Can somebody explain the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering? I find it hard to understand why people have a moral problem with this.

File: 98 KB, 961x618, 1264924883566.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:26:52 2010 No.989386 [Reply] [Original]

Can somebody explain the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering? I find it hard to understand why people have a moral problem with this.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:28:52 2010 No.989397 religion that is all

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:29:52 2010 No.989405 Some people are concerned that the risks may outweigh the benefits. Some people are religious idiots. I'm almost in the former camp. Almost.

The Black /Co/mr/a/dette !125yThb17s Fri May 21 16:30:52 2010 No.989406

Extreme christfags do not like the idea of playing god.
Most rational people don't give a shit.

It is outside the realm of man to create or modify life in any way other than what God intended.

And by modify life I mean fuck with it at its most basic empirical level, not tattos and hair cutting shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:30:52 2010 No.989409 >>989405 I'm in the latter camp

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:31:52 2010 No.989415 File: 33 KB, 620x875, fire-ladder-8183.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>989409 I'm in ladder camp

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:31:52 2010 No.989419

Well, for one thing, can a genome be patented? Can any section of it be patented? How the hell can someone own a part of your genes?

Should insurance companies be allowed to have access to your genetic profile? Would you want to be charged more money for something you can't control?

On a purely technical level, how can we be sure that influencing the expression of genetic profiles will have the intended effects? What kind of underclass could be created with more wealthy individuals able to influence their genomes for optimal effects and others unable?

When we genetically engineer plants and animals for cultivation, how can we be sure (particularly with wind-pollinated plants) that we are not weakening or otherwise influencing the gene pool? What value is there to non-GMO food? What if plants engineered to produce drugs mate with food crops?

I could go on but the list is basically endless.

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:31:52 2010 No.989420

Naturally evolution decided what are positive traites for the next generation to inherit.

Genetic engineering allows us more and more control over this.

Some people worry that we will make the wrong decisions.

Only Batman is big enough to make such decisions

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:32:52 2010 No.989425 >>989397 What he said. Science doesn't make bad choices, people do.

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:32:52 2010 No.989427

people place value in things like embryos instead of established human beings dying of diseases

genetic engineering is hard, to do it right you need to know what genes do what. Simply breeding shit for crop resistance is fine, but you don't know what you're fucking with when you're just messing around with genes. We're just not there yet.

for humans, if we start a eugenics thing it'll be because we're not allowing our weak to be culled off like normal animals and have to do it manually. I'd rather marry somebody who has a strong lineage and who is genetically dissimilar from myself instead of GE a kid, to use a shitty example, it's why mutt dogs are way more healthy, less prone to cancers and diseases and live longer than purebred dogs though we can't really 100% tell why, other than the explanation that the genes that make up what we want in a dog breed also come with faults like heart defects, etc.

if I could I'd go to europe and donate as many eggs as possible for the purpose of dicking around with stem cells but I don't think that's feasible yet.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:32:52 2010 No.989429 op god creates man, man destroys god, man creates dinosaurs, dinosaurs destroy man, woman inherit the earth. does op want women to inherit the earth? didnt think so

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:34:52 2010 No.989442 religion. that's all. >>989429 if this means we get to pig out on a giant abandoned banquet of desserts and jello sign me the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:35:52 2010 No.989448 We am play Gods.

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:35:52 2010 No.989453

I really feel it's time to start wildly modifying humans. Removing all diseases/adding +20% brain volume or the maximum that would still be possible to give birth to, maybe some more subtle changes like designing supermodel appearance etc etc

Now, not many mothers would wan't to have a kid with twice double sized head

But show me the mother who would NOT elist in the program which gives her kid the looks of angelina jolie, or any other look from a comprehensive list...

Why aren't we doing this... i don't understand. Even if the 1000 first got real messed up, who cares? Just abort them. I'm sure there would be LOADS of volunteer mothers. Addin some payment and you would get more than needed for the real mongo looking kids with hughe heads and so forth too.

i seriously cannot see any viable counter argument to doing this. We have to start somewhere, so why not get to it?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:35:52 2010 No.989456 well we have been modifying the DNA of crops and pets/domestic animals for thousands of years, this is just faster and more effective.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:37:52 2010 No.989472 Because they see big bad corporations doing it. Guilt by association, man.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:38:52 2010 No.989480 >>989456 And, as in interesting note, the book of genesis outlines a method of selective breeding.

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:38:52 2010 No.989484

>>989427
We will be able to perform better than the natural selection in the future. I'm betting 20 years. And your argument will be void. It will be better to opt for a genetically engineered kid at least from a health perspective. And you could add in some good looks on the side too. And why not some musicality.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:38:52 2010 No.989486 I would happily volunteer for genetic manipulation. I can't think of a better way to spend a lifetime.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:38:52 2010 No.989495 >>989453 I doubt anyone will be able to afford "maek my kids lyk jolie"

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:39:52 2010 No.989500 >>989453 you do realize bigger brain /= smarter brain

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:39:52 2010 No.989502 >>989486 Manipulating someone already grown up is not the best way. possible but sub par. It's your kids you should be modifying.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:39:52 2010 No.989506 >>989495 Then it's time for everyone to stand back and say "why the fuck are we trading paper for the rights to make ourselves better people?"

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:40:52 2010 No.989509 >>989500 You do realize bigger brain as a % of body weight = smarter brain throughout all species currently known?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:40:52 2010 No.989511 >>989472 So its a combination of people being stupid and Monsanto being dicks?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:40:52 2010 No.989513 >>989419 Maybe your computer is a bomb. Maybe you could have enriched uranium in your anus. Maybe you are just listing movie plot threats that have absolutely no validity in real life.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:42:52 2010 No.989525 >>989502 all cells in your body are replaced every 7 years. Change the stock these new cells are based on and you have modified a human being.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:42:52 2010 No.989530 >>989513 Well a guy almost completely lost his livelihood because of gene patents.

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:43:52 2010 No.989532
File: 120 KB, 498x572, 1266280811719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

We don't know enough about biological systems at the moment to be pissing away 40 million dollars creating a completely useless bare-bones bacterium (yes I'm looking at you Craig Venter). The only thing he taught us from all that is another way to synthesize a very long piece of DNA.. a shitty way.

Other than the blasted waste of time and resources it presents at the moment, no I don't really see much of a problem with this outside of law and politics.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:44:52 2010 No.989543 >>989530 A guy almost lost his livelihood because he drank one beer too much. Your point? You can't design shit for the worst case, because then nothing useful ever gets done.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:45:52 2010 No.989547 itt: people say religion to seem edgy it's because this technology could be used to create superviruses/supersoldiers ect

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:45:52 2010 No.989552 >>989525 I reckon there is a evolutionary advantage to being born into it rather than being replaced by it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:45:52 2010 No.989555 >>989543 Still I think Monsanto should have been fucked by the courts for suing a guy when their seeds bred with his crops and he cultivated the superior plants that resulted.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:46:52 2010 No.989557 I blame Gatica. I hate that movie.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:46:52 2010 No.989559 >>989511 Pretty much, people are against the fucking corporations, but instead of being openly against the corporations, they turn their hate to easier targets like "FRANKENFOOD!"

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:47:52 2010 No.989565

>>989513

You're a faggot.

>Well, for one thing, can a genome be patented? Can any section of it be patented? How the hell can someone own a part of your genes?
Happened. Some guy sequenced sets of 5 kB ahead of the Human Genome Project and patented them all. Took 10 years to get them invalidated, and cost the HGP millions to invalidate, and only then because the person couldn't name a valid use for them. There's also the guys that patented breast cancer markers in the genome so that only they can test them.

>Should insurance companies be allowed to have access to your genetic profile? Would you want to be charged more money for something you can't control?
Real. Insurance companies, particularly in Britain, were pushing for this a few years back before a public outcry got a law passed explicitly forbidding this practice.

>On a purely technical level, how can we be sure that influencing the expression of genetic profiles will have the intended effects? What kind of underclass could be created with more wealthy individuals able to influence their genomes for optimal effects and others unable?
A little sci-fi, but possible in the near future.

>When we genetically engineer plants and animals for cultivation, how can we be sure (particularly with wind-pollinated plants) that we are not weakening or otherwise influencing the gene pool? What value is there to non-GMO food? What if plants engineered to produce drugs mate with food crops?
GMO issues should be obvious. Also, Corn genetically engineered to produce 1% w/w pharmaceuticals accidentally cross-pollinated animal feed corn via wind. Incident caused all contaminated crops to be destroyed. Greenpeace got involved too, the faggots.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:49:52 2010 No.989576 >>989532 Gtfo. The proposed implications may be enthusied with a sense of simplicity, but we are one step closer to ideally eradicating all genetic abnormalities and physical/mental limitations. So fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:49:52 2010 No.989582 The book "Next" by Michael Crichton covers most of the controversies and fears around genetic engineering.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:52:52 2010 No.989602 >>989565 >Real. Insurance companies, particularly in Britain, were pushing for this a few years back before a public outcry got a law passed explicitly forbidding this practice. Still doesn't mean it won't happen.

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:52:52 2010 No.989606
File: 4 KB, 190x190, 1262582443131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>989576

>we are one step closer to ideally eradicating all genetic abnormalities and physical/mental limitations.

So the ends justify the means huh? Do you really think that what Venter did will contribute anything substantial to the field of gene expression/regulation or development? No, it wont.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:54:52 2010 No.989612 People fear any kind of change/ the unknown. Ask people if they could time travel would they rather go to the past or the future- the majority will choose the past since they already know what to expect.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:55:52 2010 No.989617 Because its the last place that we haven't industrialized and capitalized. We lose our innocence our humanity if we do so and we become machines. We no longer struggle for anything and we learn nothing.

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:56:52 2010 No.989620

>>989565
Everyone knows american patent system is shit, but guess what, patents are country specific.

Of course insurance companies will do that shit, the fact that they actually passed a law should be positive, not fucking negative "OH! YOU NEED LAWS TO STOP POTENTIALLY BAD SHIT?"

Under classes and upper classes have been here for fucking ever. You can't stop everything just because they might exploit it. (Unless you think global communism is realistic)

Most shit that's genetically engineered to do new shit (not shit that happens in other plants) is sterile, it's hard for something sterile to reproduce.

The reason there are laws is because shit like this happens. It's not that hard to pass good laws. Unless you vote corrupt pieces of shit in, then it's a case of how they are going to fuck you in the ass, not if they are going to do it.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:56:52 2010 No.989621 >>989606 Nature doesn't give a fuck about you or me. This technology is possible in nature. If you are afraid of dying prematurely, perhaps you should get some genetic work done yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:56:52 2010 No.989623 >>989612 I would choose the past so that I can help the Greeks avoid Roman domination. And in the meantime, help Spartan domination, too. Fucking militaristic fags.

Anonymous Fri May 21 16:57:52 2010 No.989626

>>989427
Pure breeding lies inherently on incestuous procreation. Maladaptive allels have greater chance of becoming phenotypes when incest occurs. When heterogenous coupling occurs, dominant traits of both parents can "dilute" or otherwise cover up any bad things one may have inherited.

spacehaze Fri May 21 16:57:52 2010 No.989627

>>989419

Sadly, genes are already being patented. I don't think it's referencing the actual DNA sequence, but more like particular types of seeds that have been engineered for resilience, yield, etc.

Pretty much any beans that you can buy in the US are patented. Although I'm not sure what this means for the farmers growing them in terms of fees/royalties.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:57:52 2010 No.989628 -Religion and/or -Fearing what you don't understand

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:58:52 2010 No.989631 >>989565 Seems silly to use corn to produce pharmaceuticals then, they should just stick to vat grown bacteria that cannot survive in the wild.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 16:59:52 2010 No.989639 If desired traits could be created multiple ways, surely this would create a competitive market?

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:00:52 2010 No.989642
File: 35 KB, 310x310, 1274064414668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>989621

My point is there are people who waste a lot less time and resources solving real problems, finding treatments and cures to diseases, etc. Venter only does this shit for publicity and money, nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:01:52 2010 No.989645 >>989642 I don't care if anyone does anything for money, because I'm not some fucking idiotic Kantian.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:01:52 2010 No.989648 watch FOOD INC

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:03:52 2010 No.989666 >>989620 Patents are not country specific; all nations in the WTO (read: almost everyone) has to follow the terms of the TRIPs agreement, which means that the patent system is harmonized throughout the world to be american-style.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:04:52 2010 No.989669
File: 39 KB, 556x664, 1252354025945.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>989645

6/10 Lololol U trol me!

Venter is spinning his wheels and going nowhere while wasting millions of dollars doing so. His findings contribute virtually nothing to the scientific community.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:05:52 2010 No.989674 >>989495 lots of people can afford to go on vacation in space already... dude there's a fuckton of rich fucks

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:05:52 2010 No.989676 >>989648 A movie where bunch of faggots talk how they hate corporations? It has nothing of value, only maybe to make you hate corporations more, but does anyone really need to told to hate corporations?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:07:52 2010 No.989690 >>989642 So? We don't need Bill Gates to write software.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:08:52 2010 No.989696 >>989642 seems he's got his prios right at least in the current climate. doing anything else would be idiotic

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:09:52 2010 No.989701

>>989620
The problem with making the "upper classes and lower classes have always been there" argument is that there has been no period in history that upper classes have been constitatively upper class. There has always been some degree of social mobility. Genetic modification of offspring to produce superior offspring will undermine the chances of lower class people to ever become upper class, because the upper class will then be artificially superior.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:09:52 2010 No.989704 >>989701 pure nonsense

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:10:52 2010 No.989705 >>989676 People don't realize where there food comes form or how its made thats what the movie is about and the part about monsanto is very illuminating, like not allowing the use of your own seed.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:11:52 2010 No.989711 >>989704 How about providing some actual rebuttal instead of unsubstantiated assertions? The reason Gattaca was so scary is because it's so goddamn plausible.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:12:52 2010 No.989717

>>989666
TRIPs only says you must have patents system with this shit in it. It doesn't make it americanized, countries can still run their patent offices however they want, it certainly doesn't make patents global. You still have to be granted a patent in every single country individually.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:12:52 2010 No.989721 >>989701 Looks like someone doesn't know how genes work.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:12:52 2010 No.989723

>>989711
Social mobility is the result of individual choices in opportunistic moments, not all of which require some kind of superior genetics. I'd suggest this is obvious by inspection but you've made me wonder about the powers of observation in the general citizenry.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:13:52 2010 No.989724

>>989397
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA
christian CANT USE INSULINA

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:13:52 2010 No.989725 >>989705 Monsanto really has a fucking evil ring to it. The name could fit right into resident evil. What were they thinking..

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:14:52 2010 No.989728

>>989525
well actually once you hit maturity it's 11 years but yeah

we don't eat enough vitamin C, B and A.

humans are one of the only animals that doesn't produce it's own Vitamin C and it's theorized this is why we get cold symptoms when other animals don't. When a goat gets sick they create over 5000% more units of vitamin C then they have in their bodies normally.
we have to fucking eat vitamin C in pill form for christ's sake.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:14:52 2010 No.989729 >>989723 Congratulations. Only an someone with aspergers would write a sentence like that. Enjoy your lifelong virginity.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:15:52 2010 No.989733

>>989717
And yet it's trivial to obtain a provisional patent in all countries for a small nominal fee once you have an established patent in another country. It's also standard procedure to recognize patents granted in another country as expedited and they're therefore not given the same level of scrutiny. This was in fact one of the primary aims of TRIPs, and to the best of my knowledge this was pretty successful.

Yeah it costs like $2000-3000 per country per patent, but that's basically peanuts compared to the control you'd have over people's genomes.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:15:52 2010 No.989734 >>989728 Probably since were tropical animals.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:16:52 2010 No.989735 File: 31 KB, 852x480, u-mad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>989729

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:16:52 2010 No.989736 >>989705 If they need a shitty movie to tell them how their food is made, then they probably don't have enough initiative to do anything other than shout about it on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:17:52 2010 No.989739 >>989728 That's awesome. So if i patent the DNA string that makes kids look like angelina jolie I'd be a multi billionaire. Nice

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:18:52 2010 No.989747 >>989723 No, it isn't at all obvious by inspection; you're implying that social mobility is primarily driven by agency, rather than by a combination of sustained correct decisions and effort. Unfortunately, Horatio Alger stories are more myth than fact.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:24:52 2010 No.989768

>>989747
> sustained correct decisions
> mobility
Choose 1 brah. Success is temporary---meaning there is social mobility---without sustained correct decisions. Genetics as such cannot ensure sustained correct decisions, which is apparently the basis of your fear, that somehow genetic manipulation will permit some special folks to overcome information deficiencies otherwise thought to be inherent in human interaction.

So... I guess... in during ESP? >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:26:52 2010 No.989775 >>989736 Someone has to tell you how else are you gonna find out. I don't think people have time to break into perdue chicken farms and what not.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:27:52 2010 No.989783 >>989768 I think they can be you can genetically engineer someones sociability to present the correct choice to the people around him after all money comes form other people.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:28:52 2010 No.989787

>>989386
In reality, OP, there are no actual ethical issues to genetic engineering; in a sense all it does is take a - head screwdriver and turn it into a + head or a square-head (or some other shape) or just change the handle, grip style, color, length, etc. The so-called "problems" that exist are pretty much just everything else that surrounds genetic engineering and makes it bad by proxy.

"Morals" and "Ethics" -> Moralfags, religion, and people who are afraid of taking risks for the responsibility that it entails they take on.

Genetic "patents" and "owning" genetic codes -> Capitalism and the general economics of "Fuck you, got mine"

"Superior" beings and eugenics -> SOCIAL ATTITUDES cause this to happen. If there were genetically engineered humans running around, everyone would be shitting themselves even if every single one of them behaved like Superman or Green Lantern.

The only true problem is in a "green goo" situation where a self-replicator goes out of control and (like nanotechnology and "grey goo") completely fucks up shit in one area (or everywhere) because of said endless replication... But that would only happen when someone makes a gigantic mistake. So i guess the last thing that makes genetic engineering "bad" by proxy would be: Human error.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:31:52 2010 No.989814 >>989768 Alright, alright, point taken. It's not inconceivable, though, that genetic markers for intelligence will form another basis for discrimination.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:32:52 2010 No.989818 >>989787 Morality simply addresses what one should or shouldn't do. Whether we should engage in direct genetic manipulation, and to what extent if so, is obviously a moral question. Don't be so retarded.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:32:52 2010 No.989819

>>989787
I don't think you would need a gigantic mistake for that infact I believe it's inevitable. This isn't a nuclear bomb type thing where someone has to push a button this is a self replicating organism that does what it does because it was designed to do it it wont stop because it can't

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:33:52 2010 No.989821 >>989814 We have found absolute agreement. I love it when that happens.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:33:52 2010 No.989823 >>989787 You forgot the superbugs.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:35:52 2010 No.989840 >>989823 Cross-species genetic transfer has recently been demonstrated; also, what's to stop one of the aforementioned sleazy companies from creating a pestilence that only their crops can resist, and then claim that they had nothing to do with it?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:36:52 2010 No.989847 >>989840 paper or GTFO

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:37:52 2010 No.989850 >>989787 Whether or not we own our own bodies and all the information contained within is an inherently moral and ethical question.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:38:52 2010 No.989858 >>989847 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5978/624

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:40:52 2010 No.989876 >>989858 LOL lateral gene transfer is real but, microorganism - microorganism in the case of plant- plant nothing proof

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:40:52 2010 No.989877

Remember all those mad scientist movies that were drilled into your head about evil doctors creating frankenstein monstrosities and terrorizing nearby villages and towns?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I'm more worried by about the shit they do to our food but no one wants to report on that.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:41:33 2010 No.989890 INB4 A RELIGIOUS CULT STARTS BURNING DOWN LABS AND SYNTHETIC LIFEFORMS BECAUSE "THEY ARE SOULLESS CREATURES THAT ARE A WORK OF THE DEVIL"

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:42:52 2010 No.989895 INB4 A RELIGIOUS CULT STARTS BURNING DOWN LABS AND KILLING SYNTHETIC LIFEFORMS BECAUSE "THEY ARE SOULLESS CREATURES THAT ARE THE WORK OF THE DEVIL"

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:43:52 2010 No.989907 File: 15 KB, 400x320, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>989876 RTFA. Hyphatic fungi to multicellular eukaryotic organism.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:44:52 2010 No.989910 >>989907 isnt a vegetal

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:45:52 2010 No.989915 >>989910 >vegetal >herp derp

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:47:52 2010 No.989933 >>989850 You should have had that discussion before they made a fucking huge database about every single little thing you do electronically.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:48:52 2010 No.989944 Nature versus nurture

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:52:52 2010 No.989974

>>989819
>>989823
So lets say someone alters a bacteria to eat oil so it can clean up giant fucking spills. If the scientists made the mistake of not having the bacteria need photosythesis to do this, then the bacteria will be eat the reservoir as it's not constrained in its growth by other factors. So again,
> human error

>>989818
>>989850
> Morals/ethics
Again, reasons by proxy why genetic engineering is bad. You don't use a + head screwdriver for a - head screw, because the situation doesn't call for it. The only reason why someone would use a + head in a - screw is because that person is fucking retarded; and the level of stupidity in the user doesn't make the screw driver 'bad'
Genetic engineering is a fucking inanimate object, a tool, with no will of its own. Like a gun or the internet, it depends on who's using it and for what purpose and context that determines it's morality or ethicality.

>>989840
Welcome to the nightmare unimprisoned capitalism can allow.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 17:53:52 2010 No.989979 there's really no moral issue, only lack of regulations by law and typical corporate behavior when let loose.

Anonymous Fri May 21 17:58:52 2010 No.990008

Ultimately mankind will be forced into genetic manipulation do to the environment changing. Or due to man seeking to live in space. Even if its just local space gene manipulation would most likely be needed.

so essentially I wouldn't expect much to happen until we really need it. Then all the christ fags will STFU because they will want to survive like anyone else.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 21 18:38:52 2010 No.990245 >>989728 What?! 5,000?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math