04-03-2003 02:35									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

NOOOOOOOO! Now, I won't be able to beat him in the argument that way.

	04-03-2003 02:49									#92
	Tired of ads?

quote: Now, I won't be able to beat him in the argument that way.

Argument? Ha! The only worthwhile comeback for him would be "Yeah, well you jeans have the hard candy shell."

And to think I am usually creamed for being "racist". Is it rubbing off?

*On topic*

I always think it is weird that people continue to contribute creativity and mental inginuity with manic-depression. I have friend like this, and he is a) crazy as all heck b) a genius and c) musically inclined. I still don't believe it, though their are hundreds of cases to prove otherwise, and hundreds to back me up. The one thing I can't except, however, is that depression is genetic. That these "chemical imbalances" are due to genetic disorders. There is no proof.

I will admit that these diseases are treated of biopharmaceuticals which suggest a biological disorder. Yet, such conditions can exist independent of genes and could be a result of sociological conditions. In very much the same way the a cut my leave a scar, or poison ivy causes one to itch, certain maladies in someone who has poor self-estime can lead to mental illness.

Just my opinon.

	04-03-2003 02:58									#93
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

To be fair to Rogan, I just want to point out (since he can't do it for himself right now) that his "crack" about Jews was almost certainly not meant to insult Azazel's heritage.

But it was a bit raw.

	04-03-2003 03:03									#94
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ah well, you might not be able to post, but I'm assuming that you're still able to view...

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh These can all be treated either with surgery or drugs - there is no need to fiddle about with the gene pool.

1. Why are surgery/drugs better than genetic engineering?
2. No, they can not all be treated with surgery or drugs. The myopia in some members of my family is so severe that it has been linked to glaucoma and a susceptibility to the detachment of their retinas. Asthma can usually be treated so that it is no longer life-threatening, but many asthmatics are not able to lead "normal" lives even with the help of medications. Finally, IIRC only about 50% of all manic-depressives are successfully treated with medication. I should know, seeing as how I'm one of those whose condition is unaffected by medication.
3. I fail to see the connection between your opinion that I am evil (or at the very least, your opinion that that I desire to do evil things) and the fact that these three conditions can sometimes be treated without the use of genetic engineering. Am I always evil for expressing a desire to employ a viable alternative to your own approach to solving a problem, or am I only evil in this one particular instance? You'll need to do a better job of explaining the link between "genetic engineering" and "evil" -- saying "There is an alternative to genetic engineering" just doesn't cut it.

quote: And do you think you could fix these with genetic engineering without altering something else?

Why are genetic engineering side-effects unacceptable, while apparently the side-effects of surgery and medication are acceptable?

quote: You haven't answered my other question

As I'd said, I have expressed a very specific belief, and you have expressed a very broad belief. I don't know why you insist that I broaden the scope of my belief just because you have done so. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to humor you.

quote: would you have genetically removed the defects of Hieronymous Bosch? Would you have fixed Beethoven's deafness? What about Newton's schizophrenia? Would Byron have produced anything if he had not been manic-depressive?

1. I am not familiar with Hieronymous Bosch.
2. Yes, I was under the impression that Beethoven was not particularly keen on going deaf.
3. Yes, although I was under the impression that Newton's schizophrenia was likely related to his overexposure to mercury, and may not have had any genetic cause.
4. I don't know for certain whether he'd have produced anything or not, but I would be willing to bet that he'd have lived past the age of 36 if he hadn't been forced to self-medicate.

quote: The problem is that you are attempting to define what other people should be like.

And you're not?

It's all well and good to insist that the world needs tortured geniuses when it's somebody else who's being tortured.

quote: Have a look at this and tell me if you think bipolar disorder can be genetically removed without losing anythng else:

I'm familiar with the links between bipolar disorder and creativity, although I'm uncertain why you seem to believe that genetic engineering would cause somebody to lose their creativity while medication would not. I have known people who have been successfully treated by medication, and they have not exhibited any apparent reduction in creativity -- I see no reason why an equivalent genetic solution would produce a different effect.

	04-03-2003 03:07									#95
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Japher The one thing I can't except, however, is that depression is genetic. That these "chemical imbalances" are due to genetic disorders. There is no proof.

Talk to Doc Strangelove about that one. In a previous thread he cited a study that proved that depression can have genetic causes -- identical twins who were separated at birth (i.e. who were under different sociological influences) had a far higher correllation (80%) than did fraternal twins who were separated at birth (40%).

	04-03-2003 04:05									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: It's not such a great change, just a larger amount of visual input. Besides, if we could grasp Calculus, and the structure of the atom, or Love, Hate, Envy, etc., I think this should be a little problem.

The eyes are already more sensitive than the brain. A lot of information is wasted.

Calculus etc is learned, not 'grown into' like you suggest would be possible for enhanced eyesight. It's a totally different mechanism. We are born being able to see just fine (mostly), but there's not exactly a lot of visual stimulation in the womb.

Even if the brain is as pliable as you suggest, there is still the possibility of unwanted mental side-effects from an enlarged visual centre, such as epilepsy, hallucinations, autism or schizophrenia.

And let's not forget the optic nerve. With increased visual signals, it will need to be bigger, which in turn will involve redesigning the skull and parts of the brain. I won't deny, however, that it may be possible to somehow make it more efficient.

	04-03-2003 04:12									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: ahh, I guess you meant "Genetically". well, Why should we hinder some people? why should we use "at the expense"? I don't follow you. It's not like that we're creating genetical defects in healthy people, just because we're curing genetical conditions.

Azazel:
I'm trying to show similarities between genetic therapy and genetic enhancement.

In improving the population, the norm of society rises, assuming normal = average of all people.

One can define a norm in other ways, but then you get into the discussion of how broad the norm should be.

quote: a) "will simply find more" ?

More 'flawed' genes. This is an assumption of my definition of the norm. No matter how much we improve, we will have some who are less off, and some who are worse.

quote: BAM. If we've got rid of the sicknesses, we're immensly intelligent, and are attractive, why should we want to keep changing?

What does BAM stand for?

Define beauty, define intelligence.

Our definitions depend on the society we are in. Certain types of intelligence will be favoured over others.

Some people will not be happy, although, some will. Those who favour changing their body will be somewhat more predisposed to continue improving their bodies.

Can we ever be beautiful enough, or intelligent enough?

quote: But tell me this? would you want your child to be deaf? Would your child want to be deaf?

2) I'll let my child decide. I don't know what she will or will not want.

1) Does my opinion matter? I would want to protect my child, but if she is to be deaf, I'll leave it at that.

	04-03-2003 04:25									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: If you remove all genetic defects that will kill somebody before the age of ten but fail to remove all of the genetic defects that will kill somebody before the age of twenty, then some people are still "better off" and "worse off" than others, but the severity of the divide has been significantly decreased.

Loinburger:

Agreed.

I don't know what to make of Huntington's disease v. Cystic Fibrosis.

Schizophrenia, what about autism? We don't know what might be lost.

Progress? Doesn't mean we can't work out ethical limits for the technology ahead of time.

I think that by limiting genetic engineering to these cases, we will avoid the more frivolous abuses of the technology.

Why do I keep thinking of plastic surgery, originally intended for burn victims, but now everyone gets nips and tucks?

Has our standard of beauty changed?

	04-03-2003 04:53									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Ah well, you might not be able to post, but I'm assuming that you're still able to view... 1. Why are surgery/drugs better than genetic engineering?

I assume bygenetic engineering, we are referrng to what traits are passed on, as opposed to gene therapy, using genes to impact a given condition but not effecting heritability.

The problem is that genetic engineering is permanent. If we determine later on that say bipolar disorder is beneficial, generations of having had people on lithium doesnt prevent us from allowing it again. Whereas genetic engineering, assuming its available to and used by everyone, can cause the permanent loss of this genetic diversity. I would be especially concerned with mental disorders which are usually spectrum disorders, which, while harmful when fully expressed may be caused by the same genes which account for beneficial traits. You seem to be assuming a model of one gene to one disorder - i doubt this applies even to many physical conditions, much less to mental and behavioral problems. What if by eliminatin Bipolar genes we also reduce the incidence of "moody", creative people who are not diagnosably BP??(note that we know have BP1 and BP2, and soemthing called hyperthymia which is like BP but not quite) What if by eliminating autism genes we eliminated nerdy, brilliant but socially inept people, who dont have autism??? Etc, etc. Im no scientist, but from what i know Genes are complex, and work in complex ways. Deliberately tampering with the gene pool to eliminate undesriable traits is likely to have much less easily reversible consequences(for the species, not the individual) than medication.

	04-03-2003 04:57									#100
	Inflate your Upload Space

Why would genetic engineering prevent us from going back and reengineering bipolar disorder into the population (assuming you save genetic samples from the past)?

	04-03-2003 05:04									#101
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by loinburger I have known people who have been successfully treated by medication, and they have not exhibited any apparent reduction in creativity -- I see no reason why an equivalent genetic solution would produce a different effect.

Some people on Lithium become severly impaired. To which there is a very simple solution - stop the lithium and try something else. Again, youseem to assume a very simple model of what these disorders are and how they function - when we know little, but what we do know indicates they are more complex. Unipolar Depression to the extent it is organically based, seems to be a result of problems with thefunctioing of several different neural messngers. These messnagers apparently have several different functions, which interact in comple ways. Each anti=depressant med impacts on different groupings of neural messengers in differnent ways - which is why one AD will work in one patient but different one in another, and different people will experience different side effects, and so on. In the hands of a skilled doctor, a patient can find the right med for them. Now lets assume that each different neurotransmitter is impacted by a different set of genes - changing one gene, like one giving a given med, will have multiple effects, and the effects will vary depending on the rest of the the genes, not to mention the environment. But with genetic engineering you cant experiment the way a doctor prescribing drugs can, becasue the changes are permanent. If it was a simple model where there was a "depression gene" the way there is a hemophilia gene, this would nt be a problem.

	04-03-2003 05:43									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Eugenics sound real nice to me as well azazel... Its not as evil as one may think. Only harm I could think of is that you would be denying an individual right(?) to reproduce in order to enforce eugenics. Anyway even after assuming all that is a-ok, I still object to eugenics because of one reason.

Remember the racial superiority thread? Where I mentioned that a person with down syndrome is often considered "inferior" to a normal person because he is genetically handicapped. But there may be a instance where that specific gene could prevent acquiring a certain disease, or mutation affect that genetic "flaw" into becoming something else.... Evolution is an unpredictable thing. Reducing variety is always a bad thing. Even when you think it is "inferior" or a "flaw"..... in a changing enviornment, you can never keep those defintion the same.

	04-03-2003 05:50									#103
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by loinburger I'd be all for being given the option to genetically engineer the defects out of my kids, and for others to be given the same option. Why should my kids have to be saddled with myopia and allergies and bipolar disorder and all that jazz? **** those tricks. The benefits that my kids might gain by being blind, asthmatic, and crazy are far outweighed by the harm done to them by said disorders.

I feel ya dude, its only natural to desire only the best for your children. And there's not even any flaw to your arguement short term wise. However in a long term sense, everyone will want to do so for their child thus reducing genetic pool of humans --> more close to genetically related ---> more vulnerable to disaster when certain genetic "package" fails.

	04-03-2003 06:03									#104
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 Progress? Doesn't mean we can't work out ethical limits for the technology ahead of time.

Agreed, no harm in debating this-or-that possible modification ahead of time, and in fact I'd consider it to be a necessity. It's unjustified blanket condemnations like "Selective breeding/genetic engineering is evil no matter whether you are breeding out big noses, low grades, or crap moderator skills" with which I take issue.

quote: Why do I keep thinking of plastic surgery, originally intended for burn victims, but now everyone gets nips and tucks?

I worry about the same thing WRT genetic engineering, but as with (what I would consider to be) unnecessary use of plastic surgery there's the question of "who is being harmed?" People have been needlessly modifying their appearances for millennia -- the fact that in the future people might needlessly modify themselves using genetic engineering isn't that great of a concern to me. Who are they to define human beauty, but at the same time, who am I do do likewise?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Again, youseem to assume a very simple model of what these disorders are and how they function...

quote: Originally posted by Calc II Reducing variety is always a bad thing.

Granted, but unless genetic engineering is enforced then there will always be those who opt out of the process (or who opt their children out of the process). The quantity of certain bad genes will certainly be reduced, but it would be surprising if they were ever eliminated.

	04-03-2003 06:35									#105
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Anybody read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.?

Here's a link - http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml

Personally that's how I feel the objections are going. Ignore the best attributes people have and make sure that everything is "natural".

Calc does have a point with his "diversity" but I have to question whether this would be a problem - woudn't it just be natural selection telling us that we were stupid to get rid of a certain gene? Oh well, I'd just go with the flow. I doubt I would mess with certain genes though because I would infer that some of those are superior because they came from me (intelligence, pouffy hair)

	04-03-2003 09:59									#106
	Got spare money?

Big Crunch sez:

quote: Even after some levelling of the playing field genetically disadvantaged people are less likely to procreate.

Genetically disadvantaged people are more likely to be poor, which means they are more likely to procreate.

Sandman sez:

quote: I don't think you can improve human eyesight that easily. There are too many variables involved.

Rocket science also has "too many" variables involved. Should we abandon that train of thought as well?

obiwan18 sez:

quote: We have to hinder those people who are better off, and boost those worse off through genetic engineering.

No, we don't HAVE to. In fact this only harms humanity. Resources are wasted to no greater effect than for having people reach mediocrity.

quote: As soon as you boost one person, the norms will shift.

You mention this as if norms do not shift already. Norms shift due to a variety of conditions. Genetic engineering is a process that specifically attacks norms, but it is not necessarily the only process that may affect them. An Einstein who is born affects the norms. Norms are there as guidelines, but they cannot be there as hard and fast rules. Why can't we have supergeniuses? God forbid some obscure norm is broken by having them around curing our diseases.

quote: Secondly, all our work will be undone in the next generation.

So something as rudimentary as glasses designed to counter loss of eyesight is immediately and automatically undone soon as a new generation is born? If methods as sophisticated as geneengineering can so easily be reversed, then it wouldn't be so difficult to study (since it is so perfectly modular). You have no specific evidence to prove (or even help) this statement.

quote: We may correct for one gene, but new mutations always crop up. We will have to remain ever vigilant for new mutations in order to keep the human race up to snuff.

It is expected that perfection requires effort. Do you not believe that it is worth the effort? Whether or not perfection is relevant is a different issue. What I am saying is that if geneengineering gives us more control over random genetic flaws (ie: bring us closer to perfection), does the added vigilance truly make the benefits not worth having? I hardly believe that someone with terminal cancer would agree.

quote: Once we are satisfied with ourselves, we have stopped evolving.

This is assuming that all change can be satisfactorily brought about within your lifetime or mine. These absolute statements are the stuff of science fiction. "And when humanity was rendered to perfection, the great Axthanumous.... etc. etc."

quote: yet we will never really be satisfied.

Can you see that we are already experiencing this conundrum every day of our lives? Alexander was never truly able to explore the Red Sea, and even without geneengineering true satisfaction was always out of his grasp.

quote: All others, blindness, manic-depressives, etc. should be left alone.

Who needs eyesight anyway? Only the majority of our sensory brain is dedicated to input from our eyes. Useless organs!

Frogger sez:

quote: I'm a lot less sure about allowing the engineering of increased intelligence or beauty.

Let us be completely honest. I am against this too, but only because _I_ don't want to be obsolete. It's only a selfish reason, right? How will we find dates if superhuman Tom Cruises are wandering around everywhere?

Azazel sez:

quote: It's not like that we're creating genetical defects in healthy people, just because we're curing genetical conditions.

Well, how about this example. YOU consume resources, just as I do. If a condition allows you to consume more resources (or achieve better quality resources) while my condition is unchanged, then I am inherently harmed. It's pessimistic, I know. But I highly value my oxygen, clean water, and food. Improving a set number of people comes at the expense of the people who are unaffected.

quote: BAM. If we've got rid of the sicknesses, we're immensly intelligent, and are attractive, why should we want to keep changing?

So if I kept handing you dollar bills, at some random point--say one billion dollars-- you would say... STOP! I am completely satisfied! No more! I am finished!

Japher:

quote: "norm" is a standard set by society, and it is this idea that decides what is and what isn't a "defect".

So what? The "norm" is an 85 (is it 85?) IQ or higher. Are you going to argue with this norm by somehow saying that less than 85 IQ is somehow beautiful and "just as acceptable?" Come on. People need to be able to think and abstract. Let's not fall completely down this gutter. Many such "norms" are a product of reason.

quote: Who is to know and who is to judge?

Certainly by your post, I would say we are... since we are the only judges.

tinyp3nis sez:

quote: The manipulation allows silly parents to do much more than just give stupid names like "Stefu" to their kids.

Presumably geneengineering also delivers poisonous agents to the blood streams of these parents as soon as they invent a name like "Snafu."

I personally don't even care about the geneengineering aspect (because I can't think of anything I could do to myself to make myself genetically better than I already am). What I want is cloning... so I can clone myself and kill him. I just want to see the look on my face right before I realise that I am going to kill me. I think it would be worth the $80,000 or however much Biocorp rips me off for for a standard issue Generation 1 clone.

ciaran

	04-03-2003 10:35									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by loinburger :shrugs: I dunno. I'd personally draw the line where "removal of severe defects" changes to "superficial changes with no non-aesthetic value." That's still an awfully fuzzy line, though.

I am all for removal of genetic defects but not for enhancement of any kind.

It's like a round of arms race: the water table goes up by a meter, but nothing really has changed.

	04-03-2003 10:54									#108
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Ciaran:

quote: So what? The "norm" is an 85 (is it 85?) IQ or higher. Are you going to argue with this norm by somehow saying that less than 85 IQ is somehow beautiful and "just as acceptable?" Come on. People need to be able to think and abstract. Let's not fall completely down this gutter. Many such "norms" are a product of reason.

I would never argue that anything less than the norm is beautiful nor acceptable. All I was indicating that in a world such as the one we live in that "norm", or what is normal, is something that is indicate by that which the majority of society sees as ussual, or common. Nothing more, nothing less... and if you can't see that, then you miss the meaning behind many jokes.

Also, these "norms" as a product of reason fall to the devices of what the majority view as reason. I for one, don't see people who can wear tight jeans, and by doing so, look good as normal. Yet, what do you think Jen. Loprz would think? Or most of the stuck peices of sheit out there in holywoodland.

Anywho...

I am glad Ciaran is here to make some good points...

Good luck with those.

	04-03-2003 11:02									#109
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by ciaran Let us be completely honest. I am against this too, but only because _I_ don't want to be obsolete. It's only a selfish reason, right? How will we find dates if superhuman Tom Cruises are wandering around everywhere?

First of all, I don't think genetic enhancements will occur within the time frame of our generation. We know zilch about how the whole thing works. Secondly, as I said, when everybody is a Tom Cruise look-alike, nothing has been changed. The water table merely has gone up for all.

	04-03-2003 11:21									#110
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm with Loinburger on this one. It is very likely that we couldn't become creatures adapted to space flight without genetic engineering. I don't just think it is "right", I think it is necessary. Who cares if 400 years down the road you have some guy who geneers himself some gills and the ability to withstand the pressures of the Marianas Trench because I don't want my little girl to be retarded? Who are we to tell him how to live, what it means to be "human?"

The essence of humanity is in the soul, Rogan, not in the form.

	04-03-2003 11:24									#111
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I am all for removal of genetic defects but not for enhancement of any kind.

Yeah, I cheated and drew my line in such a way that enhancements could fall on either side of it.

	04-03-2003 11:27									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Azazel, I think genetic engineering should be an option for parents. However, my daughter turned out just fine. A really nice and good person. And bright and good looking to boot. I wonder if I could have done better if I used science.

Did you ever see the movie Gattica?. This was the subject matter of the movie.

	04-03-2003 11:29									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Did this thread really make it through a whole 110 posts before somebody compared it to a movie? I'm quite proud of y'all for your restraint!!!

	04-03-2003 11:32									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

No. Gattaca was mentioned ages ago.

	04-03-2003 11:34									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Dashing my hopes yet again, heh Frogger?

	04-03-2003 13:44									#116
	Inflate your Upload Space

yep, he's right, JohnT. We also had books, poetry, etc...

quote: Well, how about this example. YOU consume resources, just as I do. If a condition allows you to consume more resources (or achieve better quality resources) while my condition is unchanged, then I am inherently harmed

OK, wait a sec. I am talking about improving people's strength, and brain power, as well as getting rid of deseases. How will that consume MORE resources? It will consume less, as people will become more healthy, and will actually increase their output.

And since I am proposing it, esp. the harmed gene removal part as standard as anti-tetanus and measels, shots for babies, why should you become inherently harmed? If you're talking about a single generation that will become less productive, the last non-engineered generation, (that would probably include yours truly), I think "sacrificing" your own welfare for the betterment of endless future generations is one of the most moral things to do, ever.

quote: Azazel, I think genetic engineering should be an option for parents. However, my daughter turned out just fine. A really nice and good person. And bright and good looking to boot. I wonder if I could have done better if I used science.

It depends. If your daughter is healthy, and is genetically smart (pure theory only in this point, bordering the realm of science fiction, but we're talking, among everything else, about it being true), Then you have no trouble.

I'll take myself, as an example: I have Gilbert's Syndrome, a condition that creates an excess of a certain protein called Bilirubin, when my body is under stress. This protein causes my body to have a bit of a yellow colour. Hardly visible, really. This is the same protein that is generated excessively when a person get Hepatitis.

Now, this condition does not affect my abilities in any way, other than the slight change of colour. Should it stay or should it go? It depends on how we'll perform the Genetic engineering. If every baby will be hand-tailored, and this change would cause extra resources to make ( and therefor would probably be more expensive ), But there would be a standard procedure to change the genes of embrios, before conception, I wouldn't have my kid have this condition.

	04-03-2003 18:16									#117
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well, you know God forbid that I should actually read the thread before commenting on the contents. God, you people ask a lot!

	04-03-2003 20:33									#118
	Remove this text

Gawd, No! It seems my thread is spammed!

	05-03-2003 01:44									#119
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

loin berger

Im not sure the reason for your response - what i have seen of this thread makes me think that most people are thinking in terms of "lets get rid of the BAD genes" well hemophila may work like that, but very few other things do. Why in evolutionary terms would these genes exist if they were "bad" We know that Sickle cell anemia exists because in carriers the gene provides resistance to malaria. There are some who believe that Tay-SAchs carriers have resistance to Tuberculosis. Should we eliminate the gene for Tay-sachs (I am a carrier, BTW) Well maybe now, in world where we can control TB, yes - in a different world I dont know. Now those are still relatively simple single gene cases. How do we deal with a mental illness where the illness results from the interaction of multiple genes and very complex environmetal factors??? and almost all of those genes probably have beneficial aspects of some kind, which is why they were selected for. And the beneficial aspects are likley to be subtle mental or behavioral advantages, harder to identify than protection against malaria.

Now i suspect the response is - well we know all that, and we wont do gen eng where there could be a problem. Except that from what I see of the way medication and surgery are used that is not the case - but with gen engineering you are deciding for someone else.

I recommned that those thinking about this issue read oliver Sachs "awakenings" for a better understanding of the complexities of an illness that has organic roots but profound mental and behavioral aspects. And that they read Peter Kramer's Listening to Prozac for some thoughts on the nature of mental illness, its treatment, evolutionary thought, etc.

	05-03-2003 01:47									#120
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Im not saying gen eng should never be used - but i would argue for EXTREME caution, and I fear it is very likely to get out of hand.