genetic engineering - is it good or bad or ok in small amoun

[sypher]

Genetic engineering can and will happen sooner than you think. Our generation (I am assuming we are mostly young adults.) will no doubt have the ability to choose what color thier kids eyes are. The next generation may even be able to implant animal genes into their unborn offspring that would help them hear better, see further and/or run faster. Genetic engineering will also cure cancer, heart desease, mental retardation, etc The posibilities are ENDLESS!

Now this obviously will be in the hands of the corperations and government. Think of the power the U.S. would have if they built super soldiers?


I think that genetic engineering is a great tool to help better the human race. However I am not blind. I do see the potential of this getting out of hand. We should only use genetic engineering to cure illnesses. However, everything else will create an even bigger gap between the rich and the poor (Rich have superhuman children and the poor have noraml children.


So what do you think about genetic engineering?

[IPkurd]

i never thougt of genetic enginering in that way before but you have wanked me up now. i think it will make alot of people start 2 wonder about the power of big cooperations then opefully the masss will turn against them and the lefty will gain much more support then

[Umoja]

I actually nearly had a panic attack, when in my English class we were talking about the effects of genetic engineering. Since only the advanced nations will be able to use it with any form of ease, we could essentially see a race of homo superiors rise up, and be able to rule the world. What's worse, is that this is more and more likely to happen the greater the gaps between rich and poor grows. Very scary thought.

[Blibblob]

I agree, very scary. But! Don't you think the government would make their new people just braindead? Completely unswerving in their loyalty. That is a fault, and will give us the upper hand. We have people that think.

It would definately widen the class gap. As children the modified ones will see themselves as better than those who aren't. The gap between those that have and those that don't is already large, after that it will be astronomical.

[sypher]

"I agree, very scary. But! Don't you think the government would make their new people just braindead? Completely unswerving in their loyalty."

Yes, the people could be made as calm as a Hindu cow. But, if any of you have read the novel "The Giver" than you can expect that kind of future.

(Edited by sypher at 8:34 am on June 13, 2003)

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that you folks are somewhat more alarmed than the present evidence justifies.

Many genes "do more than one thing"...and any attempt to confer "superiority" in one trait could possibly result in inferiority, even fatal inferiority, in some other trait.

Further, superiority in intelligence is a two-edged sword. What do really smart people do? They question accepted opinion. Robert Richturd IV pays a fortune to make sure that Robert Richturd V is a genius...and the kid turns into another Marx! It could happen.

I think progress in genetic engineering will continue...but at a slow rate and with many failures and blind alleys along the way.

Meanwhile, I expect communist revolution in Western Europe and other places will take place considerably in advance of practical techniques for altering traits like intelligence.

I could be wrong about that, of course.

:cool:

[Blibblob]

Yes, the people could be made as calm as a Hindu cow.
Not crazy like Cani says the Irish ones are?


But, if any of you have read the novel "The Giver" than you can expect that kind of future.
I read that book, it was good. Future is for psychics and losers(where the hell did that come from?).

BUT, WHY MUST WE BE COLOUR BLIND!!!

[Umoja]

Redstar, even so, you could have a new race of ultra-intelligent, or fast, or people with incredible longevity. The social consequences of us intentionally splitting into "other species" would have horrible effects.

The government wouldn't need to enslave a population like this, because this type of population would keep everyone else in order.

[CopperGoat]

Haha, all this genetic crap is kind of scary. But if you look at it differently it could be funny. I mean if and most likely when the governments use this genetics shit to keep us in perfect order. Our minds would just be blank. And no one wouldn't care anymore about anything. You see what I mean? It's as if you are just brain dead and you don't think anymore and you are just dead but not alive. Just...,bah!

But anyways I am against genetic engineering, because we shouldn't mess around with nature. Or else nature will mess around with us.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Genetic engeneering is not only highly useful, it's inevitable. RS is correct in regards to thew specific actions that each gene controls. The current issue is not with the genes themselves as the entire human genome has been mapped to 100% but resides in specific proteins that "turn on and off genes" during fetal development. So far it's been a gamble...sometimes there is no problems, other times the results are disasterous. I suspect these glitches to be corrected within the next 5 years of the development of the project. Fundamentally the theory of using genetic manipulation to create a "genetically unflawed" human is sound. However I do agree that their are risks concerning what a capitalist government would do with the technology.

Most federal governments have already passed edicts prohibiting the spendature of federal funds on genetic research forcing "private party" firms to pick up the funding slack. (as this is not federally prohibited) You see the government wants the technology...they just want someone else to be the "immoral bastard" who does it.

Private corporations are already first in line to access each new technology as it develops. Which could in turn force a very dark initial period of practise for genetic manipulation.

However genetic manipulation like any new technology will eventually become accepted and widely proliferated
causing a severe drop in cost and profit margin. This initial period will indeed be worse than Arnold's performance in "End of Days" but will eventually right itself.

These issues however are acceptable considering the benefits to humanity genetic manipulation will provide.

[sglb]

It would be quite delicate. Genetic engineering is great in small amounts. But then the capitalists build an army and start conquering the world. It is very frightening, I have to say that. Genetic engineering + corrupt government = real trouble.

[Umoja]

It's not even the prospect of super soliders that disturbs me. The idea of having most white people in the world being undisputablly superior to the rest of the human population that worries me. Not in saying that whites can't be trusted, but that it could further solidify opression. Clearly, this is an arguing point for socialism.

[tacoernie]

i dont personally see the future involving "super-races", but hey, who knows. the immediate concern for me is corporate control and ownership of foods -the intellectual property laws are terrifying (thpough, this does raise this issue of who would "own" these super soldiers) eg:monsanto suing candian farmers for unknowingly using technolgy after their crops had become contaminated by neighbours
i feel that this is the one technology in the world today that must be fought and resisted in any way possible

[Vinny Rafarino]

As I sated previously, due to the nature of capitalism, the concept of "super human armies" is not really a substantial fear.

To be honest comrades, this baby's already in the mail so we will all see first hand pretty soon.

[Severian]

The present issue ain't modifying people - we're probably some distance off from being able to do that. The early applications would be fixing specific, inheritable genetic disorders, like Tay-Sachs. We're not even at that point yet. (There are attempts at "gene therapy" that haven't been successful.)

I think it's doubtful whether genetically engineered "supermen" would really be generally superior, given the complexity of the genome. Every improvement would likely have a drawback.

What we do have is the application of genetic engineering to food crops, and to medicine. Many medicines are mass-produced by bacteria that have human genes spliced into them. It's been done for decades, and isn't even controversial anymore.

The focus of opposition has shifted to food crops. The opponents claim that genetic modification is somehow unsafe, although nobody's actually been harmed by GM food or medicine - which, as I said, has been in use for decades.

The real issues here, I think, are:

1. Protectionism by European agribusiness. Broad middle-class layers tend to follow along with their interests, out of patriotism and anti-Americanism.

2. Control of these technologies gives U.S. agribusiness even greater leverage over farmers. 'Course, that's true of any technology applied to farming.

Communists should not seek to oppose technological progress, as the opponents of GM do, but to challenge who controls that technology. Technological progress has the potential, under socialism, to greatly improve human life - in this case, by producing new medicines, and by improving agricultural yields and nutrition. Even under capitalism, it sometimes leads to improvements.

[MJM]

The focus of opposition has shifted to food crops. The opponents claim that genetic modification is somehow unsafe, although nobody's actually been harmed by GM food or medicine - which, as I said, has been in use for decades.

It really depends on your definition of harm. Farmers forced into growing crops they don't want to because of fears of GE contamination and the law suits it will bring. Farmers taken to court and loosing patent cases then having to pay out tens of thousands of dollars to the corporations involved. African countries being bullied into accepting GE crops wether they like it or not during times of famine. All this and comercial GE has really only been going on for a very short time.

I'm against GE mostly because we already have enough food to feed the world, so it's not required for this. Also the people who will hold ownership of these plants are the same type of people who told us asbestos and ddt were safe to use. It also fits a little bit with the bioprospecting industry, where corporations copywright DNA of plants and animals. I heard someone say that if the elemental chart was being discovered today some big corporation would now own Hydrogen!


The main research in GE is being done to use more, not less, chemicals. Round up ready seed results in the use of more herbicide, as it can be used without fear of killing the crops.

BT resistant corn produces it's own naturally occuring pesticide, problem is the pests become resistant to this pesticide over time and we end up with super pests. The bettles are only a real pest ever four years as their life cycle/ species cycle peaks at this time with plague like numbers. This is the time the farmers need the pesticide. If the beetle has been subjected to the poison over a period of time it builds up natural resistance, natural selection being at work here. So when the bonanza beetle years come we need to have effective pesticides, we're running the risk of this not being the case in the next 10-20 years if we're not careful.
Those are two examples of more poisonous chemicals being released into our already very polluted environment, all for whos gain?

As for GE of humans, I'm undecided on this one. GE humans in capitalist society would be a disaster. GE humans in future societies may be a different thing. I saw a great show that featured Michio Kaku a while back, he was talking about interplanetary space travel and the value GE could have for the potential crew of these ships. Very interesting.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I think it's doubtful whether genetically engineered "supermen" would really be generally superior, given the complexity of the genome. Every improvement would likely have a drawback.

This statement is a bit to broad as there are genes that have limited or single functions. Again, the major problem is in the proteins that act as "switches".

The present issue ain't modifying people - we're probably some distance off from being able to do that. The early applications would be fixing specific, inheritable genetic disorders, like Tay-Sachs. We're not even at that point yet. (There are attempts at "gene therapy" that haven't been successful.)

When you say "gene therapy" and are you talking about modification via stem cell engineering or modification from germ-line engineering as these two technologies are radically different and have different timelines for producing acceptable results.

It really depends on your definition of harm. Farmers forced into growing crops they don't want to because of fears of GE contamination and the law suits it will bring.

Strict regulation can prevent most contamination. However i have not really seen to much evidence that GE contamination is actually harmful in the big picture.
I don't feel that the creation of "super weeds" from GE crops breeding with non GE crops and local weeds is a problem at all as these new plants can be bred with other GE plant strains to create a more "docile weed" if necessary.

I'm against GE mostly because we already have enough food to feed the world, so it's not required for this.

Well unfortunately due to our capitalist governments this enormous stockpile of food is rotting away in supermarket rubbish bins rather then getting to the people who need it. So essentially your argument is flawed.

BT resistant corn produces it's own naturally occuring pesticide, problem is the pests become resistant to this pesticide over time and we end up with super pests.

What you end up with are beatles that are resistant to a "specific" pesticide. You simply introduce an alternate pesticide. No more "Super Beatles".

As for GE of humans, I'm undecided on this one. GE humans in capitalist society would be a disaster.

This statement is completely false.

[Severian]

Quote: from MJM on 10:33 pm on June 15, 2003
[I'm against GE mostly because we already have enough food to feed the world, so it's not required for this.

Even under socialism, increasing agricultural productivity will be an issue. Freeing up labor for other pursuits, for one thing.

GM tech can also improve the nutritional value of crops - golden rice for example. It can decrease the need for agricultural chemicals - or increase it, yes, as with roundup-ready soybeans. Your "superpest" argument could apply to any means of controlling agricultural pests, yet people will continue to find ways to do this, and have increased agricultural production by doing so.

Your other arguments apply to the "who controls it" question, rather than GM itself, and I think I've adequately covered that area already.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I agree Comrade Sev.

I however am still waiting for an answer to the question I posed to you in my previous post.

Edit:
Comrade Sev,iIf you do not know the difference between Stem-cell engineering and Germ-line engineering please let me know as I will explain them for you.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 5:11 am on June 16, 2003)

[MJM]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 3:12 pm on June 16, 2003

Strict regulation can prevent most contamination. However i have not really seen to much evidence that GE contamination is actually harmful in the big picture.
I don't feel that the creation of "super weeds" from GE crops breeding with non GE crops and local weeds is a problem at all as these new plants can be bred with other GE plant strains to create a more "docile weed" if necessary.

Whether you feel it's a problem or not doesn't really matter. Fact is cross contamination will occur, so why run the risk? Say you go ahead anyway if everything turns to crap, at least you can breed the genes out you say, sounds like a lot of un necessary work to me.


Well unfortunately due to our capitalist governments this enormous stockpile of food is rotting away in supermarket rubbish bins rather then getting to the people who need it. So essentially your argument is flawed.

How is my argument flawed? I see no relevance here. My argument is there is enough food, I know its rotting or being used to fatten up animals for first world consumption. My point was, GE won't stop this. In fact GE is doing nothing to address this problem in reality, only in marketing campaigns of pro GE corporations. 1% of reasearch goes into making changes that would benefit starving people.



What you end up with are beatles that are resistant to a "specific" pesticide. You simply introduce an alternate pesticide. No more "Super Beatles".

They're resistant to a pesticide that is one of the most effective and least toxic on the environment, so you have to revert to things a lot more harmful to the whole food chain. Why would you do this on purpose?
[/b][/quote]

As to wether GE humans in capitalist society would be a disaster or not it's pretty subjective I know. But hardly a falsity.
If you look at the evidence of the actions of the ruling class historically you'll see why I would say it would be a disaster. Also the work going into GE currently is only serving the rich, so why would human GE work be different?

Severian: Theres enough food to feed the world at least twice. There's hardly a need to rush into a new technology to do this.

Perhaps I misunderstood the issue. Is it GE in general or GE in actuality that we're discussing here?

[Vinny Rafarino]

MJM, I will try to address each one of your statements to the best of my ability. Once the nature of capitalism is understood, it is simple to apply theories that will benefit society rather than solely to the corporations themselves...Notice the globalisation "theme".


Whether you feel it's a problem or not doesn't really matter. Fact is cross contamination will occur, so why run the risk? Say you go ahead anyway if everything turns to crap, at least you can breed the genes out you say, sounds like a lot of un necessary work to me.

If cross contamination is not an actual "risk" to humanity, why then cease developing the technology? It could turn out to be essential in the future. The odds of everything turning to crap are so immense I can safely say it's virtually impossible.

How is my argument flawed? I see no relevance here. My argument is there is enough food, I know its rotting or being used to fatten up animals for first world consumption. My point was, GE won't stop this. In fact GE is doing nothing to address this problem in reality, only in marketing campaigns of pro GE corporations. 1% of reasearch goes into making changes that would benefit starving people.

Your argument is not flawed in the sense that there is not enough food available to feed the world. I agree with you comrade, there is indeed. Your argument is flawed in the sense that this over abundance of food will not get to the people who need it due to the nature of capitalsm. I don't think I need to cite any current examples of starvation to a fellow comrade, I'm positive you are already aware of it. Since capitalism is the major political party of the world and will continue to ignore the fact there are millions of people starving to death, the responsibility will then reside with us to provide alternate means of food production that can be used globally. Currently GE crops are not being used to their full potential I agree. We still need acceptance on a global scale, and the fact of the matter is, GE crops are currently the most valuable tool we have that can potentially solve the starvation issue. We need a massive flooding of products from privitised agricultural sectors to drive the profitability of agriculture to such a low point the corporations will abandon thier local market shares and expand globally. Not only will we then be able to feed people globally, but the action itself is one of the first steps in creating a socialist state. Driving corporations to make drastic changes in their marketing model in order to remain profitable. In other words comrade...Making the capitalist pigs scramble to stay afloat by creating dissention via subversionism. Please don't sweep GE Crops under the rug comrade. The concept is incredibly valuable to the movement.

They're [super beatles] resistant to a pesticide that is one of the most effective and least toxic on the environment, so you have to revert to things a lot more harmful to the whole food chain. Why would you do this on purpose?

What exactly led you to conclude that a newly engineered pesticide would be more harmful to the ecosystem? It is now possible to create pesticides that are only harmful to specific gene sequences in specific DNA strands and are about as harmful to the remaining ecosystem as simple water is.

As to wether GE humans in capitalist society would be a disaster or not it's pretty subjective I know. But hardly a falsity.
If you look at the evidence of the actions of the ruling class historically you'll see why I would say it would be a disaster. Also the work going into GE currently is only serving the rich, so why would human GE work be different?

The reason your statement is false is because a capitalist controlled genetic engeneering programme would only be temporarily disasterous. As I explained in my original post, this technology would not be considered any different than any other technology.

As advancement in the technology increases, it becomes cheaper and less profitable to produce and the market will eventually be flooded with an oversupply of said technology. In turn making global use the only answer if continual profits are to be acheived. These corporations will have too much invested in the technology and cannot simply abandon it. The result; global access to genetic engineering at a low cost.

Compare it to computer technolgy. In the late '80's computers and computer hardware were incredibly expensive but as technological breakthroughs were discovered, it became increasingly cheaper to produce computers, leading every corporation and their mother to begin producing computers. The heavily increased profit and decreased market share led these corporations to globalise their efforts in an effort to remain profitable. Again, the type of technolgy is irrelevant as capitalism follows a highly predictable trend.

Perhaps I misunderstood the issue. Is it GE in general or GE in actuality that we're discussing here?

Taking from the original post, we are discussing human genetic engineering and it's current and theoretical applications/ramifications. This does not mean however we cannot stray to a sub-section such as bio-engineering. (GE crops)

Edit:
Correction in format of bold, italics and minor content.


(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 7:48 am on June 16, 2003)

[Severian]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 3:12 am on June 16, 2003

When you say "gene therapy" and are you talking about modification via stem cell engineering or modification from germ-line engineering as these two technologies are radically different and have different timelines for producing acceptable results.


Not sure. Germ-line would be easier, yes? In any case, neither has successfully cured any genetic diseases up til now, AFAIK. Let alone made the more complex modifications of giving someone superior strength, intelligence, etc., which would be controlled by a number of genes. Which was my point.

[Severian]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 7:20 am on June 16, 2003
Since capitalism is the major political party of the world and will continue to ignore the fact there are millions of people starving to death, the responsibility will then reside with us to provide alternate means of food production that can be used globally.

Hm. If you meant:

1. Food from the U.S. and other "breadbaskets of the world" will not in fact be made available to the starving in other parts of the world, under capitalism
2. Therefore, there is a need for ways of increasing food production in other parts of the world
3. GM has the potential to help do this?

I'd agree, but I'm not sure this will be possible under capitalism either. Food sovereignty - countries producing their own food supply - is an important part of achieving economic independence from imperialism. It's a ongoing battle in Cuba today, for example.

But GM seed patents held by imperialist corporations may not help food sovereignty, but rather increase dependence on the seed suppliers.

This may be another reason GM crops will be important under socialism, and a reason for Third World countries should pursue their own biotech research today, as Cuba is, however.

But then again, maybe you didn't mean that at all, going by your next point.

We need a massive flooding of products from privitised agricultural sectors to drive the profitability of agriculture to such a low point the corporations will abandon thier local market shares and expand globally

The profitability of agricultural production already is incredibly low, especially considering the risks. That's why the capitalists still let working farmers do most of it. The money's in supplying them with loans, seed, machinery, chemicals and other inputs, and with buying, processing and reselling the farmers' profits.

Do you know the joke about the farmer who won the lottery? They asked him what he'd do now, and he said, "I guess I'll just keep farming til the money runs out." A lot of working farmers do in fact subsidize their production with off-farm jobs, at least in the U.S.

The main costs - and profit markups - are in processing, transport, etc. So further increases in crop yields in the imperialist countries are not likely to greatly effect the world food market.

In order for larger food exports to the Third World to happen, the main thing that has to change is: they'd have to be able to pay more for it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Good Posts Comrade Sev,

Not sure. Germ-line would be easier, yes? In any case, neither has successfully cured any genetic diseases up til now, AFAIK. Let alone made the more complex modifications of giving someone superior strength, intelligence, etc., which would be controlled by a number of genes. Which was my point.

I think it would be difficult to say which is easier, both germ-line and stem-cell technologies are incredibly complex. It is true that none have any specific genetic disorder hitherto but I can attest that it's not far off.

The profitability of agricultural production already is incredibly low, especially considering the risks. That's why the capitalists still let working farmers do most of it. The money's in supplying them with loans, seed, machinery, chemicals and other inputs, and with buying, processing and reselling the farmers' profits.

Agricultural profitablility is not guaged at a retail or even wholesale level. If a large company produces profit from agriculture on this level it's considered a bonus. The actual money being made is in the trading of commodities on the stock market. If local profitablility runs in the black for to long, a severe spike in commodities purchased will inevitably follow as the profit margin is extremely high. But as I'm sure you know, what goes up must come down. So in turn it is of greater benifit to commodity brokers in the long run to keep commodities as balanced as possible. A massive influx of agriculteral commodities will drive the market to a level where every brokerage firm from here to Tokyo will begin selling as many shares as they can as quickly as possible, crashing the commodities market. There are two options from here.

1) corporations pull out of the commodities market running the risk of not having presence if the market goes back up. Not a good option.

2) Expanding globally to accomodate to the incredible excess of agricultural goods in order to actually retain some sort of profit margin while waiting for the market to steady itself. This is a good option.

You see it's a simple numbers game. Capitalists will always be predictable in their actions as they are only thinking about one thing, long term profits.

I hope that made sense to you comrade.