Nature is dead and we killed it.
anonymous
May 14 2006, 14:32:59 UTC
The problems of disease, health care, and famine are for the most part socially based. Genetic engineering will do nothing to stave off world hunger, we already have the production to accomplish that. Nor will it bring about universal healthcare (though I agree it is important.) The disparity of wealth invariably will bring the "fruits" of engineering to very few. There is terrific danger in modifying genetic code. Over and over and over again we have ducked the precautionary principle to benefit progress! Oh beloved progress! Climate change will open new oceanic trade routes! Such potential, it's amazing.
Re: Nature is dead and we killed it.igoroishaMay 14 2006, 18:43:51 UTC
We are nature. Eventually this planet and all that it holds will be destroyed in a firey inferno, either by collision with an asteroid or with the eventual evaporation of all the oceans as the sun heats up, and the total destruction when it goes super nova. We will be all that remains, all that will be able to escape from the planet, and that kind of survival is worth ducking the precautionary principle for progress. Genetic engineering is already doing a lot to stave off world hunger, as well as disease. We're engineering crops which last longer, and produce more. More importantly, we're producing things like vitamin A containing rice to help prevent blindness, and other disease preventing genetically engineered foods. But its not to help the world that we should pursue genetic engineering, its to help ourselves. You can't expect us to help non-citizens as a concerted national effort, that's not why we elect a government. Our government is supposed to help its citizens, nothing more. World hunger is up to private charities to
Re: Nature is dead and we killed it.igoroishaMay 14 2006, 18:47:58 UTC
Frankly, I believe there is not much else we as an intellectually endowed species can hope to do but continue to progress. Global warming might do well to curb the population problem, as most of the world happens to inhabit coastal areas which will be destroyed by the rising oceans. Is there really anything more important than progress? As long as it is indeed progress... and I guess that might be kind of subjective. But in short, no, there is not.
Comments 5
There is terrific danger in modifying genetic code. Over and over and over again we have ducked the precautionary principle to benefit progress! Oh beloved progress!
Climate change will open new oceanic trade routes! Such potential, it's amazing.
Reply
We will be all that remains, all that will be able to escape from the planet, and that kind of survival is worth ducking the precautionary principle for progress.
Genetic engineering is already doing a lot to stave off world hunger, as well as disease. We're engineering crops which last longer, and produce more. More importantly, we're producing things like vitamin A containing rice to help prevent blindness, and other disease preventing genetically engineered foods.
But its not to help the world that we should pursue genetic engineering, its to help ourselves. You can't expect us to help non-citizens as a concerted national effort, that's not why we elect a government. Our government is supposed to help its citizens, nothing more.
World hunger is up to private charities to
Reply
Is there really anything more important than progress? As long as it is indeed progress... and I guess that might be kind of subjective.
But in short, no, there is not.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment