Messing with nature.

[digger]

After reading and trying to undertand, lol, the posts about the new Disney movie and glowing axolotls, i have been thinking alot about the genetics argument.
I myself have a son and nephew with Cystic Fibrosis, my son also has Diabetes as does my uncle, a brother and neice with Caeliac, a brother and 2 grandsons with Asthma.
Healthy lot arent we.
Anyway messing with nature, there is a big part of me that thinks yeah go for it, why not, lets get rid of all these horrid diseases, but, im afraid the biggest part of me does not agree.
In the long run are we really doing ourselves (the human race) any favours.
All of a sudden we can survive from a younger age, hey when its our own we think great.
We live to an older age, would hate to lose my mum and dad.
But look at the planet, we are taking over more and more of it, the damage is nigh on irreversable,
and after posting about a wee little frog Kaysie said something that made it all hit home.
They are most likely extinct in the wild.
Just how many more creatures and plants are we going to lose just so as we can try to acheive immortality, and, is it worth it.
Im sorry folks i love all my family with all my heart but i truly believe in the end we are killing ourselves with progress.
In the end there will be no room left on this planet and then what? Go and do the same else where.
Raping and pillaging was outlawed years ago but we stil do it everyday.To our planet.
Wow did i really write all that , i will get off my soap box now.

 

[Bellabelloo]

Well written Frances, I feel the same way. I then wonder if I am just being a little nieve ( you'll have to work that spelling out..spell checker didn't have it!!)..we were once all scared of steam trains when they first appeared.

 

[digger]

Its not a fear of what we are doing , its a fear of what we are undoing.

 

[ben_tajer]

I don't see how genetics and their pursuit inherently causes us to lose biodiversity. I can't think of a single extinction caused directly by our endeavors in biology. Industry on the other hand, does much damage, but that's a separate issue.

 

[digger]

So you do not believe that the fact that the population is for ever increasing, therefore requiring more space, therefore taking over large areas of land, therefore depriving natures own of their habitat, as ever contributed to the extinction of any living thing.
You should think again.
Industry is run by man, man is the animal we are talking about.

 

[fishkeeper]

I do not agree 100% with the book, but you might want to read Ishmael.

Also, look up Tragedy of the Common's.

I think that we need to limit our population numbers. I would much rather see 2 billion or so people who can live on a house with access to clean water and meat if they want it, then 6+ billion with many of them on the edge of survival and fighting for what little resources are left. Problem: it is everyone's dream to have a family, even mine.

 

[digger]

I totally agree,
my argument was not whether we should continue breeding, but whether or not we should interfere with mother nature so much, we alter things genetic structure to enable us to survive from younger till older.
I feel things will only get worse for us if we continue along the line we are taking.
Sooner or later something has to give and unfortunately its the things that have no defence against us.

 

[Lasher]

I don't see how genetics and their pursuit inherently causes us to lose biodiversity.

I doesnt, its increased it, though not nesc for the better. 'Natural selection' is no longer relevant.

A point for consideration; the human species is an evoloutionary dead end(natural evoloution, that is). Once a species reaches a certain point in its development they are able to adapt they're surroundings and circumstances to suit there own needs, rather than adapting themselves to there environment. To take control of ones progression through 'artificial' means is the next logical, and inevitable, step.

Digger, mother nature went out the window a long time ago as far as human evoloution is concerned.

 

[gr33neyes]

I Have my own views about modifying things genetically. Personally I feel its wrong. Things were made that way for a reason, to cope with their habitats and disease.
Now I have seen a lot of posts on here from scientists/ biologists call it what you like. Most of them are defending the idea of GM saying it doesnt affect lifespan, health etc. Well you would defend it of course, it pays your wages. But that doesn't mean it is right.
Look at HIV/AIDS, its looking like we will be curing that.....but i wonder whats around the corner to replace it. Something ten times more nasty probably.
You can try and cure all the diseases in the world but nature will take its own path I hope. Things die off for a reason. Other things replace them.
Things can't go on the way they are, we all know that, one day there has got to come a point where this land we live off will just die.
What have we done.............

 

[digger]

This is my thought,
by trying to extend the life span of the individuals we are rushing as a race towards a quicker extinction.
Our own as well as that of every other thing on the plantet.
Animal --- vegetable----and MINERAL

 

[freves]

Interesting thread. The dilemmas that you have posed have so many facets and obviously no easy answer. One thing is for certain, there is no going back in time. I very much agree that the consequences of human overpopulation have been and will continue to have disastrous ramifications for much of the worlds other inhabitants. The obvious answer is for people to stop reproducing so much (I truly believe that China is on to something with that) however there are so many cultural, religous, economic, political, and moral implications with this idea that I seriously doubt that it would ever be universally accepted. I think that we should continue to pursue advances in medical technology, especially to promote quality of life. Just some of my random thoughts, this thread could go on and on.
Chip

 

[IloveMyNewts]

I definitely see where you are coming from, but think of this simple analogy of rabbits and wolves. when there is an abundance of food for the rabbits, their population rises, and the wolves now have an abundance of prey. This allows them to raise pups and in turn causes their population to rise. the wolves eating the rabbits prevents the rabbits from consuming all of their resources to the point where it cannot recover. and in turn, the wolves cannot consume too many of the rabbits without harming themselves by starving their young. Humanity is in the place of the wolf, no natural predators to keep our population down , so in order for a natural balance to be sustained, humanity must not consume resources beyond what we were originally intended. when we find cures for naturally occurring diseases and thus prolong the longevity of our race, we are taking more than the planet can give. we are harming the genetics of our race, allowing both the weak and the strong to continue. as horrid and barbaric as natural selection can be, it has sustained the planet- that is until we as humans refused to play the game. if we are so much better than animals, why is it that when there are fewer rabbits, wolves know to stop breeding, but we just keep ignorantly overpopulating and destroying?

just my two cents.

 

[freves]

While I think that some important lessons can be learned from other animals, an important point to keep in mind is that apples cannot be compared to oranges. We, as a race, like it or not, are the most advanced species on the planet. While we do eat and reproduce (many of us uncontrollably), we do not clean ourselves with our tongues, eat raw meat, carrion, or our own offspring for that matter, or engage in many of the other survival behaviors used by wolves. I know next to nothing about the biology of wolves but I suspect that if a wolf could figure out a way to exploite other resources for food (something besides rabbits) then there would be no self checking of the population. I can only hope that we continue to explore all areas of scientific research (not just medicine). I remain optimistic and hope that one day humans will learn to self check our own population without having nature do it for us.
Chip

 

[ben_tajer]

You think wages are the only reason scientists like GM? That's silly. It provides a whole new field to explore - if your life's mission was to learn, wouldn't it bother you when people who don't understand the situation nearly as well as you do, go and tell you should stop because it's "wrong"?

 

[mantighoul]

All I have to say is humans have been "messing with nature" for thousands of years. Look at the wheat we use for foods, over thousands of years of selectively breeding and hybridization led to what we use for food. Also, corn, tomatoes, banana(it doesn't even sexual reproduce in the ones we eat) ginger, etc. Wolves, cows, goats-selectively breeding and with the experiment with domestication of foxes in the USSR back in the day it shows that it doesn't have to take thousands of years to "tame" nature. We are doing what humans have been doing since we can recall. We also are a part of nature and inside of nature not something external. Even if people overpopulate and denude the land and implode into oblivion, if 99% of all creatures humans know die, nature will not die and new creatures and lifeforms will take the place in due time. Nothing lasts forever...hey you know the the whole our diseases are becoming immune to our treatments thing, life would need to become a lot more like sciencefiction stories fast if humans were to reach our so called "immortality". In many places in the world simple diseases still kill and high infant mortality is still there. In European countries and Japan, etc, polupation is actually decreasing, in a part to modern lifestyle in a "developed" country, where people do not settle down until after 30 and have dogs instead of kids.

...and glow in the dark axolotls are not made glow in the dark to be "OMG I GOTS ME A GLOW AXOLOTL SO COOL!!!11!!" they have the jellyfish gene which is used in many lab animals to study things from pollution to biology. You can find plenty of papers on it.


many creatures became extinct before humans, during humans because of humans and will go extinct after humans but also new ones will arrive. This doesnt mean we should be ignorant and irresponsible to things like pollution and stripping the land bare, and single crop plantations of cash crop varieties, and extreme alteration.

anyways i am tired i probably missed something important here

 

[gr33neyes]

While I think that some important lessons can be learned from other animals, an important point to keep in mind is that apples cannot be compared to oranges. We, as a race, like it or not, are the most advanced species on the planet. While we do eat and reproduce (many of us uncontrollably), we do not clean ourselves with our tongues, eat raw meat, carrion, or our own offspring for that matter, or engage in many of the other survival behaviors used by wolves. I know next to nothing about the biology of wolves but I suspect that if a wolf could figure out a way to exploite other resources for food (something besides rabbits) then there would be no self checking of the population. I can only hope that we continue to explore all areas of scientific research (not just medicine). I remain optimistic and hope that one day humans will learn to self check our own population without having nature do it for us.
Chip

We do have our own way of self checking our own population, its called wars. We may be advanced in some regards , but we are also advanced at killing each other whether it be by using a weapon or smoking/drugs or over populating and draining our resources.

 

[freves]

We do have our own way of self checking our own population, its called wars. We may be advanced in some regards , but we are also advanced at killing each other whether it be by using a weapon or smoking/drugs or over populating and draining our resources.

Wars, however horrific and wasteful at times, are not what I was thinking of when I was talking about self checks. Same for smoking, drug use, being an overweight couch potato, living in the wrong neighborhood, etc. Still though, I understand your point. Unfortunately very few things are as simple as black or white these days (and in many cases never were). It would be interesting to compare numbers and look at the mortality rate due to all of the wars in the last several hundred years versus the mortality rate of those who have died of starvation. I am sure that even if this data is available the numbers are going to be estimations in most cases. There would aslo probably have to be a third category for those who have starved as a direct result of a war. In any case, despite of all of this the human population is increasing.
Chip

 

[ben_tajer]

Current starvation is not a result of overpopulation, it's a problem of distribution.

 

[digger]

The point of my thread was to point out one simple thing.
We WILL continue to rush towards our planets and our own extinction if we continue along the lines we are hell bent on taking.
Over crowding is inevitable, it doesnt matter how many wars, how many die of starvation, or how many die in natural disasters. If we continue to, rightly or wrongly, try to meddle with our genetic structure to find cure alls, the population on the planet will grow at an alarming rate.
The planet will never cope, the plants, and animals will have to make way for us, and if there is one thing this planet doesnt need it is us continuing to strip it of all its resources.
There is no proof that genetically modifying things is safe.
After all they used to say that all the different additives and E numbers wouldnt affect people, we know different now after many years of use they do, and they can be very harmful. The same as smoking, caffine, alcohol.
All these things were safe until proven otherwise.
Until many many years have passed we wont know what affect genetic modification in food will do, but one thing i do know, if we genetically modify ourselves aswell it will never be able to be produced in enough quantity because we will take up so much room there will be no-where to grow it

 

[gr33neyes]

What happens if all this Genetically modifying things causes a sort of super disease in plants/food? Are there things set in place to control these? I can't see how you can totally destroy every bad organism.
You have only got to look at the common cold (or man flu as some call it ), theres no cure for that as it keeps reforming itself in another virus/form.
Its sad really to see the state we are in, as Frances has said , we are just excellerating our own demise. Can things be put back to how they were created?
I wonder what sort of world I will leave for my children's children's children.
I can understand a fascination with organisms and bacteria etc, how we are made up but aren't we great enough as we are?