I'm not ENTIRELY sure whether I agree with this. I mean, why mess with genetics? But they use it to track genes and whatnot. For example on Animal Farm last night [Channel 4, 9pm, UK. Continues next week] there were rabbits which had the jellyfish gene in them which makes them glow in the dark.

There was also genetically modified salmon. When the temperature reaches a certain level of cold, the gene that makes them grow switches off. They located this, and took the gene from another animal that allows them to grow in these low temperatures, allowing them to grow all year round.

An example of genetically modified food is rice. They have produced it so it has Vitamin A in it, as 2 and a half million people die from the deficiency a year. They call this "Golden Rice" but it is not sold and is locked in a big building.

So, your thoughts?
Right, wrong?
Will it make a better world?
Should we just let nature take its course?
Is it ok in food, yet wrong in animals?

Top three links from google:

Transgenic production of pharmaceutical proteins and monoclonal antibodies from the milk of transgenic animals. GTC Biotherapeutics
Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics By Linda MacDonald Glenn
The DNA Files - Interact - Transgenics Scenario

-------

From a distance you look like my friend,

even though we are at war.

---

I don't know if I entirely agree with that, because well, animals were made the way they were for a reason, you know? And well, us fooling around with their genes, isn't a good idea in my opinion.

---

Well, what about food...?

-------

From a distance you look like my friend,

even though we are at war.

---

Quote: from emmy350 at 2:54 pm on Mar. 20, 2007

---

I don't know if I entirely agree with that, because well, animals were made the way they were for a reason, you know? And well, us fooling around with their genes, isn't a good idea in my opinion.

---

Well, what about food...?

---

I don't think food is as bad, simply because well, they're not living like animals? Hmm, well, ok, I don't really know, let me think about this, and I will get back with you with better knowledge of said subject, and a stronger and more definite opinion.

I don't think it's so very bad to do it in plants. The biggest problem there is the environment. With the changed plants, how will that affect the environment? Will it mess with it, make it so whatever ate the plant before can't eat it now, if it makes them sick? And, if humans eat it, would it have any adverse affects on them?

For the animals, I don't think many studies on them are good, harmful ones, that is.

If they make it so things are perfect in humans/plants/whatever then... where's the point where such things are supposed to die off naturally? The longer you live, the more you eat, the more people live, etc. That takes a toll on everything. Is that good? I suppose it's all and well to save human lives with the things that transgenics could bring, but there has to be a price.

I don't think the harmful studies, the ones that could possibly have dangerous side effects should be done until they know how to certainly do them safely. I imagine there are many things they can do with transgenics that are safe (including without cruelty). I don't think those are bad. It's just... fine line, you know.

-------
I watch you sleep in the still of the night.
              You look so pretty when you dream. :)

---

Hmm, that's hard. On one hand, it can help, on the other hand, it can harm.  

I don't think it's so very bad to do it in plants. The biggest problem there is the environment. With the changed plants, how will that affect the environment? Will it mess with it, make it so whatever ate the plant before can't eat it now, if it makes them sick? And, if humans eat it, would it have any adverse affects on them?

---

I agree with that, hence the reason the plants are in huge greenhouses so no cross-contamination can happen. I have no clue as to whether humans have tried eating it. But they managed to make the rice to make creatin [I think] which carrots produce... so we consume it anyway.

---

For the animals, I don't think many studies on them are good, harmful ones, that is.  

---

It doesn't harm them. Just "evolves" them scientifically. Changes their genetic make-up etc

---

If they make it so things are perfect in humans/plants/whatever then... where's the point where such things are supposed to die off naturally? The longer you live, the more you eat, the more people live, etc. That takes a toll on everything. Is that good? I suppose it's all and well to save human lives with the things that transgenics could bring, but there has to be a price.

---

What's perfect though?!

---

I don't think the harmful studies, the ones that could possibly have dangerous side effects should be done until they know how to certainly do them safely. I imagine there are many things they can do with transgenics that are safe (including without cruelty). I don't think those are bad. It's just... fine line, you know.

---

Personally, I'm on of those people that think Mother Nature should take its own course. We shouldn't mess with an animals, or a plants genetics to benefit us. If Mother Nature wished us to benefit, she would make it that way. I think we should stop messing and finding cures etc and just let the weak ones die. Survival Of The Fittest. Eh, I can guess many won't agree with that.

-------

From a distance you look like my friend,

even though we are at war.

---

Mother Nature is not a conscious force. It is a personification of impersonal laws of tectonic shifts, weather patterns, and species development. The reason living things are the way they are is that their form is sufficient for whatever it is they do. Not necessarily awesome, or perfect, or even good. Sufficient. It is enough for them to not die before they breed, at least.

---

I realise that. I just don't think humans should interfere with it. They serve their purpose, so why change it?

-------

From a distance you look like my friend,

even though we are at war.

---

I understand what you're saying, but would you be OK with, say, cattle being genetically modified if it was 100% certain there would be no bad result to the environment or whatever, or do you disagree with it fundamentally?

---

I see technology as a different subject, that's not living things you're dealing with.

If it benefited the cow with no side effects etc, and improved quality of life, I guess that's ok.

But generally, I don't see the point in trangenics, because I'd prefer things to happen naturally. So what if it takes a millenia? That is how it was originally meant to be.

-------

From a distance you look like my friend,

even though we are at war.

---

Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 5:14 pm on Mar. 23, 2007

---

I understand what you're saying, but would you be OK with, say, cattle being genetically modified if it was 100% certain there would be no bad result to the environment or whatever, or do you disagree with it fundamentally?

---

 

I see technology as a different subject, that's not living things you're dealing with.  

If it benefited the cow with no side effects etc, and improved quality of life, I guess that's ok.  

But generally, I don't see the point in trangenics, because I'd prefer things to happen naturally. So what if it takes a millenia? That is how it was originally meant to be.

---

If we're assuming there was an externally defined meaning behind everything, then isn't it a given that intelligent creatures such as ourselves were meant to develop with the capacity to do things like muddle with genetics? Who's to say that we aren't meant to use it?

Post edited at 12:09 pm on Mar. 23, 2007 by TheOtherHorseman

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

What makes this different in terms of philosophical perspective? Perhaps it is because the latter goes against religion while the first one does not.

-------
Religion is Rotten - Read my blog on how religion is destroying the world

---

People have been messing with the genes of animals and plants for thousands of years. Breeding is also a form of manipulation of genes.

What makes this different in terms of philosophical perspective? Perhaps it is because the latter goes against religion while the first one does not.

---

No, they are different. They are taking a gene from a different animal entirely.

Breeding is the same genes, magnified, reduced. But the same animal, species. Transgenics is from another animal, or species. Generally speaking.

-------

From a distance you look like my friend,

even though we are at war.

---

If we're assuming there was an externally defined meaning behind everything, then isn't it a given that intelligent creatures such as ourselves were meant to develop with the capacity to do things like muddle with genetics? Who's to say that we aren't meant to use it?

---

And what if Chimps overtook us or something and tried to mess with our genes? Just because we developed, doesn't stop other species developing. I don't see how any species would have the right to mess with the genetics of another species.

-------

From a distance you look like my friend,

even though we are at war.