Slashdot Mirror
Domain: psrast.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to psrast.org.
Comments · 12
-
More growth less health
Acromegalic rice?
With twisted proteins that will only be accidentally discovered. With less energy devoted to health and nutrition.
Based on the company's private safety evaluation that the FDA's revolving door personnel rubber-stamped.
With technology that is suspected of greatly increasing allergies in the last quarter of a century?What could go wrong?
.
-
Re:Sounds like a good idea to me
-
Re:Why is this different than fingerprints?
> 97% of the human genome is "junk" DNA.
That is an assumption. Just because you don't understand the language doesn't mean what little you do know somehow invalidates the majority you don't.
i.e.
http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htmIn time we will learn how to read it non-linearly because it has been encoded multidimensionally.
-
Re:Junk DNA
Modern proteomics has actually shown that non-coding DNA is not actually "junk" at all.
-
Re:Can we get some peer review?
I'm too lazy to explain inverse-square law to you, but I'm sure somebody on Wikipedia will...
Were you more familiar with the subject you'd know that a large number of those who fear cell-phone radiation also claim that the power of the radiation is insignificant; that its mere presence causes problems. Hence, the decline of signal strength with the square of the distance would be irrelevant. This would be an example of someone exhibiting such a belief. I don't claim to agree with them, but a significant number of those who call for these measures do believe this. A quote from that link: "much weaker radiation than what is allowed in mobile and cordless phones may have harmful effects." I'd say the tower that's about a mile away would qualify as "much weaker" here, according to that position.
Lazy indeed. You just thought you had an easy slam-dunk and in the process revealed how unfamiliar you actually are with the issue. If you wait with your fingers crossed, perhaps you will have a more certain opportunity to sigh, roll your eyes, and demonstrate your superior understanding of well-known yet irrelevant basics.
The insecure and thick-headed who have a desperate and pathetic need to feel better than someone else are ruining this site. More time is spent correcting their failure to value knowledge more than smarm than is actually spent in productive discussion.
-
Re:Ya can't win
Your ignorance on this matter is so profound I simply don't have time to disabuse you of it. Please do just a little research before shooting off your mouth like this. I'd suggest:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/03/14/gm-foods-part-one.aspx
http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm
as places to start. If you have any real interest in informing yourself about the situation, that is.
-
Re:From a logical point of view
It doesn't really matter how many dogs you've trained semi-professionally. Until you get your hands on one genetically identical animal, after another, after another... I don't think you'll fully appreciate how much alike these creatures will be. Additionally, they'll be raised in very similar drug-sniffing environments.
It will be very much similar to driving one 2007 V6 Honda Accord just off the assembly line after another. You'll rarely notice a significant difference from one to the next.
There's a huge amount that we don't know about genes. It was just recently thought that 95% of our DNA was "junk" DNA because it did not have a function that scientists understood. Then it was found out that over 500 segments of this "Junk" DNA was ultraconserved among vertrebrate animals. This means that there must be some highly important reason why it was unchanged over 75 million years of evolution. Some scientists have also found a similarity of the patterns of the dna to human language , which is pretty interesting as well.
Not only that, but human twins are not perfectly identical, and show many minor variances in gene expression. The cloned drug sniffing dogs may well be practically identical, especially if they are raised in similar environments, but this will definitely be affected by the actual cloning techniques involved.
In any case, we will have to wait to find out what the results are before passing judgement. Whatever the results are, science will definitely be advanced through this project, which is a wonderful goal in itself. -
Re:Feeding the planet
Thankyou for highighting the real cause of world hunger. I thought I was going to have to write a post myself. Well I will expand on what you said anyway.
it has been shown time and time again that the cause of world hunger isnt the lack of production, but in fact the lack of distribution due to corruption, civil unrest and war, and high levels of subsidies in both the US and Europe that make it impossible for countries out side these areas to compete and hence develop their own agriculture.
Being forced to open their markets to subsidied produce from Europe and the US via pressure from the world bank, local farmers are thus unable to sell their own cash crops at a fair price. This has happened with nut growers, coffee, corn and many others. You thought the war on terror is expensive? The US will spend $180 Billion over 10 years from 2002.
Infact, GM products increase the likelyhood of starvation in the third world, because now the farmers are forced to buy expensive seed stocks and breeding animals from the owners of the GM patents (usually Monsanto) instead of being able to resow part of last year's crop, or if they try to continue in the traditional manner, they face competition in a heavily subsidies market. Farming only becomes ecconomically viable for "big agriculture".
More here
-
Re:Speaking as a parent
Fair enough, I occasionally question Church policy myself. For example, I did not always agree that abortion and pornography were evil. While I had little trouble understanding the evil of partial birth abortion, my thoughts were centered on a highly scientific analysis of the point in development where a fetus actually acquired the ability to feel pain. Unfortunately, I realize now, that although this question is in itself logical, it is also extremely limited. It neglects consideration of the potential psychological impact on the mother, and possibly on people involved in the procedure (which I've learned all too often is devastating). In addition, the tolerance of abortion has the effect of desensitizing us to the value of life. Where do we draw the line? I have learned of deceptive practices by abortion providers who are generally driven by the profit motive at the expense of the patient -- and from what I can tell, this describes most of those in the industry. As for pornography, while I may have thought it pleasurable and seemingly innocuous, it tends to promote negative behavior in it's patrons, negative consequences for it's participants, a devaluation of the appreciation and necessity for traditional opposite sex relationships, and leads people further into other forms of more destructive behavior. So my point is that while I may initially disagree with the Church on a particular subject, it has been my experience that this usually is the result of my taking a position based on thought centered on my own knowledge at the time. I have discovered that when I make an effort to really evaluate my positions WRT church teaching and attempt to justify the opposing viewpoint, I expose myself more deeply to the experience of others and the logic of their experiences taking into account a world view which is radically different from the one I grew into. Often times this leads me to conclude that I was wrong to begin with.
There are still some positions the Church holds that I'm not sure I'm willing to accept and I suspect that as time goes on there will be more. For example, and this may seem radical, I don't believe that one can ever justify the taking of life for any reason. This belief I hold based upon my own experience with God and His capability to correct personal error -- even for one whose heart is like stone. My own fallibility in being able to accurately analyze a situation plays into this belief as well. I will admit though, that to accept my position requires a certain degree of faith even for me, and certainly much more for one who has not experienced God personally. Given that, I may yet find myself in error on the issue.
Where we seem to part ways is that you wish to err on the side of conservancy due to the possible "dire consequences". I, on the other had, believe that any system put in place with be both (a) abused and (b) improved over time. No process is static. I firmly believe that while there are possibilities of abuse, the potential good far, far outweighs them....
Yes, you hit on one key aspect of our disagreement: The differences which arises from approaching the problem of benefit vs. loss from different perspectives. We each bring our own personal knowledge and experience into the analysis of weighting factors. However, I want to stress that in addition to potential benefit vs. consequence is the consideration of our ability to correct and contain any harmful consequence. Let me give you a more concrete example that you might find more useful in understanding my opinion. Take the case of genetically engineered corn. Monsanto, a pharmaceutical company in St Louis, has engineered a variety of corn designed to produce a natural pesticide called Bt toxin to protect against various corn eating insects. However, it has been observed that the pollen produced by Bt corn has the unintended side effect of killing Monarch butterfly catapillars. In addition, the corn itself seems to reduce the lifespan and reproductive ability of lacewings and aphids (and incidentally, this seems to me like it may be divine consequence designed to protect us unwise activity). The aphids feed directly on the corn, and the lacewings feed on insects that feed on the corn that serves to counter the original design of the corn! These are only consequences that we can observe. Who knows what effects may occur that we'll only be able to observe later on. Perhaps damage to the soil, or other creatures in the ecosystem that eat these insects. How far into the chain will the consequences be felt? How will we be able to reverse the effects once begun?
Here we are talking about a simple modification to a specific form of plant life. And if you read the links, you probably know how much faith I place in the ability industry to regulate itself, or of human nature to respond to abuse. Being able to respond to this abuse requires first that we know it is taking place. Only then can we marshal against it, which may be difficult depending on the sociopolitical landscape and the nature and prevalence of the abuse. Did you know this corn is being used in this country as I write this? Can you imagine the development of a black market for pristine food sources we once took for granted? My goodness, I shudder to think of what might happen if we start playing with the human genome. This is one reason why I feel strongly that politicians need to get moving on the issue of genetic engineering *now*.
I have more faith that human nature, while quite flawed, generally works out in the end.
I too believe that things will work out in "the end". However, I don't think it will be human nature that saves us. -
Re:genetic "instructions"
Junk DNA?, or is there a more technical term?
-
No such thing as an impartial news sight...
...because there's no such thing as an impartial investor in a news sight. This isn't an issue merely related to tech journalism.
You put money in hoping to get something back, right? Journalism has been used as a tool for those with ulterior motives for the longest time -- even back in the early days of the printing press and North American democracy, being a newspaper baron was often a prerequisite to becoming a politician. These days, though, the power resides with corporations, not the politicians, so you're going to find news sights that have content which mirrors the corporate interests of those who invest in them. And I'm not just talking about advertising or sponsorship -- I'm talking about things like Burston Marsteller doing PR for a newspaper and suppressing environmental news stories in that newspaper because it doesn't jive with a logging company, which also happens to be another PR client of theirs.
The best you can hope for is that enough warring corporations use the newspapers against each other, so that at least you'll have dissenting viewpoints on major issues. This is why it is important in principle to have dissent in public debate, regardless of what the dissenting opinion happens to be.
When there starts to be collusion between newspapers on opposing sides of an issue, THEN you really have to worry. Until then, we've got situations like Slashdot being a counter MSNBC. Neither is perfect, but the existence of both is a pretty good alternative. -
myth of food *scarcity* causing hunger
So what if GMO creates more food? Will it get to hungry stomachs? Some reports indicate that technology is not really the problem. It's rather politics/distribution. What's your answer to this?
also.. you come off kinda breathtakingly arrogant.. are you sure you have *all* the facts? Are you at a debate or on a pulpit?