genetically modified kids [Archive]

redstar2000

19th April 2005, 14:08

We are probably some distance away from a workable version of this technology, but, since we're speculating...

When a fertile human male mates with a fertile human female successfully, there are something like 82 billion possible combinations of their genes.

Some of them are no good: the embryo is spontaneously aborted or the child is born and dies within a few days.

Some of them may be very good...and one of them may be "the best possible" outcome.

Suppose we knew what "best possible outcome" meant and were able to make that happen?

The kid would be the "brightest", "healthiest", and "best looking" kid that this couple could possibly produce, given the genes that both partners carry.

I can't help thinking that would be a good idea.

Now, what about genetic "enhancements"? Same kid...but even smarter, healthier, and better-looking than "nature" at its best could produce.

If the first option is acceptable, then why not the second?

The perfection of this kind of technology while capitalism still exists would, to be sure, result in "designer kids" -- children continue to be regarded as, in effect, the property of their parents.

I don't think the social effects would be all that great; as things stand now, ruling class kids are already raised to rule.

In a communist society, these decisions might not be left to the genetic parents at all...there might be a social ethic in place that demands that every kid get the "best genetic breaks" that the then-current technology is capable of -- without regard to the parents' wishes.

As to "playing god", well, it's not "play" if you can do it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

seraphim

19th April 2005, 14:25

I have to say I disagree entirely with the genetic modification of a fetus. It is my opinion that with no natural predator it is essential that some form of natural selection.

Admitedly with advances in medical science it is very rare that genetic deffects lead to death and therefore go against natural selection, but they shouldn't be altered at a genetic level.

Another point is that Darwins theory of evolution relies heavily upon mutation to speed up the process, if genetic 'mutations' were eradicated evolution may become stagnant.

LSD

19th April 2005, 16:14

Admitedly with advances in medical science it is very rare that genetic deffects lead to death and therefore go against natural selection, but they shouldn't be altered at a genetic level.

Are you going to volunteer to allow your child a horrible painful life when a simple genetic fix could prevent it?

Another point is that Darwins theory of evolution relies heavily upon mutation to speed up the process, if genetic 'mutations' were eradicated evolution may become stagnant.

Then we'll help it allong!

I'd rather that human development be intellegently directed so as to bennefit people and save lives than trust that somehow nature will just "evolve" us properly!

bushdog

19th April 2005, 16:27

I agree, without natural selection the human gene pool is becoming increasingly disgusting. With the idiots more likley to survive and reproduce the quality of the human race will continue to deteriorate. This offers a decent alternative to the retards making more retards. In general i support all controlled genetic modification.

ComradeChris

19th April 2005, 17:51

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2005, 11:14 AM

Admitedly with advances in medical science it is very rare that genetic deffects lead to death and therefore go against natural selection, but they shouldn't be altered at a genetic level.

Are you going to volunteer to allow your child a horrible painful life when a simple genetic fix could prevent it?

Another point is that Darwins theory of evolution relies heavily upon mutation to speed up the process, if genetic 'mutations' were eradicated evolution may become stagnant.

Then we'll help it allong!

I'd rather that human development be intellegently directed so as to bennefit people and save lives than trust that somehow nature will just "evolve" us properly!
See you said YOUR child. You're thinking in personal property ideas like Redstar was discussing. It would be the same as forcing your child to get plastic surgery because YOU want them to look better...and more importantly, they obviously belong to you.

How do you know that we'd be helping evolution? I kind of agree with the last few posters that if everyone was the "best possible human" our species evolution would become stagnant. Not to mention, I'm not sure if this is attributed to bad genes being recycled or what, but when other species begin to imbreed they begin to see impurities and other flaws. The examble I'm thinking about is barn cats that are in a small group and there is no gene flow.

LSD

19th April 2005, 19:00

See you said YOUR child. You're thinking in personal property ideas like Redstar was discussing. It would be the same as forcing your child to get plastic surgery because YOU want them to look better...and more importantly, they obviously belong to you.

A child "belongs" to no one. A fetus, however, is not a child. It is a part of the whomever's body it is within and hence any modifications to that fetus are entirely up to that person and should not be restricted by any government or state.

Not to mention, I'm not sure if this is attributed to bad genes being recycled or what, but when other species begin to imbreed they begin to see impurities and other flaws.

Who's talking about "inbreeding"?!?!

We're talking about genetic alterations to stop such genetic problems!

ComradeChris

19th April 2005, 23:16

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2005, 02:00 PM

See you said YOUR child. You're thinking in personal property ideas like Redstar was discussing. It would be the same as forcing your child to get plastic surgery because YOU want them to look better...and more importantly, they obviously belong to you.

A child "belongs" to no one. A fetus, however, is not a child. It is a part of the whomever's body it is within and hence any modifications to that fetus are entirely up to that person and should not be restricted by any government or state.

Not to mention, I'm not sure if this is attributed to bad genes being recycled or what, but when other species begin to imbreed they begin to see impurities and other flaws.

Who's talking about "inbreeding"?!?!

We're talking about genetic alterations to stop such genetic problems!
Then why's you say "your child"??? Good grief. YOU're implying ownership, I didn't.

Ok, I'm not talking about imbreeding so to speak but stagnant non-changing DNA (which is essentially what imbreeding is; the same genes flowing in a population). There's usually only one way to be "perfect" or have the "best" possible DNA, and if everone has the same "perfect" genes it would be like imbreeding.

Also it would create superiority complexes because people would be removing undesired physical traits (and I'm referring to non-important ones). Why not just agree with Hitler and say blonde hair and blue eyes is the best. Because some people would think so and that would lead to forms of racial segregation.

LSD

20th April 2005, 00:57

Then why's you say "your child"??? Good grief. YOU're implying ownership, I didn't.

It was the genetive of connection, not of possesion. It's like saying my mother. It doesn't mean I "own" my mother, it just tells you which mother I'm talking about.

..and besides a fetus is not a child, it's a part of its mother's body and should be treated as such. Potentialities notwithstanding.

Ok, I'm not talking about imbreeding so to speak but stagnant non-changing DNA (which is essentially what imbreeding is; the same genes flowing in a population).

No it would'nt.

Genetic engineering is the direct opposite of "stagnant" genes, it is, by definition the directed changing of genes.

There's usually only one way to be "perfect" or have the "best" possible DNA, and if everone has the same "perfect" genes it would be like imbreeding.

Bullshit.

As I said earlier, "perfect" is entirely subjective. Other than the obvious, health and such, people's ideas of what makes a "perfect child" are numerous and diverse.

Also it would create superiority complexes because people would be removing undesired physical traits (and I'm referring to non-important ones). Why not just agree with Hitler and say blonde hair and blue eyes is the best. Because some people would think so and that would lead to forms of racial segregation.

Yes, but if everyone was genetically engineered, who would they feel superior too?

Furthermore, what makes you think that all parents will agree on what they want for their children? You're assuming that somehow there's an objective "perfect child" and all parents everywhere will agree.

That's ridiculous!

dark fairy

20th April 2005, 02:41

I feel that a parent does have a right, yet i think about the people who already have a certain disease. They will become unusual... If this modifying is done a lot there will be no community for them to belong to or more like society will understand less about their state of being... Even though I guess it is up to the parent. Also I think that once the child actually grows what will he or she think... no one asks to be born but a name can be changed but your genes... they don't even have a say... If the modification is done for the good of the child and eventually the good of a species good...

20th April 2005, 02:45

LSD

20th April 2005, 03:16

Increasing life expectancy leads to population increases leads to food shortages leads to famine. I've been wrestling with that for forever. It might be better to cure conditions before they're born. But is it really better? Do we really need the population to increase faster than it is?

By that logic, why should we cure any diseases? Maybe we should just euthanize the sick outright.

hmm... I think that was tried once....

20th April 2005, 03:44

Haha I know, a VERY cynical outlook. The thing is, I think curing diseases and increasing life expectancy is a good thing, I mean if we didn't we'd still have a life expectancy of 30. But on the other hand that thought comes into my mind. Here's another one I'm grappling with: should we make the world better now or encourage the government to make it worse so there is a revolution?

ComradeChris

20th April 2005, 18:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 10:44 PM
Haha I know, a VERY cynical outlook. The thing is, I think curing diseases and increasing life expectancy is a good thing, I mean if we didn't we'd still have a life expectancy of 30. But on the other hand that thought comes into my mind. Here's another one I'm grappling with: should we make the world better now or encourage the government to make it worse so there is a revolution?
Honestly I have to same outlook. Nature has its ways of balancing things out. We're directly violating that homeostasis. You can see it throughout human history. No other species keeps other animals in confinement for our own personal pleasure, and very few other species actually hunt other species to extinction.

It was the genetive of connection, not of possesion. It's like saying my mother. It doesn't mean I "own" my mother, it just tells you which mother I'm talking about.

In a communist society wouldn't the child belong to the community so to speak?

..and besides a fetus is not a child, it's a part of its mother's body and should be treated as such. Potentialities notwithstanding.

I agree that a fetus is not a child...but you're the own who said child!

No it would'nt.

Genetic engineering is the direct opposite of "stagnant" genes, it is, by definition the directed changing of genes.

Somebody mentioned making the best possible gene combination. There can only be one best! After that the genes would all be that "best" set.

Bullshit.

As I said earlier, "perfect" is entirely subjective. Other than the obvious, health and such, people's ideas of what makes a "perfect child" are numerous and diverse.

Exactly, once you clear all diseases that's the best...there's probably the bulk of genetics...seeing what...~90% of human DNA is viral? But I agree with you partially (as you would have noticed in my next comment), who's to say that 4 arms isn't perfect? Would they still be human though?

Yes, but if everyone was genetically engineered, who would they feel superior too?

Furthermore, what makes you think that all parents will agree on what they want for their children? You're assuming that somehow there's an objective "perfect child" and all parents everywhere will agree.

That's ridiculous!

Sorry for my miswording...I kind of agree there is an arbitrary sense of perfection...however there is only one best, or multiple identicle bests. For instance, you can only have one of the strongest, one of the fastest, one of the smartest, and they are all the best in their respective fields. Now if you combined all them to make the all-round "best", you'd have the strongest, fastest, smartest child.

Like I said, you'll create factions and rivalries. People would mate like in Nazi Germany by creating unions where they would agree on what was the best possible genetic outcome. Thisis just a possibility, but it's happened in history it could happen again.

LSD

20th April 2005, 18:41

Honestly I have to same outlook. Nature has its ways of balancing things out. We're directly violating that homeostasis. You can see it throughout human history. No other species keeps other animals in confinement for our own personal pleasure, and very few other species actually hunt other species to extinction.

And no other species uses electricity or refines metals or constructs complex machines or has travelled into space, what the hell's your point?

Somebody mentioned making the best possible gene combination. There can only be one best! After that the genes would all be that "best" set.

I don't know who "mentioned making the best possible gene combination", but it sure as hell wasn't me since there's no such thing!

"Best" in terms of appearance, personality, skills, abilities, etc... is entirely subjective.

Like I said, you'll create factions and rivalries. People would mate like in Nazi Germany by creating unions where they would agree on what was the best possible genetic outcome. Thisis just a possibility, but it's happened in history it could happen again.

People didn't "mate" in Nazi Germany, they were required to do so by a fascist and oppressive state. If people are left alone that kind of euigenics won't happen. Only through coercive state action can a mass program like that of the Nazis be executed.

...now, which one of us is proposing state action to prevent personal reproductive freedoms again?

Oh right, you!

ComradeChris

20th April 2005, 18:54

And no other species uses electricity or refines metals or constructs complex machines or has travelled into space, what the hell's your point?

That humanity is the ones fucking up the natural balance...are you dense??

I don't know who "mentioned making the best possible gene combination", but it sure as hell wasn't me since there's no such thing!

"Best" in terms of appearance, personality, skills, abilities, etc... is entirely subjective.

Did I say it was you?? God I would have said YOU said that if you said that!

I agreed abitrary things like appearance would be open to speculation. That's why I said it could lead to rivalries! For Fuck's sake! Do you read the entire argument before you respond...I've said pretty much the same thing in the last three responses because of you!

People didn't "mate" in Nazi Germany, they were required to do so by a fascist and oppressive state. If people are left alone that kind of euigenics won't happen. Only through coercive state action can a mass program like that of the Nazis be executed.

...now, which one of us is proposing state action to prevent personal reproductive freedoms again?

Oh right, you!

I'm trying to prevent reproductive freedoms? Like what? I'm trying to do what's best for the environment. Since with people like you don't give a rat's ass but anything but bettering your family and probably in extension your own life.

And no, Nazi Germany didn't "force mate" or whatever you're proposing. I don't think the state was there pushing two people together until the male ejaculated into the female. Do you use common sense?

20th April 2005, 19:51

And no, Nazi Germany didn't "force mate" or whatever you're proposing. I don't think the state was there pushing two people together until the male ejaculated into the female. Do you use common sense?

In Nazi Germany Aryan men were encouraged to procreate with Aryan women. The Nazis encouraged Aryan men to rape Aryan women if necessary.

ComradeChris

20th April 2005, 21:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 02:51 PM

And no, Nazi Germany didn't "force mate" or whatever you're proposing. I don't think the state was there pushing two people together until the male ejaculated into the female. Do you use common sense?

In Nazi Germany Aryan men were encouraged to procreate with Aryan women. The Nazis encouraged Aryan men to rape Aryan women if necessary.
Note the word 'encouraged', not the word force. A lot of armies allow raping as a form of spoils unfortunately. They "encouraged" this selective breeding because they believed aryan traits were best. This is how genetic modification can lead to problems. The Nazis were doing their own genetic testings on other species, and also on Aryans, to prove they were the "best."

21st April 2005, 00:56

Yes the nazis encouraged rape; I thought your argument was that they didn't force anyone to procreate. Because the soldiers themselves forced women to get pregnant.

LSD

21st April 2005, 01:29

I'm trying to prevent reproductive freedoms? Like what?

um...read the topic of this thread...

Genetic engineering is a reproductive freedom.

"I do feel that genetic modification may create an imbalance in the environment."

That humanity is the ones fucking up the natural balance...are you dense??

And? So? Therefore?

Humans are also the only specied that has ever done anything for the environment, and lest you forget, humans evolved just as much as any other species did an hence we are a part of that "natural balance" just as much as a dolphins or beatles.

But our priority as a species has to be ourselves.

I'm trying to do what's best for the environment.

Good, but which matters more to you, the environment or human lives?

The fact that you agreed with Lazar's disgusting suggestion that we should not treat diseases so that life expetancy drops... makes me suspect you'd pick the environment.

Be sure to tell the next starving child you see that you think a tree is more important. I'm sure he'll understand. :angry:

And no, Nazi Germany didn't "force mate" or whatever you're proposing. I don't think the state was there pushing two people together until the male ejaculated into the female. Do you use common sense?

Actually they sort of did.

Mayn SS soldiers were forced, that's right forced to marry / fuck specific "aryans" who the SS-Reichsfurgon or the Ministry of Race designated, or risk demotion, explusion, or execution for failure to obey orders.

21st April 2005, 04:05

Humans are also the only specied that has ever done anything for the environment.

What have we done for the environment exactly that other species haven't?

LSD

22nd April 2005, 00:47

What have we done for the environment exactly that other species haven't?

Directed Environmental work done by humans (abbreviated):

Grown trees.
Renewed forests,
Replanted forests after forfest fires.
Done controlled burns of forrests to clean up dead / old wood.
Watered the deserts.
Constructed irrigation channels and artifical springs.
Repaired environmental damge.
Done Coastal reconstruction.
Done Sediment repair.
Transplanted animals.
Healed animals.
Performed surgeries and medical procedures on animals.
Set up animal santuaries and preserves.
Isolated endangered species and kept them from natural predators.
Done breeding experiments and conducted mating programs to preserve endangered species.
Stored genetic material from endangered species for possible later restoration.

etc...

Directed Environmental work done by every other species on earth:

N/A.

Humans are the only species who have ever undertaken work for the sake of helping the environment, we are also the only species to ever markedly help the environment.

22nd April 2005, 01:41

Grown trees.
Renewed forests,
Replanted forests after forfest fires.
Done controlled burns of forrests to clean up dead / old wood.
Watered the deserts.
Constructed irrigation channels and artifical springs.
Repaired environmental damge.
Done Coastal reconstruction.
Done Sediment repair.
Transplanted animals.
Healed animals.
Performed surgeries and medical procedures on animals.
Set up animal santuaries and preserves.
Isolated endangered species and kept them from natural predators.
Done breeding experiments and conducted mating programs to preserve endangered species.
Stored genetic material from endangered species for possible later restoration.

So there was something wrong with the environment before humans started tampering with it? I don't get it, becasue nature has been working for millions of years. When humans started "improving" the environment, it has just gone downhill.
All these "improvements" you have listed are just humans attempting to fix problems that they've created.

Grown trees. (that were originally destroyed)
Renewed forests, (that were originally destroyed)
Replanted forests after forfest fires. (forest fires are part of nature)
Done controlled burns of forrests to clean up dead / old wood. (dead/old wood decomposes and helps the soil)
Watered the deserts. (they don't need water; what does this mean anyways?)
Constructed irrigation channels and artifical springs. (for the purpose of human development, not for the enivronment)
Repaired environmental damge. (its all theyve done)
Done Coastal reconstruction. (REconstruction.)
Done Sediment repair. (REpair)
Transplanted animals. (don't know what this means)
Healed animals. (so animals shouldnt die? if it was hurt in nature or by another animal it is natural for it to die. if it is hurt by humans it is just humans trying to fix the damage they caused)
Performed surgeries and medical procedures on animals. (see above)
Set up animal santuaries and preserves. (because humans have destroyed most of the species and made them endangered, they are attempting to undo the damage)
Isolated endangered species and kept them from natural predators. (see above)
Done breeding experiments and conducted mating programs to preserve endangered species. (see two above)
Stored genetic material from endangered species for possible later restoration. (see two above)

Nature before humans worked just fine. And nature after humans will work just fine. The only thing we're doing is sealing our own fate.

LSD

22nd April 2005, 01:57

So there was something wrong with the environment before humans started tampering with it?

"wrong" is a subjective normative judgement which has no place in an analysis of nature.

Nature isn't a "thing", it's jsut a short-hand for saying the entire continuum of the organic world. Were there things that were "wrong" in that continuum? Well, yes, if you were Dianosaur, I suppose. But who's to say? Our priority has to be ourselves, just like every other species.

We are as much a part of nature as squirrls, but you don't see squirrls worrying about their effect on the ecosystem. The fact that we attempt to counterbalance our actions shows that we are doing something, because every other species on earth also has "negative" effects on the environment, but don't do anything to compensate for it.

Nature before humans worked just fine.

Except for the five or six MASSIVE mass extinctions, a couple of ice ages, a few desert formations, and a few billion deadly plagues.

How come when a naturally occuring glacier extincs thousands of species it's nature "working just fine", but when a naturally occuring species like ours does so ... it's wrong?

I don't get it, becasue nature has been working for millions of years. When humans started "improving" the environment, it has just gone downhill.
All these "improvements" you have listed are just humans attempting to fix problems that they've created.

Some of them are, some of them aren't. It doesn't matter. Other species don't correct their environmental "damage", so our doing so counts.

But here's a question, how come when an animal is killed by a predator other than humans ....it's "nature", but when its killed by a human, it's not. We are just as much a part of nature as owls and bears and fire ants. You're artifically seperating us, treating us as if we're somehow "sheppards" or some such Judeo-Christian-Islamic rot.

Humanity does have a responsibility ...to ourselves.

And nature after humans will work just fine.

Exactly! So what's with all your concern for our "fucking up the natural balance"? If nature will survive us (which, of course it will), then what's your worry?

The only thing we're doing is sealing our own fate.

...so what you're saying is that we should help the environment....to help ourselves. There's a certain logic in that, I suppose, but how about we determine if there's a better way to help ourselves, first?

I certainly have a few suggesstions.

22nd April 2005, 02:21

When you argue with this logic you come to the conclusion that what we are doing is natural, and that everything done is natural. With this logic you could say "why do anything? it's all natural anyways."

We are as much a part of nature as squirrls, but you don't see squirrls worrying about their effect on the ecosystem. The fact that we attempt to counterbalance our actions shows that we are doing something, because every other species on earth also has "negative" effects on the environment, but don't do anything to compensate for it.

What negative effect do squirrels have on the eco system? What negative effect do other species have on the ecosystem. We are the only species that has to counterbalance our actions because our actions are detrimental.

Except for the five or six MASSIVE mass extinctions, a couple of ice ages, a few desert formations, and a few billion deadly plagues.
Extinctions, ice ages, desert formations and plagues to animals are natural. The problem is that when you separate the human from the animals as saying that we are above them, you also separate humans from nature. The difference between animals and humans is that animals only kill what they need when they need it. They never make an attempt at extinction of another species. Every mass extinction I know about occurred because of some natural disaster; one species didn't cause another species to become extinct. Humans, on the other hand, are masters of it. Humans do damage the environment because of the fact that they take more than they need and perform actions that are damaging to the environment, which other animals don't do.

Exactly! So what's with all your concern for our "fucking up the natural balance"? If nature will survive us (which, of course it will), then what's your worry?

You answered this yourself. I'm completely in agreement with you to the fact that our responsibility should be to ourselves. What environmentalism is about is helping the environment BECAUSE it helps humanity. Helping where you live is helping yourself, is it not?

LSD

22nd April 2005, 02:40

You answered this yourself. I'm completely in agreement with you to the fact that our responsibility should be to ourselves. What environmentalism is about is helping the environment BECAUSE it helps humanity.

So, again, let's actually help ourselves! That means eliminating hunger and need and want and concentrating on the intangibles like "nature" and "green"..

Look, I think that at this point, this thread is effectively duplicating what's happening in the "Is environmentalism reactionary?" thread and since that's the on topic one, we should move this discussion there, and use this thread to discuss genetic engineering.

ComradeChris

25th April 2005, 01:14

um...read the topic of this thread...

Genetic engineering is a reproductive freedom.

"I do feel that genetic modification may create an imbalance in the environment."

That's not reproductive freedom. I'm not saying people can't have sex with certain people. But if you want to pay for doctors to screw with DNA before the child is born, good for you. I think it's stupid. I can't force anyone to do anything

And? So? Therefore?

Humans are also the only specied that has ever done anything for the environment, and lest you forget, humans evolved just as much as any other species did an hence we are a part of that "natural balance" just as much as a dolphins or beatles.

But our priority as a species has to be ourselves.

No...lots of species have done things for the environment! Without other species there wouldn't be an environment!!! Plants play a big role in that I think...but I guess humans must have created plants?

Good, but which matters more to you, the environment or human lives?

The fact that you agreed with Lazar's disgusting suggestion that we should not treat diseases so that life expetancy drops... makes me suspect you'd pick the environment.

Be sure to tell the next starving child you see that you think a tree is more important. I'm sure he'll understand.

Without environment there wouldn't be humanity. I just saw I, Robot...and I kind agree with that robots logic. Humans destroying the environment force them to look for more environments which eventually will be destroyed.

If anything is starving...its natures way of maintaining a homeostasis. Science defies that and therefore destroys nature.

Actually they sort of did.

Mayn SS soldiers were forced, that's right forced to marry / fuck specific "aryans" who the SS-Reichsfurgon or the Ministry of Race designated, or risk demotion, explusion, or execution for failure to obey orders.

Nobody HAS to do anything. Even under duress (sp?)...you're responsible for any crimes you commit by someone you claim is "forcing" them to commit a unlawful act. They can only be persuaded to do something. And being told their race was superior lead to problems didn't it?

LSD

25th April 2005, 03:59

That's not reproductive freedom. I'm not saying people can't have sex with certain people. But if you want to pay for doctors to screw with DNA before the child is born, good for you.

What you mean like.... abortion?

Sorry, but choosing the genetic makeup of one's child is a very basic reproductive freedom. If we acknowledge a mother's right to end a pregnancy, how can we deny here the right to change it?

If anything is starving...its natures way of maintaining a homeostasis. Science defies that and therefore destroys nature.

So... we should abandon science then? :lol:

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. You're treating the "natural ballance" as if it is someting which has implicit value and not merely the way things happen to be. As if nature were somehow "directed" or "planned". But I think we all know that not to be true, and accordingly can all understand that the fact that there is nothing "special" about nature.

Yes, we need the environment to survive and yes, ovbiously we cannot wipe out nature, but to say that we shouldn't try and save lives to maintain some sort of fictitious "natural ballance" is pure lunacy. There is no natural balance! Nature has destroyed itself thousands of times worse than humanity ever could. The simple fact is that nature is not moral, it merely is. Nature is just a blanket term to describe, basically, everything organic that isn't us. Well, fine, but that's a complex organization of ecosystems and interrelationships which do not follow a plan and do not nescessarily have a homoestatic system such as that within a single organism. Treating the entire natural world as if were a single being is a highly fallacial comparison.

The fact is that we are a part of nature, if we define nature in any truly meaningful sense, and hence our actions are as much a part of this "natural homeostatis" as that of squirrls. Science, being a creation of a "natural" species, such as ourselves, is therefore also a part of this "homoeostasis"...

Confused? Maybe that's because there ain't no such thing. Nature doesn't "balance itself", nature doesn't do anything! It certainly should not be reverred or idolized. Science is providing us with ways to keep society living longer, healthier, and happier. This is what is best for humanity and hence it is in the best interest of humantiy to do so. Likewise, preserving a viable ecosystem is in the best interest of humanity. It really is as simple as that.

We have absolutely no responsibility beyond that, unless you buy into some Judeo-Christian-Islamic / Vedic bullshit about "shepparding the world" or some such, in which case I fear there is very little hope for you.

ComradeChris

29th April 2005, 08:23

What you mean like.... abortion?

Sorry, but choosing the genetic makeup of one's child is a very basic reproductive freedom. If we acknowledge a mother's right to end a pregnancy, how can we deny here the right to change it?

I like how you cut out the part of my post that said:

I think it's stupid. I can't force anyone to do anything.
Which would imply allowing people their own choice. I'm expressing my opinion. By no means am I trying to enforce it on people. What good would it do anyway?

As to your comments about nature...I firmly believe it has a way of maintaining a form of homeostasis. Science seems to go against that. But that's my philosophical beliefs. And that if we damage nature, we will in someway, be damaged ourselves.

Nature has destroyed itself thousands of times worse than humanity ever could.

Could you list cases of nature destroying itself? As I said, in most cases there's a reason for that destruction.

I also never said nature has morals...I don't believe humans do either. I think depending on circumstances we are all capable of acts deemed both "evil" and "good". I'd like to think of myself being amoral.

I'm not really revering nature...but the natural balance. Evolution is like a game of cat and mouse. The predator and the prey constantly (slowly) evolve new ways of either killing or defending. Us playing with the genetic make-up messes up that cycle. That's all I'm saying. And that's how I've come to the conclusion science goes against the "nature" that you say doesn't exist.

LSD

29th April 2005, 22:03

Could you list cases of nature destroying itself? As I said, in most cases there's a reason for that destruction.

A "reason"?!?!? :blink:
What...like some directed plan? :lol: :lol:

But alright, I'll play.... what were the "reasons" for the various mass extinctions? What was the "reason" for the Ice Age? What was the reason for the great dessert formations? What was the reason for tidal waves ...or earthquakes ...or the millions of deadly plagues?

This faith you seem to have that nature somehow has "reasons" is supernatrualism at its worst.

I'm not really revering nature...but the natural balance. Evolution is like a game of cat and mouse. The predator and the prey constantly (slowly) evolve new ways of either killing or defending. Us playing with the genetic make-up messes up that cycle.

Yes it does.

...but then so does pennicilin. All human progress is interfering in the "natural cycle". Everytime we extend the human life, or cure a disease, and you still have not given a reason why that's a bad thing.

ComradeChris

29th April 2005, 23:30

But alright, I'll play.... what were the "reasons" for the various mass extinctions? What was the "reason" for the Ice Age? What was the reason for the great dessert formations? What was the reason for tidal waves ...or earthquakes ...or the millions of deadly plagues?

I told you to maintain a homeostasis. To keep enough plants for a limited population to survive. Maybe too much of other gasses in the air caused heat to get in improperly...I'm not too certain as to the causes of the ice age. Tidal waves are caused by tides or earthquakes. Earthquakes are the movement ot tetonic plates probably to relieve pressure due to high subterrainian temperatures. Of course that's speculation...but nature as a whole seems to persevere.

Yes it does.

...but then so does pennicilin. All human progress is interfering in the "natural cycle". Everytime we extend the human life, or cure a disease, and you still have not given a reason why that's a bad thing.

Honestly I can't say pennicilin has done anything for me. And isn't some forms of diabetes caused by our own screw-ups? Like overeating leading to needless obesity. We did that. Deseases were spread by increased mobility that science provided (like the ships that sailed the Atlantic to give horrible deaths to the Natives). Are those bad?

bed_of_nails

30th April 2005, 03:17

Overeating leads to type 2 Diabetes.

The body produces too much sugar and the insulin production rate cant compete with the amount of sugar. Eventually your body just says "Screw it" and stops producing insulin.

LSD

30th April 2005, 04:57

I told you to maintain a homeostasis. To keep enough plants for a limited population to survive.

Bullshit.

Nature was doing just fine before the Ice Age, there was plenty of "room" for any "population to survive". Trying to ascribe "reasons" for natural events is futile and superstitious.

..but nature as a whole seems to persevere.

Of course it does, but that's not what we're dsicussing. You claim that natural events have "reasons". To prove that INSANE hypothesis you need to show mroe than "perserverence", you need to show intent or at the very least, pattern.

That is, you must show that natural events exhibit a tendency towards useful consequences in some measurable way. Aand, by the way, that means HARD DATA, not merely asserting that since nature "persevered", clearly everythign it did was right! :lol:

Honestly I can't say pennicilin has done anything for me.

Um... yes it did.

Flemming's discovery lead directly to the discovery of Actinomycetic antibiotics, which have saved billions of lives ...including, incidently, yours most likely.

But even if you happened to be so blessed that you've never suffered a bacterial infection, what are you saying? That pennecilin shouldn't be used? :blink: it's nice to know that you care so much for your fellow human that you'd let the die to safeguard some mythical "natural ballance".

Hmm...sacrificing billions for personal superstitious...

How very capitalist of you... <_<

ComradeChris

1st May 2005, 23:47

Bullshit.

Nature was doing just fine before the Ice Age, there was plenty of "room" for any "population to survive". Trying to ascribe "reasons" for natural events is futile and superstitious.

And it was doing fine after the ice age? What is your point??

Of course it does, but that's not what we're dsicussing. You claim that natural events have "reasons". To prove that INSANE hypothesis you need to show mroe than "perserverence", you need to show intent or at the very least, pattern.

It's only since industrialization that human populations have sky-rocketed. Other species only survive as long as they have the proper food to eat, and therefore limiting their food sources. But look at what industrialization does: More destructive weapons, harmful chemicals, and unsanitized overpopulated areas.

I said that reason was to maintain a homeostasis and a form of balance...are you dense??

That is, you must show that natural events exhibit a tendency towards useful consequences in some measurable way. Aand, by the way, that means HARD DATA, not merely asserting that since nature "persevered", clearly everythign it did was right!

Plants evolve to areas of human growth...nature is trying to make up for human destruction. But it is slowly lagging behind. Because we can directly modify our genetics (as is the purpose of this thread) to increase life, and eliminate restrictions on population overgrowth.

Flemming's discovery lead directly to the discovery of Actinomycetic antibiotics, which have saved billions of lives ...including, incidently, yours most likely.

They used pennicilin for that? Well maybe it did. But taking research a step beyond isn't the same thing.

But even if you happened to be so blessed that you've never suffered a bacterial infection, what are you saying? That pennecilin shouldn't be used? it's nice to know that you care so much for your fellow human that you'd let the die to safeguard some mythical "natural ballance".

Are you religious? Pennicilin is used for bacterial infection? I thought it was to treat diabetes. I'm safegaurding nature...not something mythical. I'm glad you're stupid enough to believe that nature is a mythical entity. You use it everyday to you know...uhh...LIVE! More than pennicilin has done for me!

Hmm...sacrificing billions for personal superstitious...

How very capitalist of you...

That's right i'm a capitalist :rolleyes: ... Which is why I want to go to a rural COMMUNE!! Really you should stop assuming.

LSD

2nd May 2005, 09:58

And it was doing fine after the ice age? What is your point??

...sigh...

If you define "nature" as any life on earth than "nature" will always do fine lest the earth blow itself up! The point is that you need to prove directed action to justify your claim of "reasoned" behaviour on the part of "nature".

The ice age lead to billions of deaths ....what was natures "reason" again?

I said that reason was to maintain a homeostasis and a form of balance...

And you still have not demonstrated this. Many natural events have failed to pursue this aim and indeed many have directly countered any natural "ballance". Again, you must demonstrate tendency to prove your rather ludicrous contention.

Secondly, doesn't the very fact that we, as a naturally evolving natural specied in the natural world, destabilize this "ballance" of yours, disprove your entire theory?

That is, how, within your paradigm, can nature (through humanity) break its own "reasoned" homeostasis?

Plants evolve to areas of human growth...nature is trying to make up for human destruction.

Again, you have to prove intent or direction. Assertions aren't worth dick.

I'm safegaurding nature...not something mythical. I'm glad you're stupid enough to believe that nature is a mythical entity. You use it everyday to you know...uhh...LIVE!

Nature certainly is not mythical, but the way you're describing it, it might as well be.

In your view, nature is not merely a collection of organic life, it is a directed, reasoned, and organized whole. One that engages in organic "homeostasis" and "is trying to make up for human destruction". You are ascribing a semi-mythical component to nature, one which requires a great deal of evidence .....you have, as yet, provided no such evidence.

They used pennicilin for that? Well maybe it did. But taking research a step beyond isn't the same thing.

Not at all.

Pennicilin was the first antibiotic. Without it, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have thought of searching for others, but regardless, pennecilin alone has saved hundreds of millions of lives at least.

You use it everyday to you know...uhh...LIVE! More than pennicilin has done for me!

I don't "use" nature to live, I merely live within an ecosystem that supports my form of life.

Once again, I'm not denying that we need the environment to live, I'm just contesting your claim that somehow nature as it exists status quo is implicitly nescessary or inherently superior to any potential theoretical alternative.

Are you religious?

No, but apparently you are, since you seem to ascribe conciousness to "nature": "nature is trying to make up for human destruction".

I guess God has a plan ...right? :lol:

...are you dense??
*cough*

Pennicilin is used for bacterial infection? I thought it was to treat diabetes.

:lol:!

ComradeChris

4th May 2005, 01:38

I need some sort of evidence for the restrictions of nature? There's only so many resourses on Earth...and therefore there must be some balance. I don't see what you don't understand about that. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." So if many species and creatures are born, many will have to die in return. There is a homeostasis! The Earth can only support so much life! Geez you're stupid.

I think that explains the first 2-3 of your posts.

And I'm not religious. The idea of a symbiotic relationship of all living things is a philosophical school to my knowledge (I have discussed it as such with philosophical majors). You have mentioned being blessed and hell...so I could only assume you were.

Wait ...sorry about all that penicillin crap though. I don't know why I was thinking insulin :unsure: ...which is why I mentioned diabetes and all that.

LSD

4th May 2005, 02:16

You have mentioned being blessed and hell...so I could only assume you were.

I used the words "blessed" and "hell" in figures of speech such as "you are so blessed" and "what the hell".

You used religious concepts such as "nature is trying to make up for human destruction".

So tell me, which of us seems more supernaturalistic?

I need some sort of evidence for the restrictions of nature? There's only so many resourses on Earth...and therefore there must be some balance. I don't see what you don't understand about that. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." So if many species and creatures are born, many will have to die in return.

The idea of a symbiotic relationship of all living things is a philosophical school to my knowledge (I have discussed it as such with philosophical majors).

You didn't just refer to a "symbiotic relationship" which is sometimes true... you refered to direction.

"As I said, in most cases there's a reason for that destruction."
"nature is trying to make up for human destruction"

That's supernaturalism!

There is a homeostasis! The Earth can only support so much life!

True enough... but that doesn't mean that we must maintain the status quo nor that the current ballance is in any way superior to any potential ballance that we could achieve in the future.

You're not just proposing that we ensure a sustainable ecosystem, you're advocating that we keep the ecosystem as is for no other reason than that that's the way it is. You seem to believe that the present "natural" order is somehow directed such that there is somethign inherently significant to it.

There isn't, and you haven't provided any proof that it is. Accordingly, we have no fundamental obligation to perpetuate the existing structure beyond what is nescessary for our own survival.

Geez you're stupid.

Wait ...sorry about all that penicillin crap though. I don't know why I was thinking insulin :unsure: ...which is why I mentioned diabetes and all that.

<_<

ComradeChris

5th May 2005, 18:29

I used the words "blessed" and "hell" in figures of speech such as "you are so blessed" and "what the hell".

You used religious concepts such as "nature is trying to make up for human destruction".

So tell me, which of us seems more supernaturalistic?

Who said anything about supernatural? Sorry if I'm trying to "unify" nature, and in doing so personify it. Normally I don't compare non-humans to human terms and misconceptions (like with animals as you presented in the other forum). I just said that for easiness sake.

You didn't just refer to a "symbiotic relationship" which is sometimes true... you refered to direction.

"As I said, in most cases there's a reason for that destruction."
"nature is trying to make up for human destruction"

That's supernaturalism!

Like I said...sorry if you mistake my laziness...I'm not some sort of shaman like you seem to believe. I do not revere nature, but noticce patterns in energy movement, life/death, etc. with the help of scientific theory that I try to explain something. Then you keep mentioning more and more branches and specifics that lead off topic. So I'm sorry if I mistook something I knew, for something I didn't.

True enough... but that doesn't mean that we must maintain the status quo nor that the current ballance is in any way superior to any potential ballance that we could achieve in the future.

SURE IT DOES! Do you know anything about ecosystems? In a relatively closed ecosystem (I say relatively, because you'll probably argue stupid shit like meteors come in from space or something) when you introduce something new, it screws it up! Most self-containing ecosystems have their own homestatic mechanism. But you'll probably just say I'm spiritual and write it off.

You're not just proposing that we ensure a sustainable ecosystem, you're advocating that we keep the ecosystem as is for no other reason than that that's the way it is. You seem to believe that the present "natural" order is somehow directed such that there is somethign inherently significant to it.

There isn't, and you haven't provided any proof that it is. Accordingly, we have no fundamental obligation to perpetuate the existing structure beyond what is nescessary for our own survival.

Science is anything that goes against nature. Do you agree or disagree? Because if you don't believe that we'll have to agree to disagree, because I'm not going to argue you anymore...since you think me wanted to keep nature makes me spiritual.

LSD

5th May 2005, 20:50

SURE IT DOES! Do you know anything about ecosystems? In a relatively closed ecosystem (I say relatively, because you'll probably argue stupid shit like meteors come in from space or something) when you introduce something new, it screws it up!

Not nescessarily.

And, within a "natural" concept, what exactly does "screw up" mean, anyways?

Making changes to the ecosystem could easily make it better for us -- it just depends on what those changes are!

Science is anything that goes against nature.

Somehow, I don't think you got that from the OED! :lol:

Do you agree or disagree?.

I disagree, of course.

You're making up a new definition of the word!

Science is a process for explanation, prediction, observation, caterorization and, most importantly, understanding.

How does that "goes against nature"?

I'm not going to argue you anymore...since you think me wanted to keep nature makes me spiritual.

I don't think "wanting to keep nature" is spiritual, I think your wanted to keep the natural status quo is reactionary.

I think your "reverence for nature" is spiritual, though, and I don't see how you can really argue otherwise.

If you are thinking only rationaly, as you should, then on what basis could you argue that "nature is trying to make up for human destruction" or that, in cases of natural disasters such as the recent Tsunami that killed over 100,000 people, "in most cases there's a reason for that destruction.""?

Those are, as you say, "spirirtual" concepts. I would call them supernaturalist myself, but whatever you call them, they are not logical!

ComradeChris

8th May 2005, 07:25

Not nescessarily.

And, within a "natural" concept, what exactly does "screw up" mean, anyways?

Making changes to the ecosystem could easily make it better for us -- it just depends on what those changes are!

I'll give you the simplest example of ecosystems I can think of (since I relatively similar example was given to me when I was being taught this stuff in biology).

Take an ecosystem where you have rabbits, they eat the grass; and to keep the rabbit population in check, you have wolves/coyote/wild dogs (take your pick) as a predator. If the rabbit population grows the predator population will often follow suit. When the predators cut down on the "feed" population it will begin to decrease in suit. But say you begin to deforest the area. The rabbit population loses its feed, and begins to deteriorate, and the predator population will follow suit. If you introduce a new species, say swine (like European settles did in the new world) they contribute to the deforesting process, eliminating the rabbit (native) population. I'm sorry if that link makes me spiritual in your mind.

Somehow, I don't think you got that from the OED!

OED?

I disagree, of course.

You're making up a new definition of the word!

Science is a process for explanation, prediction, observation, caterorization and, most importantly, understanding.

How does that "goes against nature"?

Lets see, nature is unpredictable, catagorizing it is only to further human explanation and therefore serve a human purpose. I guess you can observe nature, but observation doesn't imply science.

Maybe you can explain why populations have only started to boom after industrial growth (which obviously implies science). As I said, with that only animals that are deemed useful to humans flourish, and to support the rapid human growth you need to destroy more nature. Once again, that is a given. I'm sorry if your lack of observation from your obviously scientific mind eludes you on that :rolleyes: .

I don't think "wanting to keep nature" is spiritual, I think your wanted to keep the natural status quo is reactionary.

Wanting animals to live free of captivity, and our decendents to be able to see them in such a state is reactionary? I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess if you're the archetypal communist I honestly want nothing to do with you. But I keep having hope that people like you are not and that's about all that keeps me posting in this forum.

If you are thinking only rationaly, as you should, then on what basis could you argue that "nature is trying to make up for human destruction" or that, in cases of natural disasters such as the recent Tsunami that killed over 100,000 people, "in most cases there's a reason for that destruction.""?

There's only so much free energy available, and you even agreed, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rapid exponential growth would therefore be the equal reaction of a rapid decline. Is that reationally enough? Using scientific laws.

Those are, as you say, "spirirtual" concepts. I would call them supernaturalist myself, but whatever you call them, they are not logical!

Speaking of changing definitions, please explain how it's spiritual.
spir·i·tu·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-ch-l)
adj.
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

I honestly don't get that out of that definition and am a bit confused how you classify me as such.

LSD

8th May 2005, 12:43

OED?

Oxford English Dictionary.

Take an ecosystem where you have rabbits, they eat the grass; and to keep the rabbit population in check, you have wolves/coyote/wild dogs (take your pick) as a predator. If the rabbit population grows the predator population will often follow suit. When the predators cut down on the "feed" population it will begin to decrease in suit. But say you begin to deforest the area. The rabbit population loses its feed, and begins to deteriorate, and the predator population will follow suit. If you introduce a new species, say swine (like European settles did in the new world) they contribute to the deforesting process, eliminating the rabbit (native) population. I'm sorry if that link makes me spiritual in your mind.

OK, now a new ecosystem will develop with the species introduced. The predator will start to hunt it, now that it's run out of rabbits. The population will regularize and the deforestation will slow..

So now we have a different ecosystem, but not nescssarily a worse one. Indeed, this new one may be much better for us! Certainly we can hunt swine easier than rabbits and they can feed more people. Therefore the changes we made actually were positive!

Now, this was just with your example, and so it's a bit tenuous. But there are many ecosystemic changes that can be made that will actually be benneficial for us.

Your problem is that you are thinking that there is something inherently superior to the way nature is arranged right now, even though that arrangement is entirely coincidental!

Lets see, nature is unpredictable,

Nature is not "unpredictable"!

We predict it every day. In truth, most of nature is extremely predictable and we have been doing so accurately for centuries.

I guess you can observe nature, but observation doesn't imply science.

Yes it does.

catagorizing it is only to further human explanation and therefore serve a human purpose.

True.

But all human actions are ultimately to "serve a human purpose".

As they should be!

There's only so much free energy available, and you even agreed, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A rapid exponential growth would therefore be the equal reaction of a rapid decline. Is that reationally enough? Using scientific laws.

Wow, did that not address the point at hand!

"nature is trying to make up for human destruction" implies itnent behind nature's "actions". It implies reasons.

But wait!

You admitted that you believe that nature has "reasons": "in most cases there's a reason for that destruction."

So, again, how is it not supernaturalistic, to believe that "nature" is acting conciously, or with intent?

How is it not spiritual to assume that there is a guiding force behind the natural world?

I honestly don't get that out of that definition and am a bit confused how you classify me as such.

"Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit" --> "nature is trying to make up for human destruction"

"Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural." --> "in most cases there's a reason for [nature's] destruction."

ComradeChris

9th May 2005, 17:09

OK, now a new ecosystem will develop with the species introduced. The predator will start to hunt it, now that it's run out of rabbits. The population will regularize and the deforestation will slow..

No old species will be eliminated because of human intervention. If it wasn't for that intervention that ecosystem was fine. Therefore the old ecosystem is ELIMINATED!

So now we have a different ecosystem, but not nescssarily a worse one. Indeed, this new one may be much better for us! Certainly we can hunt swine easier than rabbits and they can feed more people. Therefore the changes we made actually were positive!

Very humancentric for you to say so.

Now, this was just with your example, and so it's a bit tenuous. But there are many ecosystemic changes that can be made that will actually be benneficial for us.

For us...I'm talking about the extinction of native species.

Your problem is that you are thinking that there is something inherently superior to the way nature is arranged right now, even though that arrangement is entirely coincidental!

Not really superior...but I can't really explain it without you saying it's spiritual. You must think homeostasis is spiritual.

Nature is not "unpredictable"!

We predict it every day. In truth, most of nature is extremely predictable and we have been doing so accurately for centuries.

We were able to predict the Tsumani that you mentioned in an earlier example?

Yes it does.

I guess anyone who can watch or is aware of something is a scientist then?

True.

But all human actions are ultimately to "serve a human purpose".

As they should be!

Why should they be?

Wow, did that not address the point at hand!

"nature is trying to make up for human destruction" implies itnent behind nature's "actions". It implies reasons.

But wait!

You admitted that you believe that nature has "reasons": "in most cases there's a reason for that destruction."

So, again, how is it not supernaturalistic, to believe that "nature" is acting conciously, or with intent?

How is it not spiritual to assume that there is a guiding force behind the natural world?

I told you that reason was to maintain a homeostasis. I've said that multiple times. Are you dense? How does that not address your points? I appologized that you mistook my personification of nature as spiritual. Your mistake and interpretation, not mine. And the classification you followed in the next response is sketchy at best.

"Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit" --> "nature is trying to make up for human destruction"

How does that imply spirit?

"Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural." --> "in most cases there's a reason for [nature's] destruction."

How is that supernatural? Maintaining a homeostasis. Science attempts to break that homeostasis for human purposes. For humans to survive results in the detah of countless animals. Once again, why are humans better? I have a feeling your response is spiritual...because the BIBLE classifies humans as such.

LSD

9th May 2005, 18:24

We were able to predict the Tsumani that you mentioned in an earlier example?

No. But we've predicted others.

Science isn't perfect, but we can predict most things and as technology improves, we'll be able to predict more an more.

How does that imply spirit?

Because it implies direction which implies conciousness: a "guiding spirit".

Why should [all human actions ultimately "serve a human purpose"]?

How is that supernatural? Maintaining a homeostasis. Science attempts to break that homeostasis for human purposes. For humans to survive results in the detah of countless animals. Once again, why are humans better? I have a feeling your response is spiritual...because the BIBLE classifies humans as such.

:lol:

Bible? Hardly!

Humans are not "better" from some fort of normative perspective. That is to a martian, humans would be no "better" than a squirrel. But for humans, humans are better, becasue they're human.

And since what we're discussing is what should human actions be, the question is implicity framed within a human concept. The responsibility of any society is to the members of that society. The only members of a human society are human and hence the only responsibility of that society is too those humans and accordingly to humans in general.

Sometimes, this does mean that we must preserve the environment because we need the environment as much as does any animal, but it does not mean that we have any responsibility to "nature".

If anything is "biblical" it's this notion those we have a "duty" the "safeguard the forrests". That somehow we have a "higher calling" than any other animal on earth.

No animal actively modifies its actions for the general bennefit of competing specied. Likewise, we cannot sacrifice out out special well-being to bennefit other animals / plants / microbes /etc...

Very humancentric for you to say so.

Absolutely.

But that's where our priorities as a species must be.

We must preserve our environment but only to the extent that it helps us. For example, we need trees because we need oxygen.

But this idea you have that we must preserve nature for nature's sake is illogical.

For us...I'm talking about the extinction of native species.

I know you are ....but you still haven't given me a reason why I should care!

If such extinctions are in no way hurting me, my society, or my species, why should I sacrifice my well-being or any person's well-being to prevent them?

ComradeChris

11th May 2005, 06:00

Ok...science especially in large industrial centers is good. We shouldn't care for anyone but ourselves. By your logic, why should I care for other people? I try to care for all living things. But you claim that makes me spiritual. Science and the industry that comes with it (the very same that destroys nature) is responsible for 1900 premature deaths in Ontario alone (last years statistics). 1000 of those in Toronto alone (the biggest metropolis in Ontario). Those are local results for me. But you're right...I'm done arguing with you. You just try to insult me directly by refuting anything I say as spiritual, even though they are OBSERVABLE events. You're the one talking about observation being science. :rolleyes:

And once again...unless you define energy and livign things as spiritual then I still don't see how you can call me spiritual.

dark fairy

24th May 2005, 22:48

i feel in over my head :blink:

ComradeChris

24th May 2005, 22:57

Originally posted by dark [email protected] 24 2005, 05:48 PM
i feel in over my head :blink:
I'm trying to explain how prolonged life, and physical/mental prowess will lead to an increased amount of distruction to the environment. I mean you genetically modify a bunch of children to be stronger, and therefore more muscular, they will consume more resources. At least that was one of my original arguments. Somehow I ended up defending myself from being called spiritual.

The Apathetic Atheist

25th May 2005, 05:03

Alright, I started reading through this...and I didn't have the energy to go all the way, but here are some things that bothered me...

ComradeChris wrote: "With humans, if you create a bunch of muscle-bound hulks, you'd require greater amounts of food consumption. Things like that concern me."

I disagree. With the rate of obesity (in America at least) it would actually reduce food consumption.

seraphim wrote: "Another point is that Darwins theory of evolution relies heavily upon mutation to speed up the process, if genetic 'mutations' were eradicated evolution may become stagnant."

The theory of evolution is supported in a natural context as far as genetics go in this case. For example, society supports people prone to disease and medical science allows us to transplant organs, etc... These are people that would otherwise die and thus their genetics would be removed from circulation. Modern civilization has the ability to effictively cut out the survival of the fittest rule. The genetic modification would allow civilization to actually allow comftorable life and fulfil the survival of the fittest rule.

Lazar wrote: "Grown trees. (that were originally destroyed)"

Trees that are destroyed for use in products like houses are replaced. Other animals do not replace what they consume in this manner. Also, there is a common misconception that logging is responsible for the reduction in trees, when in fact citizen's from 3rd world countries are the most likely culprits.

Lazar wrote: "Replanted forests after forfest fires. (forest fires are part of nature)"

The point was that humans actively improve the enviroment. The ice age and the plague were also occurences in nature. The goal is to improve the earth.

Lazar wrote: "Done controlled burns of forrests to clean up dead / old wood. (dead/old wood decomposes and helps the soil)"

It also occupies land that is better used for live trees which support the earth more. And, by the way, if new forests are introduced into those areas, isn't it safe to assume that the soil is ripe for plant growth?

Lazar wrote: "Watered the deserts. (they don't need water; what does this mean anyways?)"

Because of the overpopulation of the planet, deserts have been sought out as places to sustain life. Humans have created and oasis when such a need arises.

IN MY OPINION...

Genetic modification is the perfect solution to the problem created with the nurturing of unhealthy genes present in society.

ComradeChris

25th May 2005, 05:29

"With humans, if you create a bunch of muscle-bound hulks, you'd require greater amounts of food consumption. Things like that concern me."

I disagree. With the rate of obesity (in America at least) it would actually reduce food consumption.

Fat is food storage. So if you ate a lot of food to begin with of course your going to be obese. Overconsumption and unhealthy lifestyles contribute a lot to obesity. However, muscle construction has a lot to do with genetics. To keep muscles from consuming themselves it would require a lot more food consumption then upkeeping your fat(?). Also, if we created children with greater brain capacities, it would require a lot of energy to uphold that. Probably more than muscle upkeep.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

25th May 2005, 10:57

Fat is food storage. So if you ate a lot of food to begin with of course your going to be obese. Overconsumption and unhealthy lifestyles contribute a lot to obesity. However, muscle construction has a lot to do with genetics. To keep muscles from consuming themselves it would require a lot more food consumption then upkeeping your fat(?). Also, if we created children with greater brain capacities, it would require a lot of energy to uphold that. Probably more than muscle upkeep.

It's a good thing we've got genetic engineering (So we can make plants that have a higher yield) and advanced farming techniques that are already producing more food than we need - Indeed, we could eliminate hunger but under capitalism it would flood countries with cheap food and cause local farmers to go out of business.

So I don't see the extra energy requirement for GM people being a problem; because we already eat more than we need, at least in the west.

ComradeChris

25th May 2005, 18:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:57 AM

Fat is food storage. So if you ate a lot of food to begin with of course your going to be obese. Overconsumption and unhealthy lifestyles contribute a lot to obesity. However, muscle construction has a lot to do with genetics. To keep muscles from consuming themselves it would require a lot more food consumption then upkeeping your fat(?). Also, if we created children with greater brain capacities, it would require a lot of energy to uphold that. Probably more than muscle upkeep.

It's a good thing we've got genetic engineering (So we can make plants that have a higher yield) and advanced farming techniques that are already producing more food than we need - Indeed, we could eliminate hunger but under capitalism it would flood countries with cheap food and cause local farmers to go out of business.

So I don't see the extra energy requirement for GM people being a problem; because we already eat more than we need, at least in the west.
You are going to need to grow a lot of food, just to feed animals (usually about 50% of the worlds food goes to feeding animals that feed a much smaller portion of the people in the world) because people think to get/remain muscular you need meat.

We could solve world hunger right now. I full well agree that it is capitalism's uneven distribution of food resources that leads to the starvation of thousands daily. But then we only further create the problem when we gentically modify ourselves to consume more to upkeep our enhanced abilities. That's what I was trying to say.