Genetic Modification
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2011, 12:10 AM
RE: Genetic Modification
(07-04-2011 01:38 PM)Cdf50 Wrote:  Of course not everybody would be the same, but odds are, they would be given the same resistance genes. Unless it's privatized, of course, and those that pay more get better resistances. The point being that they'd still mostly have the same resistances, which is the risk with viruses because once one virus mutates enough to get past this resistance, it will have a huge impact if a way to combat it isn't quickly found. This is one of the biggest arguments against using GMO plants, because people fear a super bug/virus, and it's a very valid concern.

It would be be folly to only rely on one line of resistance encoded in our genes, especially considering both our genes and viruses mutate. it would be smart to continue battling viruses and bacterial infections in the lab, predicting how they evolve and how to combat it. Such concerns are potentially very deadly and so obviously are important to think about before we apply this research to humans.

(07-04-2011 01:38 PM)Cdf50 Wrote:  Of course, reasons like this are why I support Genetic Modification in humans, although there is the concern regarding making humans too strong.

I don't know that making humans too 'strong' is a bad idea. If we don't populate the earth, and preferably decrease the current population alot one way or another, then we won't have much to worry about. It's not as though when every child survives, we would overpopulate even faster - only if we weren't smart about it.

(07-04-2011 01:38 PM)Cdf50 Wrote:  How are you going to go about decreasing the rate of reproduction? Even if you got rid of all religions, people are still widely irresponsible with using protection, especially the poor. Also, it may not seem humane, but is it humane to let children be born into a world where they will only suffer their entire lives because there is no food for them to eat, no space for them to live and no air for them to breathe? The earth does have a carrying capacity for humans, and if humans suddenly gained the ability to become even closer to immortality, the rate we reach this carrying capacity would grow exponentially.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL9TBKSdHXU
This video is a TedTalks presentation where a guy from Thailand explains how his nation marketed condoms everywhere and the birth rate decreased alot, and the aids epidemic virtually vanished.

(07-04-2011 01:38 PM)Cdf50 Wrote:  I assume it would be mostly privatized. Pharmaceutics and GMO's are a prime example of this today. The government is widely involve, but they are also expensive as are the private corporations, leading to the poor having very little accessibility.

Believe it or not, I'm actually against this privatisation thing. Monsanto demonstrates the flaws with it quite nicely.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: