Should we be playing God?

[Matt]

I dont see any animal that benifits from these little nasty insects, Its not going to have an impact on the enviroment if we eliminated malaria from them

You can't be serious willz... think of frogs and spiders and countless other animals that feed directly or inderectly on mosquitoes. Anyway that not the point.

The point is clear that im arguing a loosing battle but i think its good to think more deeply about these things and to encourage intelectual debate. I know someone who died from malaria. (it still kills more people than aids in africa-that may be an outdated fact by now tho) and im all for anti malaria measures.

 

[Willz]

I am sure frogs and spiders can feed off other stuff, no spider NEEDS to eat mosquitos.

 

[Anti-Trend]

I am sure frogs and spiders can feed off other stuff, no spider NEEDS to eat mosquitos.

I think that if you do even cursory research in this area, you'll find that even mosquitoes fit in to a delicate ecosystem. Even such a lowly animal as this has many parts to play and we may not yet understand them all. No matter what the prevailing attitude of popular science may be, we don't and indeed, cannot know everything there is to know, nor foresee every possible consequence of our vain and short-sighted tampering.

 

[Willz]

Ok, but its not like everthing would die if mosquitos dissapeard, but anyway, I think malaria does not benefit anything.

 

[megamaced]

The problem is that we are pushing the point of acceptance just that little bit more. We've genetically engineered plants, so why not play around with insects? Now that we've changed the insects to our liking, how about we go further up the food chain? What don't we like about our world?

Modifying the mosqitoes will go some way to help the people that live in those parts of the world, but it will not stamp out the problem altogether. Instead of funding the mutant programme, we should be concentrating on the real cause of the problem, the Malaria. Malaria will still be around, even if we take out all of the natural insects. Therefore I think you'll agree that finding a cure for the disease should be of a higher priority.

 

[Addis]

Playing God to make life better for people? I don't have a problem with it. Altering the genetic structure of an organism isn't any different than the natural process that happens when DNA mutates. If you have a problem with genetic experiments and uses, then consider the fact that diabetic people can get human insulin from genetically altered bacteria.

I was going to make a long post the other day, but I'll keep this very brief. Genetically modifying food has no detrimental effects on health as far as I can tell. There is no problem with it, and this is a case where experimenting and scientific discoveries have had a positive effect.

Could genetic experiments have unforseen negative consequences? Possibly, but as do other sciences like aerospace, medicine, chemical engineering. We can't let subjective ethics get in the way of scientific progress.

But B its not that simple. Is it right to change the very core of how we are made. The issue i think is not whether this this can be helpful (most would agree that it would help a great deal) but whether it is morally correct to fiddle with the way things are.

We are all macroscopic entities which obey the laws of physics (discovered or not discovered). Yes, we are biological but we do not exist because of some "magic" which would bring about destruction of we so tampered with it. Our DNA is just another molecular structure as far as genetic engineering goes.

The problem is that we are pushing the point of acceptance just that little bit more. We've genetically engineered plants, so why not play around with insects? Now that we've changed the insects to our liking, how about we go further up the food chain? What don't we like about our world?

Having a higher point of acceptance isn't necessarily bad. We may need to accept new, drastic changes to continue with progress, and thats life.

 

[Big B]

OK, I'll bite. Most pure-bred animals are so inbred that they begin having health and even reproductive problems. Take for instance the bulldog, which has severe nasal and respitory problems. Or the pug, which has both that and it's eyeballs tend to pop out of its skull. Or the royal family, or any other tribe which has inbred throughout history. Doing things like this effectively breed out natural diversity. Diversity is the enemy of mass-disease, and conversely lack of diversity helps disease spread like wildfire. This principle even extends to operating systems, and those in the know will realize to what I'm referring.

To clarify my point, with purebreds, it's typically on purpose. If human inbreeding isn't an example in itself, animal inbreeding also produces some of the less intelligent animals among a species.

 

[Egaladeist]

Playing God? Hummmmmmmmmmm...:D

Nature provides us with the tools and the motivation ...if nature did not intend for us to create it would not have given us the tools to do it.

Everything we can create is good in and of itself...lets take tobacco for an example...as a cigarette it harms us...but if you remove the tar and pound the dried leaves into a flour it is very high in protein, so high in fact that it was considered as a food additive to be mixed in bread flour shipped to third world nations to increase their protein supply...

the question is not ' should we? '...the question is ' how should we? '

Everything there is, and everything we can create is good in and of itself but...has both bad and good applications.

So...to answer the OP's question:

Should we be playing God?

Absolutely yes! we're just not very good at it :P

 

[Matt]

And what are the conequenses are the "we're just not very good at it"

You cant take that aproach. Its naive and irresponsible, dont you think?

 

[Addis]

And what are the conequenses are the "we're just not very good at it"

You cant take that aproach. Its naive and irresponsible, dont you think?

Yes we can, and we are. Naive? Well that is possible, but will we ever know if we don't try? Irresponsible? We have a responsibility to use technology, and our collective human knowledge to make life better for people. It is irresponsible to run away from this responsibility IMO.

BBC NEWS | Health | Heart valve grown from stem cells

 

[Swansen]

Faith, we need to have faith in the people who are in control of all of that. Faith that they will don only what they are suppose to and change only what needs to be changed, thats what "faith" is all about, in an all encompassing way. I seriously cannot see any foreseeable negative effects of doing a small change such as making mosquito's "resistant" to Malaria. Even then, its not like this is 100% there not Malaria proof, and that aside, i highly doubt they are just going to release the mosquito's into the wild untested, this isn't the movies, its life, people aren't that stupid or "naive" yes, more than likely there will be some side affect, or something might happen, but take into consideration, the people doing this aren't stupid, and are not doing it for money. Yes this is a temporary solution, but steps need to be taken, everything can't happen at once.

 

[Egaladeist]

You cant take that aproach. Its naive and irresponsible, dont you think?

No...I don't think it's being naive or irresponsible at all...just realistic ;)

The simple fact of the matter is everything begins as an experiment...everything we've learned...both good and bad...began as ' I wonder what this does? '

For instance, the first person who ate an apple was a guinea pig ...they didn't know if it would kill them, make them horribly sick, or what...but...

somebody had to try it.

And that has been our human philosophy toward everything ever since...we don't know...until we try. ;)

The drawback to this philosophy is that once we find out we can't reverse it...we can't unlearn it...so if we create something for the wrong purposes the only solution is to find the right purpose/application for it...

but... if we don't try...then there's nothing more to learn...if we didn't try...then we would have never learned...and you'd be living in a cave instead of a comfortable house with a computer and satellite tv. ;)

 

[Anti-Trend]

I see it a bit like cutting corners with things we are just beginning to understand. A good parallel might be ancient Rome, who used lead in it's implements and utensils since it made materials more malleable. As a result, many died from lead poisoning, though they had no idea what was happening at the time. How do we know this will be any different?

 

[Egaladeist]

I see it a bit like cutting corners with things we are just beginning to understand. A good parallel might be ancient Rome, who used lead in it's implements and utensils since it made materials more malleable. As a result, many died from lead poisoning, though they had no idea what was happening at the time. How do we know this will be any different?

It's not really cutting corners...it's trial and error...one way we learn is by making mistakes...your Rome analogy for instance...it was through those mistakes we learned about the effects of lead...up until the last 25 years we were still using lead paint, leaded gas, and lead blinds...until we realized they caused health problems and inhibited brain development in children.

Some things we just don't know at the time we use/modify/create something what the ill effects will be...because we don't have the technology to understand those effects...until a later date...

the option is to put everything on hold until such-n-such a time as we understand it completely...which could be never.

For example...cow's milk...what if it was to turn out in 75 years from now that cow's milk was responsible for leukemia or MS? Our options are to stop drinking milk without knowing the effects or continue to drink milk until we do know the effects.

I think I'll take the chance. ;)

When I was a kid and first started smoking...long before most everyone here was even born...you could smoke anyplace...hospitals, airplanes, city buses, government buildings....you'd see doctors walking in and out of the hospital with cigarettes dangling out of their mouths...smoking in patient rooms...etc...
now we know the harmful effects of smoking...
and society is reacting to the new information.

At one time someone had to put his fist into the fire...that's how we learned that it burns. ;)

 

[Matt]

true.

You wink alot :) lol

that makes sense and i'll concede the point but you must admit that we DO know that this MAY affect us negatively and we CHOOSE to take the risk whereas the person who stuck the hand into the fire for the first time or used lead had no idea that it would hurt or destroy rome....

 

[megamaced]

Just because the tools are available, doesn't mean we should use them. Take Adam & Eve as an example (as much as I hate to quote from the Bible). Eve had the choice between eating the pure apple, or taking her chances with the bad apple. She took that chance and (as the story goes) was banished from the land.

I think Egaladeist is over-simplifying the point a little bit. Even before it became "official" that tobacco smoke was harmful, I think everybody knew that would be the case. Because of the addiction, people were just keen to put those thoughts to one side.

 

[Anti-Trend]

It's not really cutting corners...it's trial and error...one way we learn is by making mistakes...your Rome analogy for instance...it was through those mistakes we learned about the effects of lead...up until the last 25 years we were still using lead paint, leaded gas, and lead blinds...until we realized they caused health problems and inhibited brain development in children.

Maybe my metaphor was a bit off. What I was trying to get across is that we don't yet fully understand the ramifications of our actions. But when you make cups with lead infused in them, they don't cross-pollinate and contaminate all of the other cups. GE crops, on the other hand, do. If we do find out that the crops do something hideous in the long run, it could already be too late as it's grafted into the natural crops in the world. What then?

 

[Egaladeist]

First :D Yes Matt I like smilies and they were in fact created to replace personal emotions...they were created specifically for this format...so..we should use them to express emotions as they were intended.

Second: megamaced...actually smoking is a good example...there are a few things you need to consider...addition is a very new concept, prior to the last 40 years we knew very little about additions, we assumed that if someone was doing something he didn't want to do it was due to a lack of will power ;)
We also were very much unaware of the ill effects of smoking, as the amount of doctors who smoked would attest to...that is why the suits filed against the tobacco industry were so successful...the plaintiffs won because they proved that vital information was being withheld from the general public. ;)
Now...having said that...you could argue that we knew in essence that it was harmful in the same way anything taken out of moderation is un-healthy...whether you eat too much, smoke too much, drink too much, etc...we all understood and understand the principles of moderation. ;)

Maybe my metaphor was a bit off. What I was trying to get across is that we don't yet fully understand the ramifications of our actions. But when you make cups with lead infused in them, they don't cross-pollinate and contaminate all of the other cups. GE crops, on the other hand, do. If we do find out that the crops do something hideous in the long run, it could already be too late as it's grafted into the natural crops in the world. What then?

Anti-Trend...Everything we do once it's done is too late ;)
We are an evolving species...we are affected by the changing of air quality, pesticides in the earth, the steroids they inject into cows, bread has been irradiated for years to increase shelf life, chemical treatments in our water supply, etc...
if a man from 2000BC was time-warped into our world he would die within 24 hours...because he would not be able to adapt...his body would not be able to function in our time...his immune system would suffer an onslaught of disease and illness never before experienced...
we are already mutants in that respect...
genetic manipulation has been going on for years now...to increase the shelf life of food...I remember more than a decade ago they were discussing a bill in Parliament about imposing labeling of modified food products...so the purchasing public would be able to ' smart shop '...
the ' organic food labels ' was the result of that initial discussion. ;) Where organic farmers/food producers could put ' organically grown ' labels on their products.
Genetically altered food is a fairly recent ( 12-14 years ) development...but modified/manipulated food has been going on for ages.

Which brings me back to my first statement:

Everything we do once it's done is too late ;)

Eg ;)

 

[Anti-Trend]

Which brings me back to my first statement:

Everything we do once it's done is too late ;)

Eg ;)

You're a smart guy no doubt. But God forbid you ever end up an IT manager or something. ;) With tongue in cheek, I can picture it now:



CIO: "So, Egal, how did the limited test pilot of software `X` go?"

Egal: "Major problems, but everybody's running it now. Life goes on!"

CIO: "What do you mean `everybody's running it`? Didn't you test it in a limited fashion before deploying it globally?"

Egal: "Everything we do once it's done is too late. So you see? Couldn't be helped!"

CIO: "Oh, I see... I guess that makes sense." *goes off to get a stiff drink and play 9 holes*



I don't see how it has to be all or nothing in the name of progress. Especially since we are already overproducing food; the logistics are generally the problem, not the food production itself.

 

[Egaladeist]

I'll leave the IT stuff to you :D

I don't see how it has to be all or nothing in the name of progress. Especially since we are already overproducing food; the logistics are generally the problem, not the food production itself.

The purpose of altering food is not to increase food supply...we have an abundance of food...in fact government regulations force the destruction of tons of food every month in industrialized nations...in order to maintain the economy...there is enough food produced to feed everyone in the world very well...it is simply destroyed. ;)
The purpose of altering food is to produce food that will last longer and with less energy...eg. at some point in the very near future you will be able to store meat for days with little or no refrigeration...this will have a huge impact on our energy costs...if we can produce food that requires little or no energy use to preserve it's quality. ;)

The ultimate goal is to reduce and eventually eliminate the need for refrigeration.

Refrigeration eventually will become a luxury item...so you can have a cold brew...a cold glass of milk...etc...

Everything we do once it's done is too late

Basically means we can't change the past...we cannot ' undo ' something...we can change the future...but once we've done it it's too late to go back and change it. ;) Smoking is a perfect example for that as well...the attitudes toward smoking have changed dramatically in the last 20 years...likewise the attitudes toward marijuana have changed too, in the other direction. ;)