dune Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 I am in favour, because it's just a progression from selective breeding in animals and crop development that's been going on for hundreds of years, but primarily since the time of George III. With the worlds rising population we are struggling already to feed everyone already (although Rhodesia post 1980 is a perfect example of poor governance being a huge factor too) and genetic modification to prevent diseases in crops and improve yields is something that should be welcomed by the tree huggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 (edited) We could fill the world with white people too. Im not averse to GM in principle - but it needs to be done with the same care as introducing drugs because a mistake could be disastrous. At the moment they are just chucked out there in open fields to see what happens - and the pollen can contaminate everywhere. The biggest problem we face is that decades ago mankind grew thousands of types and varieties of crops. No the large majority of our food comes from maybe a dozen. Very risky relying on so few. Edited 18 May, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 May, 2012 We could fill the world with white people too. We could genetically modify heriditary conditions. I have a cousin who is blind and this gene can be passed on every other generation. It's a weird, but surely if this could be engineered out it would be a good thing, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Also isn't producing a genetically modified crop that doesn't require chemical pesticides a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 We could genetically modify heriditary conditions. I have a cousin who is blind and this gene can be passed on every other generation. It's a weird, but surely if this could be engineered out it would be a good thing, don't you think? Afaik we are a long away from individual medical interventions for single patients, would be hugely costly. I guess developing better tests which can tell if an embryo has the disease or not would be the way forward. Its a real ethical minefield. Pharmaceutical companies are developing drugs which can modify behaviour and personality traits - maybe make you more outgoing, less anxious, a better public speaker, less confrontational etc. Goes to the heart of what itb means to be human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Ask the farmers who have been sold gm seeds to grow crops and I bet you get a disturbing answer. In the good old days you would get seeds from your crops to re-plant the next year but that has been ended on purpose with gm seeds so you have to buy new ones every year. In a perfect world gm would be fantastic but with the people who will end up controlling it only interested in money and power......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Subtle but important difference - selective breeding within species is one thing, introducing genes form another is more complex. With large animals its not really an issue as typically no viable offspring make it into the gene pool. Plants is a whole different ball game as they have a habit of mutating more rapidly and doubling chromosomes to make offspring viable and more difficult to control reproduction... in effect you simply dont know where introduced genes may end up, especially if introducing pest resitance into crops... there is a chance these can end up in weeds somewhere down the line and negate the benefit or make it worse That said you make a fair and valid point about need to feed... but controls tend to be limited when multinationals are just looking for a quick buck... nothing to do with tree hugging, but industry generally does not give a **** about long term consequences when shareholders are demanding dividends. Biologists (as one myself) are pro, but with measured controls and long term assessment before commercially driven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Also isn't producing a genetically modified crop that doesn't require chemical pesticides a good thing? Maybe. These things are very complicated and its very easy to have unintended knock on effects. Just look at the history of alien species being introduced to new countries and the major problems it has caused. As I said in the earlier we need to do it, but more carefully and thoughtfully than at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 (edited) Nuclear power was going to the the best thing since sliced bread and look where that has got the world. GM plants will become an even bigger danger because greedy people will find ways around any so called safe guards. They won't care how they do it either , just remember the tobaco companies and pharmaceutical companies they think that sometimes they are above any laws. Oh yes I suspect brown envelopes might be involved as well. Edited 18 May, 2012 by Saint in Paradise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Subtle but important difference - selective breeding within species is one thing, introducing genes form another is more complex. With large animals its not really an issue as typically no viable offspring make it into the gene pool. Plants is a whole different ball game as they have a habit of mutating more rapidly and doubling chromosomes to make offspring viable and more difficult to control reproduction... in effect you simply dont know where introduced genes may end up, especially if introducing pest resitance into crops... there is a chance these can end up in weeds somewhere down the line and negate the benefit or make it worse That said you make a fair and valid point about need to feed... but controls tend to be limited when multinationals are just looking for a quick buck... nothing to do with tree hugging, but industry generally does not give a **** about long term consequences when shareholders are demanding dividends. Biologists (as one myself) are pro, but with measured controls and long term assessment before commercially driven I hear where you're coming from, and clearly we need to be careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Nuclear power was going to the the best thing since sliced bread and look where that has got the world. GM plants will become an even bigger danger because greedy people will find ways around any so called safe guards. They won't care how they do it either , just remember the tobaco companies and pharmaceutical companies they think and sometimes seem to think they are above any laws. Oh yes I suspect brown envelopes might be involved as well. Nuclear power is the future for our energy needs. It's a wonderful clean source of power. We just need to make it safer and dispose of depleted uranium better - dropping it in ocean trenches or firing it into space is my prefered solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Yep NP is so wonderful that some major countries are going to get rid of it within the next forty years or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 18 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 May, 2012 Yep NP is so wonderful that some major countries are going to get rid of it within the next forty years or so And some, including us, are building next generation plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 And some, including us, are building next generation plants. No, foreign consortia were going to build 5 new plants but the Germans have pulled out and, with the change of government in France, the 2 French ones are also looking doubtful. In Parliament earlier this week, the Energy Minister could not say if any of the planned plants will be built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 18 May, 2012 Share Posted 18 May, 2012 And some, including us, are building next generation plants. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/nuclear-reactors-rwe-eon-energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now