27-01-2003 18:47									#1
	GM cheese from cow clones Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2696725.stm

quote: Scientists in New Zealand have created the world's first cow clones that produce special milk that can increase the speed and ease of cheese-making

Perhaps we could make slave clones who would not have a soul or sentinence but would do all that we want them to.

Now what about that Better than robots.

On topic - revolution in cheezemaking maybe I should start being a vegan. Or is that a too drastic measure? Am I just kind of too conservative and feel that meddling with apsolutley all parts of life is a bit dangerous.

	27-01-2003 19:35									#2
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Do you have any basis on which you substanciate your fear?

	27-01-2003 19:44									#3
	Put an end to popups!

They never do. Most of the anti-GM people think biotechnology is going to make Frankenstein's monster and then laugh as it goes on a killing rampage.

Foot: Knowing that the human population world wide is exploding and the amount of farmland world wide is decreasing due to urbanization; what would you do to prevent mass stavation and/or malnurishment amoung the worlds poor? GM has proven itself to boost the quantity and quality of food per acre. Are you suggesting we ignore that fact because some ignorant people are scared of it?

	27-01-2003 19:57									#4
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't agree with some of the "marketing techniques" that GM bio-techs use, but generally, I don't think that there is something wrong with that.

	27-01-2003 20:08									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

In Europe it is mostly used as a protectionist measure. The U.S. and Canada have invested heavily in to cross-breeding and biotech so they are the first ones to come to market with these products while European farmers have languished. They are protected with high tarrifs and monster truck sized subsidies payments so why both investing money in better farming techniques?

Any way the several European governments are using this as an excuse to remove competing farm products from the market as a give away to their domestic farmers. They keep insisting Europeans would never buy high protein wheat and other stuff, despite there being no desernable difference, and have so far refused to even give consumers a chance to try it.

It's the same old protectionist fear mongering with a new label.

	27-01-2003 20:12									#6
	Remove this text

Well put it this way, you are meddling with the genes that took the whole evolution or an act of God to be created, it is not a machine that we built and that we can surely control all the possible outcomes. Couple this with the "profit is everything" mentality, and 20 years down the line you could have a disaster. Disaster like new ilnesses evolving and similar. Hey but we cannot stop the develpment of the world can we?

One fact remains until a disaster strikes all this is a "conspiracy theory", and once it happens than it is too late anyway, so why bother?


edit: american "killer bees" come to mind, a dominant species just introduced to the environment (what was it only cross breeding american and african bees for more honey? ), anyway that is with combining existing material in a relativleyt normal process, now genetic modifying, that is like putting new code into a being that took thousands of years to get to the present status.

How safe is that?

Are mistakes impossible, and what can be the consequences?

Last edited by OneFootInTheGrave on 27-01-2003 at 20:19

	27-01-2003 20:14									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I don't know what their reasons are, but mostly these measures suck.

Each case should be considered independently, though. These are some new technologies.

But the thing above is so trivial. It doesn't contain antibiotics, it faces no fear to develop superbugs. It just makes cheese more simple to produce.

	27-01-2003 20:20									#8
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Any way the several European governments are using this as an excuse to remove competing farm products from the market as a give away to their domestic farmers. They keep insisting Europeans would never buy high protein wheat and other stuff, despite there being no desernable difference, and have so far refused to even give consumers a chance to try it.

It does make a kind of sense from a European government viewpoint though. The EU is already capable of producing excess amount of a number of food items. This way they get to keep their farmers happy and if the whole GM thing goes belly up then the US, who produce it, and the rest of the world, who eat it suffer, not Europe. If GM does work then they will try and buy their way in later.

The real problem in Europe is the French government and a few of the smaller countries who get a lot of farm subsidy and won't agree to major changes in the system whilst the UK and German governments are rather tired of paying for it.

Blame the French!

	27-01-2003 20:20									#9
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Well put it this way, you are meddling with the genes that took the whole evolution or an act of God to be created, it is not a machine that we built and that we can surely control all the possible outcomes. Couple this with the "profit is everything" mentality, and 20 years down the line you could have a disaster. Disaster like new ilnesses evolving and similar. Hey but we cannot stop the develpment of the world can we?

Farmers have been practicing genetic engineering since the dawn of mankind. And they were indeed working from scratch, blindly trying to cross breed different plants. No disaster happened.

How much of your fear is based on knowledge, and how much is based on fear of the unknown?

	27-01-2003 20:21									#10
	Tired of ads?

Is there even one example of this ever happening? No, it is just unfounded scare tactics of uneducated and uninformed people. Most of the GM aims have been to take already existing traits in the species and accelerate the traditional cross-breeding techniques so we get the best cross breed now rather then 20 years from now.

For example rice subspecies A has the highest grain output per acre but has no resistance to a desease. Rice subspecies B has great resistance to desease but low output. While rice species C is higher in vitamins but tastes bad and lastly rice species D tastes great but isn't as good as the other subgroups in other areas.

To cross breed these rice strains and get just the right mix of the desired traits and none of the undesired traits would take many, many generations plus will require a lot of space and money. By picking from the pre-existing chromosomes we can get exactly the combination of output, taste, vitamins, & disease resistance in one generation. It's doing what farmers have already been doing for thousands of years but adapting new technology to make it more efficient.

	27-01-2003 20:22									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes the cows seem to be simple but isn't it a first, a heard of genetically engineered clone cows this sounds like the beginning of the Cow Park

	27-01-2003 20:24									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

whats GM stand for, Genetic Manipulation? I'm more familiar with the term "Genetic engineering", although i assume it's the same crap.

organic life is nothing more than chemical processes, just like those mechanical elements. if we can figure out how to manipulate those reactions to better serve mankind, why shouldn't we?

humans though, thats taboo with many people. a lot of people think life is sacred, especially sentient human life, is unique, and deserves special protection.

we'll see what happens.

	27-01-2003 20:26									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

Same idea but instead of rice now it is cows. The finished product is not noticably different and the farmers benifet greatly.

	27-01-2003 20:28									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

GM - genetically modified.


GM humans- I have nothing against it, as long as it is done to cure deseases. for example, I have a certain mutation called "Gilbert's Syndrome". It creates exessive Bilirubine protein in my body when my body is under stress, the same protein that causes people to turn yellow when they have hepatitis. I don't think I want my kids to have it.

	27-01-2003 20:33									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Farmers have been practicing genetic engineering since the dawn of mankind. And they were indeed working from scratch, blindly trying to cross breed different plants. No disaster happened. How much of your fear is based on knowledge, and how much is based on fear of the unknown?

Well it surely is a fear of unknown, but on the other hand the farmers never had the means to make a difference that will be spread in high quantity all over hte world if it was a success in first 5 years only to discover a flaw later on when it is too late. The failures were cerainly contained in the area where someone was trying it and it only spread after a success, and confirmed success many times around.

No we were not in a similar situation before, and knowing the human tendency to make mistakes some are bound to happen. Now severity is the question. What about killer bees. OK they are not really dangerous to environment bout don't they show the potential of a mistake? Are you sure that we can afford such nature changing acts. What if one of a hundred goes wrong and it destroys the world rice crops? Or a virus develops like the "foot and mouth" that has longer incubation time and by the time it is realised 50% of the world stock is infected? Did anyone add "profit is the main goal" way of thinking into the equation?

	27-01-2003 20:34									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

If we can use GM to stop heriditary desease from being passed on to children then why shouldn't we? We'd be preventing alot of suffering and death.

	27-01-2003 20:35									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Europe seems to be such a Luddite continent.

	27-01-2003 20:37									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

there is no logic in planting the same plant around the world anyway, GM or not. non-GM crops are actually more vurnlrable to attack, since the different pathogens are already "familiar" with them.

	27-01-2003 20:38									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin If we can use GM to stop heriditary desease from being passed on to children then why shouldn't we? We'd be preventing alot of suffering and death.

Sure but that is parents deciding about their children and taking a risk as with any operation, here it is some government or corporation deciding about my food.

	27-01-2003 20:43									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

you still haven't responded.

"mistakes are bound to happen": so we should ban all R&D?

	27-01-2003 20:45									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Azazel there is no logic in planting the same plant around the world anyway, GM or not. non-GM crops are actually more vurnlrable to attack, since the different pathogens are already "familiar" with them.

Well a modified species can be dominant and when they "mulitply/breed" (whatever is the word for that in english ) their genetic code can take over the original species, and at first you might think it is not a problem as well it is a better species anyway, but what if that proves to be false down the road, there is no way back. Perhaps reintroducing a dominant species without the harmful effect. But now you are on the road of debugging with the xxx years naturally created species effectively dead. However nature is not a computer program. Do we want another Microsoft debugging our wheat and issuing security patches "for those who are in risk of stomach cancer use this version developed 2019"

	27-01-2003 20:48									#22
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave . What if one of a hundred goes wrong and it destroys the world rice crops? Or a virus develops like the "foot and mouth" that has longer incubation time and by the time it is realised 50% of the world stock is infected? Did anyone add "profit is the main goal" way of thinking into the equation?

Please explain to me how this could happen in any reasonable (hell I'd even like to hear unreasonable) situation imaginable? To take an abstract example let's say humans want to us biotech to insure their children have blue and not brown eyes. How can having blue instead of brown eyes cause world wide disaster? What new virus will be created?

There won't be one because we haven't modified any viruses in the process. Killer bees are an example of old fashioned cross breeding going wrong. With GM you can be much more sure of getting the desired results sooner then with traditional techniques so you would get fewer undesireable intermediates such as the killer bees.

	27-01-2003 20:48									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Well a modified species can be dominant and when they "mulitply/breed" (whatever is the word for that in english )

what do you mean by multiply/breed? rice that grows everywhere? mutant cows that hide in the woods and prey on innocent passers?

	27-01-2003 20:52									#24
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Azazel you still haven't responded. "mistakes are bound to happen": so we should ban all R&D?

Sorry didn't catch this one -

No, you cannot do that, but I feel that this should be banned in the private - "chasing for profit" sector. Still thinking that this will ever happen (prior to a major disater) in unreasonable.

So what is the alternative? No alternative I think, this will continue developing you can only make a personal decision to try and not use the products if you don't feel it is safe, hopefully the labels will stay there. We will see what happens after the first major mistake and we might all live long enough to see it happen.

	27-01-2003 20:55									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

This can be applied to any R&D sector, or any sector that has some risks involved with it. so do you want to have no private R&D? no private Nuke plants?

I am left-wing socialist, and I would like it to be govt.-owned. But I would like all industry to be govt.-owned. You're just being inconsistent.

	27-01-2003 21:03									#26
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Please explain to me how this could happen in any reasonable (hell I'd even like to hear unreasonable) situation imaginable? To take an abstract example let's say humans want to us biotech to insure their children have blue and not brown eyes. How can having blue instead of brown eyes cause world wide disaster? What new virus will be created? There won't be one because we haven't modified any viruses in the process. Killer bees are an example of old fashioned cross breeding going wrong. With GM you can be much more sure of getting the desired results sooner then with traditional techniques so you would get fewer undesireable intermediates such as the killer bees.

Unreasonable situation is the development of a rice crop that has all the same charachteristics and produces 20% more for example. The sort should be dominant, and introduced world wide. That is reasonable I belive and will happen, and there might be a hidden effect that start developing after XY generations in that sort as is bread in the wild. RThe hidden effect can be a new disease that will wipe them all on which the former "normal rice" was resistant, for example thus wiping off % of population. Are you saying that the genetic scientists can predict everything 100% when they are making shortcuts? Add the pressure to deliver a profit on top of it and you multiply the risk for sure.

quote: what do you mean by multiply/breed? rice that grows everywhere? mutant cows that hide in the woods and prey on innocent passers?

well is it called when two plants have "sex" as I cannot remember at the moment. Well the dominant GM "modified" breed with the "normal" one - and the dominant genes stay in the new plants. Therefore the "normal" sort dissapears slowly but surely, and the only way to stop the dominant one is to destroy it completley by hand which is impossible as is has spread too much to do it. So eventually the "normal" or natural plant will cease to exist, with only the GM one continuing on its place. So what if a GM one has a flaw?

	27-01-2003 21:09									#27
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Azazel This can be applied to any R&D sector, or any sector that has some risks involved with it. so do you want to have no private R&D? no private Nuke plants? I am left-wing socialist, and I would like it to be govt.-owned. But I would like all industry to be govt.-owned. You're just being inconsistent.

Well I'd disagree, I believe that private nuke plants are not a good idea either, as that is inviting a disaster to happen sooner as the "bottom line" has to be met.

However I feel that GM modification is an order of magnitude more dangerous on the same level with nuclear plants, or perhapos even more as even nuclear plant has "regional effect" only in the case of a failure, not to mention most of the other R&D, like new drugs and such, or normal mechanical businesses, car, semiconductor industry that has no real direct threat to environment only indirect (pollution etc...) .

	27-01-2003 21:16									#28
	Support Apolyton

quote: Unreasonable situation is the development of a rice crop that has all the same charachteristics and produces 20% more for example. The sort should be dominant, and introduced world wide. That is reasonable I belive and will happen, and there might be a hidden effect that start developing after XY generations in that sort as is bread in the wild. RThe hidden effect can be a new disease that will wipe them all on which the former "normal rice" was resistant, for example thus wiping off % of population. Are you saying that the genetic scientists can predict everything 100% when they are making shortcuts? Add the pressure to deliver a profit on top of it and you multiply the risk for sure.

a hidden effect?!

in any case, again, how does that differ from an old crop? a virus has the same chance adapting to an existing crop, as adapting to a GM crop. and there would be different GM crops as well, since there are different climates etc.

just look at what happens now to the non-GM banana. It's in danger of extiction. I know! let's not use non-GM crops, because they'll go the way of the banana!

quote: well is it called when two plants have "sex" as I cannot remember at the moment. Well the dominant GM "modified" breed with the "normal" one - and the dominant genes stay in the new plants. Therefore the "normal" sort dissapears slowly but surely, and the only way to stop the dominant one is to destroy it completley by hand which is impossible as is has spread too much to do it. So eventually the "normal" or natural plant will cease to exist, with only the GM one continuing on its place. So what if a GM one has a flaw?

what do you mean by 'normal'? the wild version of plants? or the agricultural non-GM version?

is the first: the same thing exist with general crops. You're not going to ban all crops right? it would be kinda hard to sustain 6.5 bil on hunting and gathering, esp. since there is hardly anything left to hunt.

if you mean the non-GM version, all that would mean is that the crop would be replaced. I've already answered why there is no inherent danger in crops just because they're GM.

	27-01-2003 21:23									#29
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: However I feel that GM modification is an order of magnitude more dangerous on the same level with nuclear plants, or perhapos even more as even nuclear plant has "regional effect" only in the case of a failure, not to mention most of the other R&D, like new drugs and such, or normal mechanical businesses, car, semiconductor industry that has no real direct threat to environment only indirect (pollution etc...) .

we know that NOW. but what would happen if people at the time took your approach, and went on talking about them fearing things they don't know much about?

	27-01-2003 21:28									#30
	Remove this text

Well all that I am thinking is that with introduction of the new genes you introduce new "charachteristics" of a plant or an animal. We might find it desireable. However a gene is not just a simple peace of code like the computer code.

Where I am getting at, even though that in the lab tests a certain feature might not show up, when you release the "sort" or "species" into the world it might not behave exactly like in the lab conditions because of all the different environment variables that you have out there, and that might not even show up straight away. When the "bad feature" can be easily contained.

Do they get the desired effects after making genetic modifications straight? No. Do they need to do a lot of testing and proofing that the plant/animal will behave in a way they want? Yes. Now can they test -all- the possible outcomes?

Are you sure they can?