All about South Korea > Korea Newsroom

Future tech debate: The morality of Human Genetic Modification

<< < (6/7) > >>

rocketeerjoe:
I noticed no one was weighing in on the dangers of GM crops so allow me, as someone who is not a Luddite, with rational fears regarding this technology and its misuse.

The leading corporations responsible for GM crops have declared them to be completely identical to organic crops and did so because George Bush was president when that law went into effect and he was on the board of Monsanto's CEO's at the time. Their mission is nothing less than total monopoly on the world's food supply, and replacing all organic seeds with their own. It must be stopped.

The very real threats are multiple. Horizontal gene transfer offers the possibility that the bacteria within our intestinal linings, which have evolved to be that way to interact as symbiotic organisms, could be disrupted by the genes of GM food. This is one of many reasons Europe banned the technology. Another very real danger is that the so called higher crop yields are actually a complete fabrication. Monsanto and other corps have provided nothing but false claims and evidence to convince Americans that what they are doing is safe.

Added to this the fact that superbugs and superweeds are now coming about due to the increased use of the plants with built in insecticide genomes, with bonus neurotoxins produced with Roundup spray, and the usage of those neurotoxic chemicals has increased dramatically with each successive generation.

Next: the incredible audacity of terminator seed technology, which could lead to starvation in Africa and has already resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in India.  When you build a gene that tells the seed not to have a germinating seed in the next generation then farmers will be the slaves of the corporation. Their subsistence farming, which last lasted since the dawn of time, ends, and if a crop fails, they will starve and lose everything. Very real, and it is happening.

So not only does biodiversity suffer, the genes of these plants could transfer to the ecology of the world around them and pervade their environments, resulting in plants unable to reproduce new generations and that would be a horrifying scenario. Not to mention that the same people promising to give you all these wonderful new futures with GM are the same ones that brought you Agent Orange and killed off several towns in the American South via terminal cancer as a result of burying PCBs illegally.

I have trust issues with these people and for good reason.

I don't think we are technologically at a safe enough point to test on humans, seeing as how the few crops that have been modified have been completely unsuccessful and could cause irreparable harm to the environment and our bodies with the increased pesiticide usage/absorption. Not to mention the damage that super resistant bugs could cause to organic crops.

Moral implications? Yes, I do have those as well. I have a problem with the rich ruling this world as they do now, and anything that cements that power via an actual genetic leg up would be only a mirroring of what Aldous Huxley feared would be a fracturing of the human race through intellegence being used as a caste operator. My advice would be to do the following; concentrate on eliminating the gap between rich and poor and make it completely illegal for corporations to do anything in terms of giving money to any government official. Create a separation of corporation and state clause in the Constitution.

The future you guys are imagining is not a world I want to live in. When a few reap the benefits and the majority live without basic necessities and the rich benefit off of this, that is called slavery. We live in a world filled with it, and any future human civilization that does not denounce it will be all the harder to fix due to increased ability of governments to stop resistance via better technology.

Chadwickhhs:
I don't think anyone particularly likes Monsanto or their craft. Pretty much the most evil company on the planet. I don't blame the technology for the behavior of horrible people though. Like you I want money out of government. I think liberals and libertarians alike want that (with the exception of those libertarians who are enjoying the hegemony).

Shutting it all down seems cynical and I'd like to think people will overcome this short term greed. It's easy to look back at everything negative but we do see things like the polio vaccine being distributed for free, malaria and west nile being treated thanks to the gates foundation and such. I refuse to believe that Monsanto, with all it's horrible press, will eventually fold under the people as the law catches up with the technology. Smarter bred humans will likely be better equipped to solve our problems like what you're pointing out. Lead to abundance in energy and nutrition and maybe even kill money in not just government but it's necessity in need based items. Hopeful Marxism I suppose.

Jrong:

--- Quote from: rocketeerjoe on June 26, 2012, 02:21:19 PM ---The future you guys are imagining is not a world I want to live in. When a few reap the benefits and the majority live without basic necessities and the rich benefit off of this, that is called slavery. We live in a world filled with it, and any future human civilization that does not denounce it will be all the harder to fix due to increased ability of governments to stop resistance via better technology.

--- End quote ---
Don't include me in "you guys". If nothing else, I want equality to come out of this.

I agree also that smarter-bred humans will most likely be more compassionate humans (if they are genetically engineered to be that way). Testosterone is a real bitch (the only way I can survive yet it's also the main cause of my own oppression against my neighbor), we need to start with bringing down testosterone levels in all males.

Jrong:
Also, with or without more compassion, ppl who get smarter in this increasingly interconnected world will understand that their happiness is dependent upon others' happiness, right? Can't be happy when you're rich and always scared that someone is going to kidnap your family. Sooner or later it has to dawn on you that income equality will greatly increase your happiness by making the world a safer and more trustworthy place -- and that it's worth having to give up your Bentley in order to have a long happy life filled with good relationships and peace of mind.

woman-king:

--- Quote from: Jrong on June 26, 2012, 06:23:31 PM ---
--- Quote from: rocketeerjoe on June 26, 2012, 02:21:19 PM ---The future you guys are imagining is not a world I want to live in. When a few reap the benefits and the majority live without basic necessities and the rich benefit off of this, that is called slavery. We live in a world filled with it, and any future human civilization that does not denounce it will be all the harder to fix due to increased ability of governments to stop resistance via better technology.

--- End quote ---
Don't include me in "you guys". If nothing else, I want equality to come out of this.

I agree also that smarter-bred humans will most likely be more compassionate humans (if they are genetically engineered to be that way). Testosterone is a real bitch (the only way I can survive yet it's also the main cause of my own oppression against my neighbor), we need to start with bringing down testosterone levels in all males.

--- End quote ---

Heh, I'd love to hear you flesh this idea out a bit.  Can't imagine it's something that would generate much support right now.

The problem with using HGM not just to cure diseases and such but to re-engineer a sort of better, kinder humanity is that we're operating on a lot of assumptions when we start controlling evolution.  I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of HGM in all areas, but I can think of some prettttttttty unpleasant potential outcomes of genetically re-modifying people to be more "compassionate" or "intelligent" or to have a testosterone/estrogen/whatever-hormone level we think will lead to everyone's "greater happiness."  You believe very much in interconnectivity, right?  Because I'm thinking that one relatively small change like a significant drop in the next generation of men's testosterone (or women's estrogen, or any sort of major hormonal deviation from what's been the norm for a long time) seems like it could have tons of far-reaching potential social, economic, etc. outcomes and I'm not sure we're at a point where we can very accurately predict what those might be.  I don't think it's as simple as "testosterone contributes to violence therefore less testosterone will = less violence." 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page