What an interesting read! Firstly the nuts, I hadn't heard anything about that. I just worry about the genes they/will put in foods. And regarding the allergy thing again if fish or something else was put into say corn and someone was allergic to fish then they also have to give up corn. = 2 foods.
Plus really the human body still isn't really evolved to eat wheat. Its I believe one of the most commonist allergies. And we do eat too many things. But thats another story. :)
The Jeremy Rifkin guy I couldn't help but agree with everything there as my views are roughly the same and what Croxis said, but unfortunately I also have to agree with Freejack because of the steadily growing population that is and will be a problem. And I HATE that I do agree on that point! :( The fact that while the soft path sounds so great it can't happen in the future and it is kinda like dreaming. The again if ppl didn't have dreams we wouldn't have created alot of things.
Maybe Scientists will think of something else. Perhaps create a certain enviroment like controlling the weather more and predictable soil so crops could grow most places for miles and miles.
The only thing is, if GM comes worldwide is that I don't HAVE to like it.
:)
We have been discussing the ethics and science, but not the political.
While we may be saving starving people, this in turn presents a problem of additional resources being consumed. I am not making any statements, but this is a factor we must be aware of.
Croxis is right though, we have already the capacity to feed everyone one the planet even without GM foods. Its governments, trade rules, and corporations that prevent food from going to the people. I saw a report the other day of U.S grain given to North Korea as aid being sold at markets with the profits going to party officials. in many African countries food is used as a political weapon of control, dening it to those who oppose government policies.
Also companies and farmers all over the world hold produce in storage so their price goes up in the global markets. This food is often wasted when it could go to those who need it.
As for GM foods, we need more research and studies before they are accepted. Although my belief is that they could really lead to the next green revolution which we are going to need as the population grows in the next century. As with all aspects of genetic engineering, we need to be cautios of what we could end up causing later down the road.
In the end I think many of the arguments for and against GM crops drive down to a single point, of which no one wants to tackle --> Is it OK for humans to manipulate the genes of living organisms?
No one wants to really tackle that question head on, so the arguments tend to center around the possible effects of GM food. Arguments like "It could increase food production by XX%" or "Its not yet proven safe, there's not been enough testing." Notice I said [i]possible[/i], not [i]likely[/i] effects, since arguing about the likely effects deals with what really happens and provides little basis for opposing or supporting GM foods.
All of the current GM arguments lead, in the end, to my first question, the question of genetic manipulation. Is it right or wrong, and in the end that comes down to a philosophical/religious question, making it very difficult to answer. No precedent to base the argument on. No religious texts deal with the issue. The question can't be answered easily, so we dance around the basic argument, debating the effects...
Jake
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
We really have no basis on which to answer that question. As you said, no religion deals with it at all, and society has not had to form morals based on the concept of having that ability as it grew.
I suppose you could look at it this way: If God had not meant for us to be able to do it, why would He have made genes accessible?
Its funny though. You think it would've become a religious issue in one respect. After all changing genetics that have been on this earth for thousands of yrs is rather like playing god. You'd think some religions would be against this type of manipulation on nature because god created them just like that.
But I can also see the question that Biggles states within religion.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MartianDust [/i]
[B] You'd think some religions would be against this type of manipulation on nature because god created them just like that.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I wonder why catholic church haven't inhaled pea to nose from this, when they otherwise are against so many other things.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I also find it surprising that there haven't been huge outbursts from any major religions about it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]I suppose you could look at it this way: If God had not meant for us to be able to do it, why would He have made genes accessible? [/B][/QUOTE]
And why would 'god' want us all to starve to death?
exactly. As a clergyman of the christian church would have said; 'your god works in mysterious ways'. Logically, your god is either evil, or doesnt exist.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
OK, we discussed that one to death a little while ago, let's stick to GM food. :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]exactly. As a clergyman of the christian church would have said; 'your god works in mysterious ways'. Logically, your god is either evil, or doesnt exist. [/B][/QUOTE]
I had a huge picture book bible when I was very young and some of the things god punished on ppl did actually make me not like him very much!! So yeah I can see god as umm fairly evil.
:)
Comments
Not until we get to Mars, and over the decades make damn sure we're self-sufficient.
Plus really the human body still isn't really evolved to eat wheat. Its I believe one of the most commonist allergies. And we do eat too many things. But thats another story. :)
The Jeremy Rifkin guy I couldn't help but agree with everything there as my views are roughly the same and what Croxis said, but unfortunately I also have to agree with Freejack because of the steadily growing population that is and will be a problem. And I HATE that I do agree on that point! :( The fact that while the soft path sounds so great it can't happen in the future and it is kinda like dreaming. The again if ppl didn't have dreams we wouldn't have created alot of things.
Maybe Scientists will think of something else. Perhaps create a certain enviroment like controlling the weather more and predictable soil so crops could grow most places for miles and miles.
The only thing is, if GM comes worldwide is that I don't HAVE to like it.
:)
While we may be saving starving people, this in turn presents a problem of additional resources being consumed. I am not making any statements, but this is a factor we must be aware of.
[B]All in favor of revolution, say aye. [/B][/QUOTE]
Aye, but not because of GM food, because 90 percent or so of the worlds economy belongs to 10 percent of its population.
Also companies and farmers all over the world hold produce in storage so their price goes up in the global markets. This food is often wasted when it could go to those who need it.
As for GM foods, we need more research and studies before they are accepted. Although my belief is that they could really lead to the next green revolution which we are going to need as the population grows in the next century. As with all aspects of genetic engineering, we need to be cautios of what we could end up causing later down the road.
No one wants to really tackle that question head on, so the arguments tend to center around the possible effects of GM food. Arguments like "It could increase food production by XX%" or "Its not yet proven safe, there's not been enough testing." Notice I said [i]possible[/i], not [i]likely[/i] effects, since arguing about the likely effects deals with what really happens and provides little basis for opposing or supporting GM foods.
All of the current GM arguments lead, in the end, to my first question, the question of genetic manipulation. Is it right or wrong, and in the end that comes down to a philosophical/religious question, making it very difficult to answer. No precedent to base the argument on. No religious texts deal with the issue. The question can't be answered easily, so we dance around the basic argument, debating the effects...
Jake
I suppose you could look at it this way: If God had not meant for us to be able to do it, why would He have made genes accessible?
But I can also see the question that Biggles states within religion.
:)
[B] You'd think some religions would be against this type of manipulation on nature because god created them just like that.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I wonder why catholic church haven't inhaled pea to nose from this, when they otherwise are against so many other things.
[B]I suppose you could look at it this way: If God had not meant for us to be able to do it, why would He have made genes accessible? [/B][/QUOTE]
And why would 'god' want us all to starve to death?
[B]exactly. As a clergyman of the christian church would have said; 'your god works in mysterious ways'. Logically, your god is either evil, or doesnt exist. [/B][/QUOTE]
I had a huge picture book bible when I was very young and some of the things god punished on ppl did actually make me not like him very much!! So yeah I can see god as umm fairly evil.
:)