GMO Gone Wild: 10 Signs That Our World May Be Destined To Resemble A Really Bad Science Fiction Movi

reply to post by boncho


really?
surely you don't think we should just
give up and eat our GMO's do you?

i know you're not proposing we ask them nicely to stop either.

please elaborate.

You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.

Originally posted by Advantage
In all honesty, I thrill at the thought of this technology and such advancements in science, but the ethical part of me is horrified. I can absolutely see both sides of the coin on this stuff... but happen to chose the more ethical side of it.

So what does that mean?

You are in favour of any good things that might come out of it - such as cures, better crops, disease resistance, etc., But you do not favour doing the research that ill enable such things in the 1st place??

What is it that is actually unethical about gene splicing?

I think someone said that it's gotten out of control above - or there's no control "any more" or something like that - but you've go that arse-about-face - there has NEVER been controls on this, because it is NEW - laws, ethics, etc. are being developed - and the anti-GMO types keep whining about them because they think such laws are allowing GMO - whereas they are actually putting some limits in place where none used to exist at all.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by boncho

 

really?
surely you don't think we should just
give up and eat our GMO's do you?

i know you're not proposing we ask them nicely to stop either.

please elaborate.

You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.

Proposing violent actions against people or corporations is not a solution to eliminating a certain type of food that is being sold to us. No elaboration necessary.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

''
Real simple, I read the OP.
I enjoy the idea that scientific advancements can cause a cat or mouse to glow or any of the absurd things listed in the OP.. but the ethical side of me sees no value whatsoever in it. I am the parent of a 12 yr old that had a liver transplant 2 yrs ago.. and spent the first 9 yrs dying in front of me. I was an RN for a very long time and spent a decade in an ER. Id prefer ethical advancements in things that help human beings and not harm them.. organ shortages are more serious than you can imagine... and I dont see glowing mice as a benefit to human kind... although like i said, I thrill at the thought of such advancements.

If you see this as in error, thats simply your opinion. I voiced mine.

What I don't understand is why they don't do worthwhile research like giving humans the visual acuity of an eagle or the sense of smell of a dog.

The research is not constructive. Why make a mouse glow or make cows that produce human milk.? What's the point?

Ethics appear to be dead and so, apparently, is common sense.

Screwing around with the human genome is going to bite us in the ***. Too much illness already crosses the species barrier.

We are begging for trouble.

reply to post by boncho


so if i were to discover the Mortal Oscilatory rate frequency for say, GMO corn:
it would be all right [in your view] to upload audio files and instructions for people to use them to destroy any GMO
corn in their area [no humans harmed]?

or would that be Unacceptable* too?

on a related note: is not the use/introduction of untested GMO tech in our food supply violence?

again i ask: should we ask them nicely to stop?

Memo to the Victims: You Yourselves Will Pay for the Crimes of the Ruling Class

*

Focus on the critical sentence: "Yet, when a victim explodes or acts out in unacceptable ways, these same officials are shocked and indignant."

What exactly are these "unacceptable ways" of exploding or acting out? Who decided they were "unacceptable"? Why is it that "reluctant school officials" will not "take definitive action" against the bullies -- thus tacitly conceding that the bullying itself is not all that "unacceptable" -- while the same officials are "shocked and indignant" when the victim protests too strongly?

This pattern, and certain of its origins, will be found throughout history, in every culture around the world. The pattern is a simple and deadly one: the oppressor -- that is, those who are in the superior position, whether they are parents, school officials, or the government, or in a superior position merely by virtue of physical strength -- may inflict bodily harm and/or grievous, lifelong emotional and psychological injury, but the victim may only protest within the limits set by the oppressor himself. The oppressor will determine those forms of protest by the victim that are "acceptable."

You see this pattern with regard to many helpless, lonely children in addition to Billy Wolfe...
The oppressor may inflict unimaginable cruelties on innocent victims -- but the victims may only protest in ways which the oppressor deems "acceptable." The profound injustice is obvious, but not in itself remarkable or unexpected: this is how oppression operates. But ask yourself about the deeper reason for the prohibition. This is of the greatest importance: the victims may only protest within a constricted range of "permissible" behavior because, when they exceed the prescribed limits, they make the oppressors too uncomfortable. They force the oppressors to confront the nature of what they, the oppressors, have done in ways that the oppressors do not choose to face.

Take some time to appreciate the unfathomable cruelty of this pattern. You may be grievously harmed and even permanently damaged by the actions of those who hold unanswerable power -- but you may only speak about this evil and its effects within the very narrow limits set by those who would destroy you. If you are killed, the identical prohibitions apply to those who still manage to survive and who would protest the unforgivable crime committed against you. In this manner, the complacency and comfort of those who possess immense power and wealth are underwritten by the silence forced upon their victims. The victims may speak and even protest, but only within severely circumscribed limits, and only so long as their rulers are not made to feel too uncomfortable, or too guilty. Anything which approaches too close to the truth is strictly forbidden.

because IMO re this subject we are rapidly approaching a point were our backs are gonna be against the wall, the politicians are not gonna stop it, they are bought and paid for, protesting stopped working a long time ago. putting up a website is good but one is up against billion dollar mega corps.

dude, the Monsteranto Corporation spent most of the 20th century poisoning the planet, how much more should we grin and bear it?

any non-"violent" solutions are welcome though,

i just don't see any.

do you?

edit to add oh and while vigilance in what one eats and growing your own food are non-violent solutions, there are more than enough examples of the violence of the state against "foodies" and more than enough examples of what is in effect the intentional contamination of natural crops with GMO's here on ATS and elswhere to show that those options will soon no longer be available what then?

the meek will inherit the world?
the meek would not eat this GMO poo!
ATS needs to let the people know what they are eating.
need to find out what foods have what in them.
the god people should be against this.
there must be some thing in the bible about this?
and the muslims. human organs grown in PIGS!
LOL thats a good reason for the terrrorists to....
um ask them to stop it!

Cross-breeding via "man's hand" has been around for centuries. Take two species, and cross-pollinate them...come up with a third that shares or enhances the characteristics of the parent species. Take those crosses, and cross them once again.....and so on.
Selective cross-pollination enables specific characteristics to become inherent in the new cross....and has always been a desired technique in agriculture to suit and enhance food production (or to make more beautiful flowers).
So why is it now considered so "awful" ?? Is it solely because corporations are involved ?
Are people angry because of money?...or because of violations of natural laws ?

I think the process becomes evil to some, when it violates their boundaries of acceptance....whether that is political, ethical, naturalistic, religious, or ...??

(before you get all defensive, you do not know my position on the subject...I am playing a bit of "devil's advocate" here...)

Yes and if I have sex with a Horses.
do you think the horses will give birth to a Centaur?
messing with DNA can give you a Centaur.

I don't care what anyone says...a spider goat sounds freaking sweet!! And I'd love to have my DNA spliced with a spiders. That way I could actually BE Spiderman!!!!!!

More info here, a link from a thread posted a while back about this

www.seedsofdeception.com...

There are a few more examples here, including a pig/jellyfish hybrid whose nose glowed in the dark.

How about something useful like a giraffe/eagle combo, it would be able to fly, and take multiple passengers along its neck. Add kangaroo genes for luggage space, and pidgeon genes so it would find its way back on auto pilot.

So after years of eating GMO foods in a polluted environment,
how will the future generations be like?

Small, bodies, from unnatural GMO diets.
atrophied limbs because being outside is toxic.
long fingers cause being in front of a computer is all there is.
Grey pale skin, no sunlight and poor diet.
No hair because of excessive electromagnetic and nuclear radiation.
Huge dark eyes?

But then again,
they may be able to travel back in time to collect genes to correct there GM dilemna?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Advantage
In all honesty, I thrill at the thought of this technology and such advancements in science, but the ethical part of me is horrified. I can absolutely see both sides of the coin on this stuff... but happen to chose the more ethical side of it.

So what does that mean?

You are in favour of any good things that might come out of it - such as cures, better crops, disease resistance, etc., But you do not favour doing the research that ill enable such things in the 1st place??

What is it that is actually unethical about gene splicing?

I think someone said that it's gotten out of control above - or there's no control "any more" or something like that - but you've go that arse-about-face - there has NEVER been controls on this, because it is NEW - laws, ethics, etc. are being developed - and the anti-GMO types keep whining about them because they think such laws are allowing GMO - whereas they are actually putting some limits in place where none used to exist at all.

edit on 9-7-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

So..I'm assuming you would have no problem with scientists taking your DNA and splicing it with a pig?..or a cow? maybe taking your sperm or egg, and genetically crossing it with some other species...?

Of course this would be done in the name of advanced knowledge, and for the purpose of helping future mankind.

Originally posted by Advantage

Real simple, I read the OP.
I enjoy the idea that scientific advancements can cause a cat or mouse to glow or any of the absurd things listed in the OP.. but the ethical side of me sees no value whatsoever in it. I am the parent of a 12 yr old that had a liver transplant 2 yrs ago.. and spent the first 9 yrs dying in front of me. I was an RN for a very long time and spent a decade in an ER. Id prefer ethical advancements in things that help human beings and not harm them.. organ shortages are more serious than you can imagine... and I dont see glowing mice as a benefit to human kind... although like i said, I thrill at the thought of such advancements.

If you see this as in error, thats simply your opinion. I voiced mine.

The glowing mice are part of research into green fluorescent protein, an important tool in biology research.

The scientists are not just making mice glow in the dark for fun. Those were created by Advanced Cell Technology, a company doing research into cell therapy, which might eventually lead to treatments for liver disease, and many other conditions.

www.advancedcell.com...

The emerging field of treatment called “regenerative medicine” or “cell therapy” refers to treatments that are founded on the concept of producing new cells to replace malfunctioning or damaged cells as a vehicle to treat disease and injury. Our focus is the development of effective methods to generate replacement cells from stem cells. Many significant and currently untreatable human diseases arise from the loss or malfunction of specific cell types in the body. This is especially true of diseases associated with aging such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, type II diabetes, heart failure, osteoarthritis, and aging of the immune system, known as immunosencence. This is also true for medical conditions resulting from damage to cells due to acute disease, such as trauma, infarction and burns. We believe that replacing damaged or malfunctioning cells with fully functional ones may be a useful therapeutic strategy in treating many of these diseases and conditions.

reply to post by Uncinus


What do glowing mice have to do with liver disease?

Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by Uncinus

 

What do glowing mice have to do with liver disease?

edit on 7/10/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)

Why ask such a question ?
Read his post, and follow his link.
~~~~~~~~~

When people complain of sickness and untreatable diseases, sometimes they quickly blame modified geneticists for their illness. But the irony is, without genetic research a cure to their illness may be forever delayed, or impossible.

reply to post by EyeDontKnow


I'm a firm believer in natural selection. We've grossly interfered with that process, which is why the planet is groaning under the weight of seven billion people.

Antibiotics and surgery are one thing, genetic manipulation is an entirely different matter.

WE are the snake in the garden. Our curiosity is going to get us killed one of these days.

Incidentally, I'm not the religious type.

GMO has hugely positive potential to deliver healthy, more nutritional food. With aquaponic farming techniques becoming more and more in demand as agricultural farmland becomes less and less GMO looks to be a viable alternative and will most likely be the future of 99% food production.

While it's a debated, controversial subject this decade in 10-20 years science could have really amazing breakthroughs with GMO that help protect the population from diseases or prolong life. Anything is really possible when you tweak DNA enough.

I do think that the pro-GMO bunch could invest in better marketing and perhaps what they've done so far, yes it's good science but at the same time do we really want / need human milk from cows and can't they do something that really sells the idea of GMO to the public?

Personally I don't consume much milk as it's a toxin full of bacteria and mould. I drink soya milk because I can afford it and it's much much better for the body. I drink perhaps only 1/2 pint a day of milk in my porridge in the morning which isn't a lot at all so for coffee / tea I just use soya milk. It's enough milk a day to keep my immune system as effective as possible.

American milk however (I'm from the UK) contains more crap like growth hormones and puss from where they over do the milking process. UK has more laws against this type of cruel mass production so its a little better, still disgusting really though.

I am OK with limited GM crops. However personally, I am a stickler for maintaining true species (heirloom) seed banks.
I try to eat and grow heirloom food. This is not always possible (practical).

GM crops are not as evil as accused, if the mission is to help maintain a stable diet in a growing population.
Drought resistance and pest-resistant plants are considered "successful" if they thrive, vs. their vulnerable predecessor. Quite often a non-native pest is introduced that decimates an otherwise successful crop. Making a GM strain crop that is resistant to the new invader, IS one solution.

Caveat #1: I have a personal and somewhat controversial view on "world hunger". I am not in favor of feeding the starving people of the world. I am rather hard-core in the notion of "natural selection" , which is a nice way of saying, "let them starve if they cannot feed themselves"....."to feed the starving only creates more starvation".
(.....a huge subject, I know.)

Caveat #2: I definitely support the continuation of native species, preserving them where ever possible. Altering or eliminating native species can have negative consequences on other species, via their history-old symbiotic relationship(s). Natural selection finds it's own balance...but it takes a long time to do so.
If we swiftly change symbiotic relationships of flora and fauna ...the consequences are perhaps unknown.

Seed banks....support them.

Originally posted by gabby2011

So..I'm assuming you would have no problem with scientists taking your DNA and splicing it with a pig?..or a cow? maybe taking your sperm or egg, and genetically crossing it with some other species...?

I'd be fascinated by what it is they thought they weer going to achieve!!

Of course this would be done in the name of advanced knowledge, and for the purpose of helping future mankind.

Then that should be demonstrable.

why do you think any of this would be some sort of evil?? Why do you think I shuold worry about someone using my DNA for something else? Personally I'd like to make some money off it of course.....