

Tell me more about these seductive benefits of yours.

PS - I was not being specific about Oppenheimer, I just cannot remember how to spell Los Alamos.

I have no problem with the work that happened at los alamos, It got started cos they realised that they couldn't afford to let hitler get the bomb first. It may even have saved a lot of lives lost to very messy jungle fighting in the atlantic. The only problem with los alamos is that when hitler was defeated, they let themselves carry on due entirely to momentum. This is also the problem with the scientists who are specialists. They are (usually) honest, but let themselves get used for advertising purposes by one side or the other. This then loses them scientific credibility, and the only people who will then hire them are the people abusing them for advertising. If they then produce results that are inconvenient to their sole employer, they are unemployable.
I will say that not all genetic engineering is bad (see the thread genetic cures are here now), only the shortsighted mass engineering of plants as in the GM foods debate. Although there is a more general problem with implanting genes into a species that has never had them before (nobody knows what the side effects will be). My point about GM foods, is that we need clear labeling of what is GM, and banning of imports from countries that won't. This then ensures a fair commercial playing field for GM and non GM producers, rather than giving the only game in town (ie this planet) to the short sighted money grubbing of a few firms that can't be bothered to trial the technology to find out what the consequences are before they try to make a fortune from it. As the research has not been done, no one knows what the consequences are for mass implantation of genes, and the thid world farmer will never be able to afford to buy new seed from yankyville every year, when he normally saves some seed to replant next year.

If that’s your idea of a quick one, I surely wouldn’t have the stamina for a full session!

The ‘Third World’ is not uniform, there are pockets of extreme difficulty and pockets of relative affluence.

Famines are often man-made, in the broadest sense, but not always.

Governments are also man-made, and, it could be argued, just about as useful!

The point about Shell & Greenpeace refers to that argument about disposal of an oil platform, where the ‘scientists’ hired by Greenpeace were shown to have distorted and misused data, and the eventual disposal method was actually worse, environmentally and economically, than the original Shell proposal.

What irritates me most about this GM debate, and was the reason this thread was started, is the exaggeration, the sweeping generalisations, the assertions, the sheer propaganda, the blinding with science that goes on in the debates about it. I have no particular axe to grind, beyond a wish to see far less chemicals added to our diet. As an example of what I mean is the oft repeated opinion that a field of GM rape will somehow contaminate the crops of the nice organic farmer living nearby. How is that? No-one explains. My knowledge of Botany may be slight, but I know that rape pollen, whether modified or not, can only fertilise rape flowers and cannot be incorporated into corn, beet, potatoes or anything else, other than by mechanical intervention (GM). I also know that humans have been breeding animals and plants for particular attributes, using all the knowledge and technique at their disposal, since the dawn of civilisation. So, I feel I am being ‘Greenpeaced’, into a certain view of things. And I don’t like it.

Caution, of course. Labelling, of course. Trials, of course. But no more hysteria, please.

X, whats all this about jungles in the Atlantic?

Hey Guys, I just had to post again.

How are you at irony? I have just been sounded out about a contract with a boitech company....! The timings are bad, but otherwise I would be quite tempted to take it on educational grounds. This is one up to you guys, because I would have turned it down as matter of course only a week ago.

Sorry about missing the Shell / Greenpeace link there, but as I said I would not to to Greenpeace for science anyway. The Los Alamos thing was a side-issue.

I don't think Pheroneous and I will agree on this one, but I have enjoyed the challenge, and you have made me re-think some of my assumptions.

You have all ignored my "hysterical" posting about human genetics. Now if I could have a baby that slept all night from 1 week onwards, was cute as a button, and grew up independent-minded enough to want to pay for it's own wedding, then I would be first in the queue at the clinic!

TTFN

Ben

Hey Ben, I had one of each, and they were much nearer your ideal than you now think possible! Have a good break. I will be away myself for a while, so look forward to making you work hard for your opinions in another forum sometime.

Shame the Greenpeace appology about the Brent Spar oil platform (re their initial estimates about how much oil and other sludge was in the bottom of it) didn't get anywhere near as many column inches (or front page photos) as a few people illegally taking over the platform did.

Absolutely, Phil.

It's just something that gets my goat. I remember the Brent Spar thing quite well because I was going out with a marine biologist at uni at the time. That and an interview I went to asked for my opinions on it (as a current topical news item - needless to say I knew what I was talking about for that question, shame about the rest

I can agree with the ideals of Greenpeace but I do not agree with their methods.

The bit about the jungles in the atlantic has to do with the two ways that ww2 could have ended. Either you drop a city killer bomb on japan, and the government surrenders, or you have to defeat all of the soldiers on all of the islands before you can invade japan. The number of lives lost in either case are arguably similar.
The problem with oil seed rape can best be explained by moving to soya. You have an organic farm. Your neighbour has an indistrial scale farm, and the neighbour on the other side has a gm farm. If you get any of your organic soya contaminated by either gm pollen or the pesticides used by either of your neighbours, you have the costs of organic farming, but loose your certification for 2 years. If the industrial scale neibour gets contaminated by the gm neighbour, he can be sued by the supermarket that he sells to. And once the gm crop is out of the greenhouse, you can't put it back in.

I think Pheroneous was observing that the Japanese theatre of war was in the Pacific. But what's an ocean between friends? And your points are well made.

Going... going... go...

Well, I never claimed that I was any good at precision geography, did I

X - The point I was making was about the hysteria surrounding the debate, and not about the contamination possibilities. In the UK, as far as I can see, the trials that have attracted the most publicity have been concerning Rape. Hence my point.

In the UK, we do not grow soya commercially. I have no idea what happens in other countries and refrain from comment.

To be a little facetious, if I may, I am concerned to make the point that any argument against GM must be thought through and based on facts, and not assumptions, prejudice, Luddism etc.. When you include basic (geographical) errors in your argument, it affects your credibility.

Ben - You're not supposed to be here. Go away. I didnt say that people control the Government. I said, or meant anyway, that the people have the capability to kill this GM thing by simply not buying the product. Hence the reluctance to label comprehensively.

In search of some info for Ben I put the words benefit + GM into my favoured search engine and it came up with zillions of entries, almost all of which, interestingly, were negative! Measured by internet postings, the war seems well and truly lost and won!

Try this one:
http://www.nap.edu/html/transgenic/examples.html

or, if you fancy sleeping with the enemy
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/mediacenter/background/99may27_nuffield.html

I take your point about the geographical errors affecting credibility, but they should only affect the credibility on geography. Lots of people have problems with geography, and I did get the rest of the facts right, and was hastily corrected by people who did know the goegraphy on that one little point. We all have areas where we have blind spots, and geography happens to be mine.
I did not claim that we do grow soya in this country (but we do grow a little, america just happen to grow most of it), but the point was not about soya, it was about the problem of contamination, and as I said in that post, I could best explain it using soya as an analogy (as I couldn't figure out how to apply the analogy to rape).