Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]





Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Genetic Engineering and Cloning
Topic Started: Nov 6 2013, 10:48 PM (1,689 Views)
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

Stephen
Nov 7 2013, 05:30 PM
I think this is not the future. Diseases and pests adapt to these engineered crops. To give you an example:
Corn A is genetically engineered. It's resistant to all kinds of pests and diseases. Yet, after X amount of years, a certain disease is immune for the defensive mechanisms of Corn A. It spreads over the whole earth and causes immense famines.
I wouldn't bet on that, yes we might be able to notice the disease and make a cure before it has much effects, but how large are those chances? We haven't been able to develop a cure for AIDS, or cancer, or so many other diseases for decades.

I also wouldn't bet on larger food supplies for a sustainable world. A larger population only means equal (at best) or more pollution. I would encourage smaller families and, to counter the poverty of elders, better pension regulation.

And to add for that, large companies like Monsanto make effective use of these engineered crops. They develop seeds and sell those. Yet, unlike normal seeds, the seeds of the engineered crops are only useable for nourishment, whereas normally poor farmers could use a part of their harvest to sow again. So, poor farmers can't use these seeds and because their food is of lesser quality/quantity, they will sell less.

I am not against those silly things like Glofish, I wouldn't find it responsible if they were released in the wild though. I agree with Sheather on the cloning of extinct animals.
I agree completely; you're obviously better versed in this than I am.

I still believe it has a place, perhaps, but not how we utilize it now, patenting it and creating one-generation crops which leave people dependent on a single company. Ideally we'd all have just one child, if that, have our own animals and grow heirloom crops; but while ideal that is not a realistic goal to expect everyone to have in this day and age.

--

Glofish practically glow in the dark. There's no way they could survive in a natural environment with predators.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fluffs
No Avatar
Pull my finger!

There also have been rats genetically-modified to be overweight to study weight-loss cures, and also cows that don't burp, so that global warming doesn't get contributed.
Edited by Fluffs, Nov 7 2013, 08:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


The Fluffy Raptor
Nov 7 2013, 08:35 PM
There also have been rats genetically-modified to be overweight to study weight-loss cures, and also cows that don't burp, so that global warming doesn't get contributed.
Cows that don't burp to stop global warming.....What is this I don't even...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hamikins
Member Avatar
You will respect my authoratah.

The bigger problem is the censorship of information. Like how many GM crops cause damage to the intestines. And the lack of testing. And he way of testing. They just grow GM crops outside in 'controlled conditions' where their seeds can spread? WTF?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Dr. Hax
Nov 7 2013, 05:58 PM
I honestly feel it would be amazing if we were to clone animals that went extinct, because let's face it, most of the recently extinct ones in the past century have been killed by us. It would be really neat to see Dodos in a zoo, and resurrecting them would work greatly to the advantage of the scientists studying them, obviously. There are some species I think we should try our hand at resurrecting, and some we should leave alone. For animals I think we should resurrect, Dodos, the passsenger pigeon, the elephant bird, most mammoths and mastodons, Smilodon, the quagga, and the thylacine are on the yes list, while the only main animals I think we shouldn't resurrect includes most dinosaurs, for several reasons, though if you need to have it explained in greater detail go watch Jurassic Park. As for genetic engineering, I'm for it, as long as the animals involved don't get any health problems.
we are already in conflict with modern day large animals (bears, bisons, cougars) for space reason, how do you expect things to go if you throw mammoths and saber-toothed cats in there ?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Pets & Wildlife · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2