Slashdot Mirror
Spidergoats
LandlessGentry writes: "Market Oriented Genetic Manipulation takes a turn for the surreal as two Nigerian dwarf goats named Mille and Muscade have had their genes altered (or more precisely the genes of their parents) so their mammary glands produce spider "silk". The story is here on Forbes.com."
someday, man, someday.
because I live in Plattsburg, NY, and just the other day I saw a giant web riddled with nothing but tin cans.
I am sick to. The Republicans (and Christian right) need to stop trying to regulate everything and let the orld move forward from their antiquitated bullshit. Industrial hemp is *not* a crime. Fuck Ashcroft's DEA. And women can do what ever the hell they want to with their bodies. The Christian right does not own a woman's body & John Ashcroft is a racist fuck who will continue to promote the racial motivated anti-drug laws of our (used to be) wonderful country. While George Bush hides his cocaine use (youthful indiscretion my ass), drunk driving arrest, and former girlfriend's abortion. Did we mention Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed a kid?
Bleeding blood was not a happy experience...
Bleeding something other than blood would probably be even less happy...
Ah yes, the Catholic church, who's response to AIDS is "What ever you do don't use a condom!!!!"
If less people would follow the poop, err pope, and think for themselves, the world would be a better, happier place.
The death toll from the Spanish Inquisition was about 2500, total over 350 years. The death toll from the Ukrainian terror famine, instigated by Moscow on Stalin's orders, was 9 million over about 2 years. That happened within the lifetimes of your grandparents. Ever heard about it? Ever made an anti-communist post to complain about those murders? Didn't think so. There are two good books on the Inquisitions, one by a secularist named Peters, and one by a Jewish historian named Kamens. Look them up and do your homework before using this ancient excuse for religious bigotry (and that's *ALL* it is, pal).
spidergoatse.cx
+)
So is that some kind of genetically altered cyclops smiley face?
Brought to you by The People For Biclops Smiley Face Rights. =)
1st Law Of Networking: Loose ends are bad, termination is good.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Thank god, I thought you were going to say he was bitten by a genetically altered goat!
The other method to get insulin also relies on genetic engineering. Some company has inserted the gene that codes for insulin into bacteria and uses them to produce it in big reactor vats. (I can't remember the company name, but they're one of the surviving biotech companies after the biotech market collapsed much as the dot-com market collapsed recently.)
...also, stop calling Europeans snobby and elitist.
You don't have to believe everything the ad companies or the government tell you.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
It's worse than that. Spider web silk isn't just protein. It also contains various other chemicals that keep it from drying out and make it resistant to attack by fungi and other microbes (after all, it is a good source of protein, right)? For details, see
e bt hread.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/InfoNed/w
(remove the embedded space in 'webthread' -- curse Slashdot's tiny little editor window.)
The company had better add equivalent protections to their product, or you might find that your spiffy new climbing rope will dry out and fray, or your bullet-proof vest will rot away after the first heavy rain.
Given: 1+1=2.
Prove: Differential calculus.
Science is about the little steps. How are we supposed to cure cancer when we barely even understand how it works? How are we supposed to colonize space whent he only country with any experience in that area is self-destructing as we speak?
The ability to arbitrarily insert and remove an animal's genes is an important step towards many important goals, such as the sickle-cell anemia you brought up.
Do you really mean that? Because fighting nature doesn't work.
Trying to run a feedback-based system without natural selection is every bit as idiotic and futile as the US's "War on Drugs" (which attempts to fight economic forces, just as attempts to avoid natural selection fight natural ones).
The forces which cause natural selection will work, like it or not. Attempts to fight it merely do us harm.
So?
Simply put, this product wouldn't exist at all without the profit whores. Learn to take the bad with the good -- or go make your own modified foods.
If you want to use only products made by people whose intentions are good and pure, you do that. Maybe you'll starve in the process, but damned if I care.
If I lived in an area with known fault lines, I wouldn't rely on government building codes to make the place I live safe. I would simply refuse to buy any house which didn't satisfy standards.
In short, I recognize that it's my own job to care for my safety -- not the task of some faceless beurocrat. When my safety is infringed due to circumstances over which I had control, I then take the responsibility for that.
Asking the government to act as Nanny to the world may seem like A Good Thing for those who are too weak and/or stupid to fend for themselves, but in the long run personal responsibility makes for a stronger society.
How does genetically modifying animals "do irreparable harm" or violate the sanctity of life?
I just don't see it.
Now, I know some people believe that the amount of money you have truly measures your worth, but that load of bullshit is for another day.
Well, yes, the amount of money you make does measure your worth to society. Sort of.
After all, what you get paid basically depends on two things:
1. The market value of what you produce
2. How much you produce
The market value of what you produce, remember, is based on supply and demand. If you produce something which is both so important to people that they're willing to pay a great deal of money of it, and you produce a great deal of this thing, then you're going to make more money than someone who produces less important goods, or in lesser property.
This holds even for investment bankers and other such critters who do no work themselves; while they as individuals may not be productive (and thus valuable to society), they facilitate sufficient production to justify their wealth -- or else they wouldn't have it.
Now, of course, this is far from perfect. For instance, it fails to measure a whole lot of things -- the volunteer work I do on a regular basis, for instance, is unreflected in what I earn; for that matter, since I frequently volunteer hours I'd otherwise be working, my volunteerism (which I think makes me more valuable to society!) reduces my personal wealth. Furthermore, trying to apply this across different economies (eg. trying to say that a doctor in China is of less value to society than a food-service worker in the US) is prone to fail rather miserably.
That said, yes -- I do indeed believe that money is after a fashon a measure of worth.
Btw, if you think I'm some rich prick trying to justify his income, let's just say I'm not. Indeed, my income last year was right about $4000 over the poverty line.
Mod this up. It deserves attention and responses!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So...dog breeds, cat breeds, horse breeds, wheat strains...are all bad.
And if some little kid gets cancer...let them die from it cause that's the way nature made it.
The US Army has wanted mass produced spider silk for body armor for decades...and there has not been a way to do that with "chemistry or physics"
Think of it this way...at least it's not going to pollute the environment with vat fulls of nasty chemical waste from the manufacture.
yeah, but what is it?
.
Our ethics, our morality, our laws, are based on these arbitrary "labels".
It's okay to eat a cow, but it's not okay to eat a dog. (in American culture). It's okay to kill bacteria by immersing them in a caustic toxic solution, but poisoning someone's cat is wrong, and illegal. You shoot a deer in the head with a rifle, but you can't legally shoot a human in the head.
So we've got these rules based on these labels, but then we've got to explore what label we slap onto a goat with spider silk genes. Worse still, what is a cow with a human heart? Cut it up and transplant that heart - it's okay, it's not cruel to the cow - or whatever that was.
Again, I don't want this thought to be misinterpreted as ludditeism, but maybe we need to collectively think these things through. What happens when we've got cows with a complete set of human parts inside their chest cavities - including a brain. (for partial brain tissue transplants, say - you could restore a person with severe brain damage, not their memories or personality maybe, but at least you could get them to a state where therapy could restore them to become a useful member of society again instead of a vegetable) would that brain be considered a human life? Would it be wrong to "kill" it by cutting it out of it's cow-body? This stuff sounds ridiculous, but as new things become possible, you need to "go there" - and we're laying the potential foundation for that now. .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Hatfields and McCoys.
Perhaps the REAL problem isn't religion. Perhaps the REAL problem is human nature.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
sounds good to me.
mmmmmmm. steaaaaaaak.
Also - no antibiotics = no eating antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Much better control of growth hormone residue. . . no parasites, so you can eat it fucking RAW if that's how you get your jollies.
That would be fucking awesome.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Don't we also collect urine from pregnant horses to gather some unique protien?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
yes. Industrial Hemp is the gateway fiber!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, I, for one, would advocate breeding a genetic cross of hemp and marijuana, so one CAN get high off the stuff. Makes no sense to be growing all that dope and nobody getting stoned. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
funny thing is, we're *NOT* playing God. Those religious folks who actually have read the Bible know that God gave us this earth, and all the plants and animals on it to do whatever we like with. (about the only laws God later passes on the treatments of Animals regard specific regulations for sacrifice, eating of "unclean" animals, having sex with animals, drinking blood, and cooking a baby goat in it's mother's milk. Not a whole lot in there about genetic engineering. In fact, Jacob does this crafty little breeding trick, and he's actually BLESSED because he was so smart.)
Now, there is the implied directive that we not be idiots and abuse it to the point where we threaten our own existence, but then, most people don't appear to "get" that.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Bulldogs often have severe respiratory problems.
German Shepards often have bad hip problems.
Greyhounds have issues with their teeth as they age past 3 years.
Persian cats don't seem to clean themselves after they poop.
My advice to you if you want to get a dog; go to an animal shelter, pick up a mutt about 1 year old. (go to a college town - you're much more likely to find abandoned pets, college freshmen living away from home for the first time, get lonely, buy a puppy or kitten, then when they have to go home for the summer, they usually abandon the pet - sad but all too common scenario).
Benefits - less likelyhood of genetic disorder. Mutts are often very cute, just as smart as purebreds for your standard sit/stay/roll over tricks, 1 year olds are already potty trained, and unless you know what you're doing, trust me, you do NOT want to get into that.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That was about exactly what I would say- and I would make the point that Stalin's orders were ALSO religiously based. The religion of Athiest Humanism.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Um, that's actually one of the prevalent theories as to how genetic mutation can be triggered.
Somebody's gonads get zapped with some funky radiation, and a little DNA gets tweaked.
How valid a theory that is, I'm not qualified to judge.
Our beef? I'd rather eat beef produced to the strictest standards in the world than anyone elses. You learn by your mistakes - British beef is now the safest in the world. Besides, any American claiming that their hormone-filled crap is any better is kidding themselves. The US is blackmailing the EU into not banning it's beef with the threat of (unfair) blockades on EU goods. Yeah, that's fair. Also, sneaking your dodgy GM food into non-GM shipments? Sneaky. I wouldn't touch American produce with a bargepole.
Rights or consequences? Maybe I'm out of touch, but how can anybody be astonished when they find out they're pregnant, doing the only thing that will make them that way?
You don't want to get pregnant? There's only one way to be sure of that -- don't have sex. There hasn't been a report of a virgin birth for some 2000 years now...
You want to have sex? Pregnancy is a consequence of that action, even if you take steps to avoid it, so you have to be prepared to accept those consequences.
Liken it to this -- I'm playing with a loaded gun and I blow my hand off. Do I have to right to take away YOUR right to own firearms by fighting for gun control because I'm an idiot? No, and somebody else doesn't have the right to deny another's right to life because it's inconvenient.
(I leave out the "what if she's a rape victim", because statistically, those kinds of abortions are negligible -- mostly it's done (in this country at least) as a form of post-coital birth control)
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
This is stupid, I'll agree with you. I'm not willing to call it a conspiracy yet, but I'm sure getting suspicious of the cotton industry...
Be careful here, fella. Are you going to hold animals and humans as equals, since they're both "living beings"? In that case, you had better be prepared to support the consumption of babies as a food source as well.
There are two things wrong with your statement. First, you're not killing the animals, you're changing their essence (in the case of genetic manipulation). Whether that's right or wrong can be argued extensively (and probably will be). In the case of RU486, that [innocent baby || wad of meiotic cells that wouldn't fill a coke spoon] is no longer living, but rather becomes a nasty bit of excretion.
Second (and this is my prejudice, I'll admit up front), you're talking about the wanton execution of a human being! I find it pretty sad that we can exist in a world where it's perfectly okay to perform abortions, which (to me) is the same as smothering babies in their crib, and get incensed when a couple of teenagers go through a school with shotguns shooting people -- and then have the audacity to blame it on the guns.
Well, gee, if it's okay to suck up babies with a vacuum cleaner (or quietly smother them with a pill), why not shoot annoying and troublesome people at your school? Seems logical to me...
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
The episode where Homer had the crayon in his brain which made him stupid removed. He just returned to "Screaming Monkey Research" and asked them to put it back in...
Scientist: "We don't play God here."
Homer: "Correction -- You do nothing _but_ play God, and I think you're Octo-parrot would agree."
Octo-parrot: "Rawk! Polly shouldn't be!"
The enemies of Democracy are
Silk is Soy (milk).
Dupont even has an Article about spider's silk
That I see of this are
1) Could be the material of choice for an exosuit
2) Construction
3) Shipping tow lines
4) Industrial Strength Clothing
5) Mountianing Climbing
And your can go on I like the idea of this I hope society excepts with oens though
Actually, since we all know how poor Peter Parker really is (he has to sell photos of his battles to make money to pay for costume supplies, etc), I would think the spidergoats would be of great help to him. If he had one as a pet, he would no longer have to invest money in chemicals to fill up his web shooters. He could just milk his goat each night.
Hell with dairy cattle. Think of the chickens, man! What's done to them is disgusting.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
What's this "forty miles north of the border" about? They're growing great fields of hemp in Grand Forks, BC. You can spit from Grand Fork's main street to the Cda-US border... and the hemp fields are south of the town.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
...humans?
In David Brin's "Piece Work" human females act as surrogate mothers for organic-industrial technology. The main character gives birth to a "star brain" --- the bio-computer of a space ship.
Her breast milk is an industrial lubricant.
The stepping stone argument usually bases on the fact that it's illegal. Crossing the border from legal to illegal drugs is a big step, but seems less so when it's jumping to a non-heavy drug.
Crossing the border from legal hemp/alcohol to a harder illegal drug would be harder to perform.
---
..that's goatmilk you're drinking? science has you..
wouldn't the term 'asexual' be more appropriate... kinda like how worms reproduce with themselves... ???
-andy
Nobody knows the real truth. But I do. I'm have inside knowledge no one... no one could ever reveal but me.
The baby goats cannabalized the parent. Actually this is a good thing, because killing makes them strong.
There's nothing better than strong rope.
> I do agree with you that raising genetically engineered animals is wrong
... I eat animals. :-)
Are you a vegetarian? If not, what basis do you have to say that raising genetically engineered animals is wrong?
And don't give me the "I eat to survive" excuse. People don't eat meat to surive anymore--they eat it because it tastes good. There are plenty much healthier and cheaper foods that don't involve the slaughter of animals.
Don't misunderstand me though
> however most studies have found hemp which you post so innocently, often is used as a stepping stone to higher drugs. Not saying everyone is going to become a junkie, but I do say limits should be drawn on most things.
The studies are flawed. They assume that since there's correspondence between former hemp usage and current "higher" drug usage, the hemp drove them to the "higher" drug usage.
Of course people are going to use lighter drugs before they start using the heavier dangerous ones. But if the lighter drug didn't exist, it doesn't seem logical that they wouldn't just skip that step.
And in any case, I think if marijuana were considered legal and acceptable by society, I think the step between marijuana and more dangerous drugs would be much bigger than it is now, where it's bundled in the same category as more dangerous drugs (the "illegal drug" category).
> Ru486 is legal and its a matter of choice unlike the illegal hemp. So whats your thought for the woman who gets raped and uses RU486 is she a murderer or is it ok when its convenient to some? Give me a break.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying it should be illegal or it shouldn't?
Actually, it's short enough that I can quote it here...
Check out some of his other columns while you're at it...
Jay (=
I see that there can be problems. Playing around with the engineering of replicating things is kind of worrisome from the perspective of the physical damage such things could cause. There is the particle physcisist's viewpoint that evolution has had a long time to create nasty replicators and we're unlikely to come up with something worse (the particle physics corollary being that the are lots of more energetic collisions happening in the Universe than what we make in our particle accelerators and they don't produce mini-black holes, or other forms of matter more stable than the forms we're familiar with). I think this argument holds less water for such complex things as replicators though.
We've already done some of that kind of engineering through breeding. Of course, change on the scale of what's possible with genetic engineering is somewhat foreign to us.
As far as humans go, there are two big problems that I see. One is a monoculture problem. Genetic engineering in some social environments will have the effect of severely diminishing genetic variability.
The other is a certain form of gene based classism that's not very distinguishable from racism.
Those are both social problems. I don't think America, in it's current state, is really capable of handling the genetic engineering of human beings. Luckily, it also probably won't happen here for awhile for some of the same reasons that we aren't socially ready for it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
There's a lot more to spiders silk than just a few proteins. Spider's silk actually arranges those proteins in rather complex ways. If it were just a matter of producing some proteins and seperating them from a mixture, you could genetically engineer bacteria to do it.
As for ethical concerns...
Numerous SF stories have dealt with all the horrors and benfits of genetic engineering. I can't say as I'm all that worried about it. There are a few concerns I'd have if we started genetically engineering humans, but, in general, I wouldn't even be against that. I don't understand what the problem is here.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
They first came for the spider silk and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a spider.
Then they came for the chitin and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an oyster.
Then they came for the maple syrup and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a tree.
Then they came for the raw dripping human brains and by that time no one was left to speak up.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
The main thing is that taking one illegal drug does not ipso facto mean you will take another. I've smoked pot & met uncle sid my share of times, but you won't see me looking for heroin or cocaine any time in my lifetime. Most people who hop from one to another are those who are sadly foolish enough to think that just because The Man lies about dope, he must be lying about all the rest of it, and it's all just as innocuous.
The gateway is not the drug, it's the proof that Uncle lied to you you when you don't grow horns from smoking dope.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
You won't mind this little implant I'm going to make you carry around for the next year, are you?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
While I have some sympathy for a company wanting to make money off what they spent hard cash to develop, I have no sympathy for their claiming it's going to end world hunger (just as soon as the world pays up), since the whole problem is that if the world COULD pay up, they wouldn't be hungry, would they?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Not quite. You can't get a dog to give spider's milk by the methods you describe.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Here's a quick summary of who came up with what, and where things are going on. Morality, ethics, "Our world is crumbling around us", etc. are left to the professionals (and gifted amateurs) elsewhere in this discussion.
The spider silk gene is intellectual property of the University of Wyoming and is licensed by Nexia Biotechnologies. The spider silk genome information was patented through the work of Dr. Randy Lewis.
Nexia Biotechnologies is a company from St. Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec (on the western edge of Montreal). St. Anne is home to MacDonald College, the agricultural school of McGill University. Nexia's Corporate offices and R&D facilities are located in St. Anne. Nexia's CEO Jeffrey D. Turner is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Animal Science at McGill University.
Nexia's knowledge is not really in the spiders, but in the goats. Their press releases give an overview of what they're into. Specifically, they've got what they call BELE (Breed Early, Lacate Early) goats which can be used as a sort of biological factory. The spider silk becomes their first biologically manufactured product.
Nexia's breeding farm is the decomissioned base in Plattsburgh, New York. Their research farm is in Canada.
Nexia completed an IPO in December and apparantly has agreements with the US and Canadian military for the use of BioSteel.
If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
"Surely, they've figured out that if you insert Tab "A" into Slot "B", a few months later, you'll have another mouth to feed?
And yet, if they continue doing it anyway, they're clearly not capable of recognizing patterns. Pattern recognition is one of the hallmarks of any measure of intelligence."
One of the sad things is that they may not have any choice even if they realize they can't support all their children. Let's say you're too poor to save much for retirement. Not only that, but the infrastructure for secure saving doesn't really exist (no compound interest for you, maybe not even a bank that isn't corrupt). Having grown children is your only chance to survive once you're too old to plow the field. Given the high rate of infant and childhood mortality, you've got to pump out a couple extra to make sure one or two stick around in your old age.
"I freely admit I haven't thought about it that much, but silk is at the very least, *less* disposable that the products that are usually created by biologicals."
Not really, it's just protein, and it can degrade or be digested. Many spiders will eat their own webs when getting ready to spin a new one.
"Thank you, Science, for ignoring a cure for many crippling diseases long enough to produce silk-lactating goats. Thank you, Science, for ignoring global warming, colonazation of the moon, sickle-cell anemia, heart disease, flying scooters, the Los Angeles Clippers, and nuclear proliferation long enough to create silk-lactating goats."
Your absolutely right. These Scientists much yield their control of their secret mines, where Science-bearing ore is hauled out of the earth and smelted into valuable knowledge ingots, knowledge which is too valuable to be wasted on such frivolous activies, especially at a time when we are faced with all the potential disasters you've mentioned.
I recommend we Nationalize the Science mines, so that their valuable output can be rationed to best serve the needs of the people, and establish strategic stockpiles of "Science" to protect us during times of ignorance.
Thank you.
Well open a charitable organization that I'd trust not to spend half the money given to them on internal affairs and fund raising and give them a web site and I'd donate. Better yet educate the poor buggers at the same time your feeding them in something useful like programming (PC's are easier to make available than industrial machines and the tech market would no doubt have plenty of room for people bringing $$$ into a previously poor areas making them tech consumers.. and Internet is fairly cheap to spread.. ) so they can then afford to buy food for their family. I don't go for charities that only feed people or teach them stuff that'll let them work a job where they make $2/week. Give them jobs that pay them US$100,000 a year and then we won't have to worry about them anymore. Bill Gates should feed and M$ educate them. Then he'd have a couple billion new people to force Windows upo and earn all his money back over and over again. :)
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Hey, I think the whole concept of NOT believing in a higher power is pathetic. Of course, I'm not ramming my beliefs down your throat while you're busy bitching that we're pathetic. I've got an idea: You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want.
Or, to put it another way:
A knight and a monk were traveling together silently for quite some time. Finally, the knight says, "You live a life of poverty, never knowing the touch of a woman, denying yourself all manner of delights, all because you believe there is a God. I do not share your faith. I tear the marrow from the bones of life, indulging myself at every opportunity. I've broken every law created by man and church, and I fear no consequence, because I don't believe in your God. My question, however is this: what if life ends in the groun, and man is nothing more than meat for worms? You will have wasted your whole life denying yourself for nothing. What if you die and learn there is no God?"
The monk thought about this and shrugged his shoulders, offering, "Then I suppose I would be sad. But tell me this, sir knight...what happens when you die, and you find out there is?"
--
Then I suppose I will be sad.
--
LOL, took the words right out of my mouth. +)
Mammary glands to produce silk? Hmmm, must be ;-)
a new high tech way to produce string cheese.
No, that's what turned Adam Sandler into Goat Boy...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I want spider milk!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yep, it all starts off innocently enough, but the next thing you know, people start making ropes and backbacks and yellow legal pads out of coca leaf fiber, and they'll design cars that run on poppy seed oil! It's just not worth the risk of legalizing industrial hemp.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Pain?
These cows will probably experience less pain than a normal dairy cow. They probably won't even know that anything special was done. It will be done to a few selected cells of semen, the cows will be fertilized artificially, as is currently normal, and the resulting calves will be tenderly cared for, and stand a better than average chance of reaching adulthood and reproducing successful offspring.
It's the normal cows who have some grounds for complaint, but the ones who really have ground for complaint are the veal calves. And the chickens. And the pigs, though to a lesser extent. I don't know where to fit in the turkeys.
Most modern farm animals are psychotic, and rightly so. A psychotic detatchment from reality is probably the only way to deal with their situation. OTOH, few of them are endangered as a species. Is it a good trade-off? Depends on who judges, and what their postulates are.
Of all the "domesticated" animals, I think cats are the only truly fortunate ones, with dogs coming a close second (the dogs really are domesticated, but it didn't do violence to their instincts).
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Actually, nobody said any of this is 'cool' or all good.' I imagine that many of the same groups that oppose hemp and abortion will undoubtedly oppose industrial transgenics. Sheesh, just because some small company has done it doesn't mean that it somehow gets a mandate from heaven. I imagine the anti-hemp and anti-abortion folks (or hell, much of anybody!) probably haven't even yet heard of Nexia.
Chill, man.
The "playing God" aspect of genetic engineering is not what bothers me about it. It's the playing with fire part that has me concerned (and the subsequent scorched fingers). Experimenting with the basic building blocks of life is a rather serious business, and while the companies behind this are taking precautions, they are still motivated by profit. How many companies have you seen rush a product to market, only to find unforseen problems once it is too late to do anything about it? There's no way to tell if contact with this goat-produced silk might cause some rare form of cancer five or ten years down the line, or cause every baby born in America to look, sound, and act like Steve Ballmer - imagine the horror!
I am not entirely against genetic engineering. It just seems to me to be a field with really, really high stakes. While I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination, the approach taken by these companies seems cavalier at best, considering the risk. New solutions often create new problems, and I feel that we should concentrate on existing remedies before we open up what could very well be a Pandora's Box of creepy mutations and whatnot.
That being said, a third arm and another head would really help with my game of Brockian Ultra Cricket. Hmmm...
Homer: You mean you can't eat any animal? What about bacon?
Lisa: Nope
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: Nope
Homer: Pork Chops?
Lisa: Those all come from the same animal!
Homer: <Sarcasm>Right Lisa, one very special, magical animal!</Sarcasm>
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
But that's how Spider-Woman does it! Just gives 'em a squeeze, and the bad guys are trapped.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I like your post a lot, but I think you've misunderstood the poster that you're replying to.
He didn't seem to be decrying genetic engineering, just the hypocrisy that we live with in the US. Not luddite at all.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Well aren't you an arrogant fool. Stupid too.
First off, money means dick. You don't need money to grow food, you need land great enough to sustain the people living on it. If there are too many people then they can't support themselves. End of story. But do the people spread out? No, they stay there and reproduce like bunnies until 5% of the earth's surface contains 20% of the earth's human population. Why? Because humans are stupid. Almost all of us are ready to follow any cultural tradition that has been passed down through the generations; blindly and unquestioningly. In most of these countries offspring are what people consider wealth. That tradition is killing them.
Secondly, you say that we could easily provide enough food so that no one goes hungry. While technically this is true, it is impossible for us with our current abilities to distribute food to all of the hungry people throughout the world. If you think it IS possible then you're falling victim to your own arrogance. There are so many obsticles in the way of food distribution to the areas that need it that it's rediculous. You have corrupt governments, vast distances, oceans... The list goes on.
I know this sounds cold hearted, but it's the facts of life. Neither greed nor nature is killing people. Our own stupidity is killing people. The only thing that can save them is going to where the food is!
It's the George Bush's, John Sununu's, and particularly Rush Limbaugh's of the world that are why we haven't done anything about global warming. Scientists have been worrying about global warming, and been ignored by politicians (and the media, and hence the public) for at least 30 years.
All of these issues (except maybe the Clippers) get ignored and their proponents squashed by a simple factor - how much money either industry or the US government sees fit to invest in the necessary R&D. And that in turn is very much determined by public and consumer interest in these things. If you feel they are important, get out there and evangelize! But don't blame "Science".
Energy: time to change the picture.
Not only are a good chunk of scientists traditional religions (Hindu, Judiasm or Christianity), but I'd challenge that assumption that people in technology fields question their beliefs rather than follow blindly the words of another person.
Look at the Cult of Steve Jobs, the vast army of people who believed that Bill Gates could single handedly solve the Y2K problem, and the people who follow RMS and his Software Must Be Free ideal.
And that's just computers... get into architecture, civic planning... just about any technical profession, and you'll find sharply defined groups that follow preexisting concepts, often blindly.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Why the hell would they do that? The core tenents of Christianity are "be good to each other" and "spread that message around". The teachings of Christ were that one should teach people to be good to each other, no matter what their contribution to society or how "bad" they are (Jesus hung out with the "unclean" and "harlots" and said they all people are worthy). That way the meme of self-sacrifice and being good to each other spreads.
Now, you can cite tons of baggage hung off the side of that message, or you can say "but that society didn't need the message", but I doubt you can say that the core message... the intent... is bad. Look at the original source (Jesus), and those who are revered for their sacrifice in the Catholic church (Mother Teresa).
And yes, I have serious problems with many Christians and some Christian organizations (having marched for Pro Choice and Gay Rights), but having a knee jerk reaction against religion is just as bad as the people who have a knee jerk reaction against technology.
The core concept of most religions and sciences and technologies are the same: to help people. It's amazing that they conflict in people's minds.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
And the knight says 'Well, it was damned fun while it lasted.' :)
Thanks to the whole genome thing, to create a freak, it's as easy as cut n' paste.
Well with the new spidergoats, Spiderman will have to deal with a new enemy.
-- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
Better make sure you keep your goats seperate or we could have some problems. Uhhh, joe.. which one is the milk goat and which is the silk goat...
Don't proteins get filtered out in your body anyway? Although I suppose you'd be able to market this as an alternative to calcium . . .
Yup.. just think.. if you drink this stuff enough you'll eventually have this web clogging your intestines and stomache.. MMMM MMMM good!
Nah. Once we get rolling we won't bother engineering a cow to make the perfect meat, we'll simply engineer meat to grow without a cow.
If you think about it, all the bits you don't eat are a waste product. It's much more efficient if you simply don't grow it.
Imagine a machine that extrudes perfectly marbled sirloin, without any gristle. Just chop them to the desired thickness and you've got your steak. Quality control could be almost perfect because you'd dump pure raw materials in and get steak out, no need to use anything like ground sheep parts and risk BSE.
Who needs a cow, which is just a circulatory system for nutrients, to grow a steak? The steak doesn't need exercise, it just needs to be 'told' to grow as if it was exercised. That's just chemical cues.
This would be perfectly good reasoning weren't it for the fact that cross-pollination between industrial hemp and marijuana would effectively kill the THC content of your marijuana, so you will get perfectly concealed but totally useless weed grown in your industrial hemp field. Which is exactly my problem with genetically altered crops, how do you prevent cross pollination? It happens all the time in nature, why wouldn't a herbicide resistance gene cross pollinate into the weeds you are trying to get rid of in the first place?
-- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
Well, never done coke myself, but before doing pot I went straight for amfetamines, which you aren't supposed to do before weed either.
-- Spelling and grammar errors tend to be a sign of erroneous thinking.
To all those who raise their voices to proclaim the evils of genetic engineering, I'd just like to remind people that we've been doing this sorta thing for centuries, albeit a little bit slower.
Domesticated dogs are the prime example of this. From a chihuahua to a great dane, all of these animals have been carefully inbred for a long time to produce certain ideal qualities. Unfortunately, many of these breeds are now exhibiting rampant genetic defects. I don't remember which is which off the top of my head, but certain breeds a prone to be born with brain damage, while others go blind almost invariably.
So what's different about what we're doing now? It's a bit quicker, we've got a wider range of options, and we know what we're doing to a greater extent. There's still a lot that we don't know about, but from the Human Genome Project onwards, we're making some serious progress.
For an analogy that fits most people here, the past practices of selective breeding are like slowly and meticulously swapping jumpers around. But now we've actually got the chance to look at the documentation before making any changes.
Knowledge is power.
You're just a figment of my imagination. Go away.
d00d, 17 h@pp3n3D 70 M3
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
If that is your worry on this then you are too late. Cows. (We enslave them, and force them to convert water and grass to milk.) : )
Seriously, this is not much different IMHO, from breeding cattle to have udders that are vastly larger than would have occured in wild bovine... The transgenic part of it is whats kind of creepy.
And, in other news, The Spiderman movie thats coming out next summer will have an updated origin story. (like the new Ultimate comic did, too..)
Apparently, ol' Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically altered spider, rather than a radioactive one. I guess radiation isn't as unknown and high-tech as it used to be, whereas anything genetic seems to be filling the technobabble gap now that we know that radiation mainly just kills you in extreme doses, rather than mutates you into superheros.
Other way around. The printing press broke the monopoly that Rome had over the Bible and literacy. This monopoly extended to quite a few things but literacy was the biggie. Once the common person could read the Bible in his own language, the Protestant movement became unstoppable. Since there was no need for the message to be dispensed from the pulpit of the R.C. Church, people became more and more independent from it. Economically, Protestantism also was more profitable sicne it emphasised, among other things, righteousness through faith rather than forking out wodges of cash to the priests.
Martin Luther, arguably the most influential early figure in the breakaway from Rome, had at one time published nearly half of all books circulating in Germany at the time. The printing press was - and is - the friend of the Christian right.
The modern parallel is of course the Internet. Rome = modern governments, printing press = Internet + cryptography + PCs. But I digress...
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
If you had actually read the article referenced, you would see that what you expect is exactly what the article suggests. The milk coming from the goat teats contains the spider silk proteins, which they can then extract and (they hope) do something with. The article in no way suggests that these goat teats spin silk threads.
Part of the reason for resistance is that farmers want to be able to save their own seed, especially if they are economically living on the edge. There's a big problem around IP in commercially engineered crops and the developing world. GM crops generally cannot produce viable seed, because the company wants the farmers to come back year after year to make purchases. A shift to commercial GM crops would entail taking people who are just about powerless and making them utterly beholden to a few very powerful international companies for their continued survival.
We already have a food surplus. The USA and EU feed their grain to animals instead of people, because "economics" says that your hamburger is more important than the life of someone you will never meet. Don't get me started on overfed "right to life" hypocrates.
I share your feelings, but it's way more complicated than you make it seem. The problem is that we haven't figured out how to organize a society to produce the right argicultural surplus and to distribute the surplus to every place it is needed.
We can say, look, here's all this grain rotting in warehouses or being fed to cows and all we have to do is ship it to Ethiopia, but as logical as it would seem we don't have the economic mechanism to make it happen. Even if we wanted to, we'd have to find a way to make farmers grow human edible crops that would be acceptable to the consumers. Sure, when the people are starving they'll probably accept anything, but when the locally grown crops are doing OK then all those sweet pototoes are going to be rotting in US and EU warehouses, and our capital and energy intensive farmers are still going to want to be paid.
In the end, the starving of the world cannot and probably should not have to depend upon being fed from the surplus of the rich. I feel it woule be better to raise them to independence and if possible to put them on an equal footing with the EU and US.
There are some GE projects that are attempting to create better subsistence crops that will be in the public domain, such as sweet potatoes with higher protein content. I think this is good because it takes locally preferred crops and makes them better without creating a continuing dependency on the largesse of the first world. I also think that it would be great for people to learn to grow eat a greater variety of foods.
Of the thousands plant species on the planet that are probably edible, how many are used by people on any kind of a scale? Twenty? Fifty? Perhaps one hundred on the outside? It would provide better nutrition and less risk of crop collapse.
It's not such a bad idea for rich first world people to add new things to their diet. Recently I stewed some amranth, quinoa and barley in some stock and added a dash of tomato sauce. Yumm, and good for you too.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You didn't mean bisexual, you meant hermaphrodite.
Bisexual means you will have sex with males or females, not that you have both sets of reproductive organs.
No, the original poster was describing a situation where a creature would sexually reproduce with itself. It is true that this would be highly inefficient, and that asexual reproduction would make more sense.
Either one would be a lose, though, for a higher form of life because there are too many negative traits need to be weeded out using sexual reproduction and natural selection.
Your point is...?
--
Patrick Doyle
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
--
Patrick Doyle
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
The company: Nexia Biotechnology
The product: BioSteel
Drinking will help us plan!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IMHO I think the U.S. should just legalize marijuana and start a strong hemp production.
_ _ _
I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no god.
Before I start: All of this stuff is going to happen in the future, because if you Americans don't do it, us Canadians will, or the Europeans will, or the Japaneese, or the Chinese, or the Russians. Just because it doesn't fit into your morality doesn't mean much - welcome to globalization, and there isn't diddly you can do about it. All of my arguements follow from this point; You can debate this, but I see it as fact.
This is unrelated, but growing industrial hemp is a crime., but it's perfectly legal in Canada, about 40 miles north of the border. Take a stand on your government's international joke, er, war on drugs, or shut up and move. Listening to americans whine about the Wo(s)D when they all obediantly piss in a bottle to get a job is amusing.
Raising genetically altered mammals for industrial purposes is cool
You ain't seen nothing yet. I picked up a couple books on genetics at Chapters last weekend, just to see what's changed since the last time I took a biology couse (about 8 years ago, in high school). The amount of information being collected on how living organism works is absolutely incredible. People are beginning to apply lithographic techniques - commonly used to make chips - as templates to grow tissues with the ultra-fine blood vessles that before were impossible to grow artificially.
The nanotech people should take a good hard look at nature's nanotech - cells, viruses and how they work - I think that a lot of these advances are happening because engineers are finally getting the tools to work with life. It's potential benefits to mankind are absolutely amazing, and some might argue the risk is too high - maybe so - but someone, somewhere, IS going to do this stuff, because the benefits are too high not to. Chemicals and drugs that cost a fortune can be made cheaply and easily. Biological materials - like orange juice - can be mass produced in a factory, rather than pollute the earth with fertilizier and other pesticides.
Did I get something wrong here? Because the longer I think about it, the sicker I get...
Don't be ignorant and pick up some books and start reading. A lot of the panic out there is by people that don't understand the science - hell, mutations happen all the time and are part of, and required for, all life. It's just like anything else - I'm sure there were people that thought electricity was the work of the devil, and the good 'ol christian right had something to say about the printing press back in the day, too.
I think that by understanding and engineering the base principles of life, we'll be able to understand and evaluate the risks much more intelligently, for the benefit of all of man. These advances are going to happen; Find a way to deal with it. Pick up a book and learn about your good buddy, DNA, and cellular metabolism. A lot has changed since I last looked.
..don't panic
"Heh heh heh... ooh... yeah... right, Lisa. A wonderful... magical animal." -Homer
had a cartoon strip 'Dogpatch' and a creature called a 'schmoo' IIRC. Pretty close to your animal.
Mandrake 7.2 and KDE 2 for me? for free?
1000 SlashDot sigs
If we're creating all these different types of animal (i.e. normal goats and silk producing goats) doesn't that mean that we're increasing biodiversity? 1 type of goat to start with, now we've got 2.
Are you going to whine like this every time some scientific advancement happens that doesn't meet your approval?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Still, the question stands: how much can you drink??
SpidercowsI agree, from what I know of protein synthesis, it seems like they should just be able to put this "spider silk" gene into a vat of e. coli cells and produce millions of gallons an hour.
<BR><BR>
but then the goat thing made for a funnier slashdot article.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
"Thank you, Science. We'll keep the taxpayer dollars rolling in." Actually if you had read the article you'd know that the company's funding comes from their IPO, or in other words PRIVATE INVESTORS. So yes thank you, science for trying to make money, which is what most science is, a capitalist endevour. I really dislike the notion that all science is is publicly funded medical research for the "Good Of Man." Even most cancer research is done by drug companies hoping to get really really rich. And that's the way it should be. So it's silly to critisize scientists for pursueing "worthless" tasks, since they have their motivations.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
I think the fallacy in your argument comes at the point where you say that ants build shelter, therefore ants build tools.
One does not imply the other.
Not that I accept any other part of the argument. That was just the most glaring error.
I find it a constant source of amazment that a group of people who think nothing of daming rivers for electricity to run their computers, (one of the more environmently friendly forms of energy creation actually).
/.ers are biting on the same story we all rebel against when it's applied to us (internet bad, internet geeks evil) when it's applied to genetic engineering.
How is tinkering with genetic codes more 'playing god' then creating new lakes where there were none before, changing ecological niches, probably causing new species to evolve, to fit the new ecological niches created.
How about the effect from electomagnetic fields? New roads through the countryside?
Face it people, we're playing God. We always have. Chaos theory argues that our existance on this planet will change things, even if we all stood perfectly still and didn't move for all our lives.
Like any technology, there will be ethical considerations, and we'll screw it up occasionaly.
Can we cause irreperable damage? Probably. Can we use the technology to save ourselves? Probably.
On the other hand, one of those cosmic rays could zap one of us just right and randomly cause any given mutation "naturally". Does that make it OK?
Let's face it, we already have plenty of technologies that let us wipe out the planet earth. Anyone who feels like it can use one of them, or the new one. What this gives us is a whole new way to solve problems.
Being an optimist, I like to assume that we will cause more good then harm from new techologies.
Unfortunatly, the media finds it easier to sell (insert medium here) using bad news. So we all hear about 'clones' being evil (most of which assume a clone will be of the memorex variety, not the identical twin reality), and nanotech will destroy the earth, and the internet will cause our children to become porn loving, rocket launcher shooting, black clothing wearing, 3l337 hax0rz.
I find it suprising that so many
Nuff Said.
--
Remove the rocks to send email
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
I wonder what this means for my children?
I actually work on the air force base in plattsburgh and let me tell you. The security there is really bad. There are only about 6 rent-a-cops that drive around and only occassionally ask anyone where they are going. Anyone want to kidnap and randsome some goats? just kidding! But I always laugh when I think that Plattsburgh's claim to fame is a couple of spider goats....
Stable, well managed countries with no civil wars don't have catastrophic famines. Begging food from the first world is not and never will be more than a very temporary solution. Good governance is what is needed.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
I think it gets denatured when it hits the acid and stuff in your stomach.
All your dangifiknow are belong to us.
All your dangifiknow are belong to us.
This smells like a hoax. I think it'd be great 'n all but I just seems like we aren't advanced enough to target spider genes and the complex biological processes which produce the silk from it's specialized organs directly at the udders of a goat. I mean genes and the creatures they produce are a culmination of millions of randomly derived interdependent biochemical reactions.
At BEST I'd expect the milk from the goats to perhaps contain some spider silk like material (and I'm still skeptical), but there is just no way that udders are spinning silk as this article suggests.
His expansion plan? Spidercows.
.... instead, look out for the damn cowwebs between the barns.
Next thing you know, you wont have to watch out for cowpies,
And make SURE you look up when you walk in a dark alley.
-Egon
legal abortions can help people. heroin doesn't hurt people that much more than cigarettes and booze do, statistically. if heroin was illegal but opium was legal it would hurt much less people.
of course there's also no evidence that shows marijuana is a gateway drug
Natural selection is a sick and hideous process, suitable only for unenlightened beasts who don't know any better, and we should be more civilized.
That's a bullshit apologist justification attempt to allow us to sleep easier at night while people starve. These people aren't starving because they're inferior, or because of some defect, they're starving because they don't have the money that we do, because we control the means. Now, I know some people believe that the amount of money you have truly measures your worth, but that load of bullshit is for another day. Natural Selection is an analogy of artificial selection, where certain traits are bred into the species by Nature the way that we breed the fattest cows and the fastest horses. That is, if you wish to take Darwin's word for it. It relies on a scarcity of food supply.
In our case, there isn't a scarcity of food supply. As a people, we could easily provide enough food so that nobody has to grow hungry. We can easily foil what you consider to be natural selection. It's not nature killing them; it's greed, pure and simple.
I'm not asking you to personally feel guilty for it. I don't. There's very little we as individuals can do about it. However, that doesn't change the fact that any attempt to apply natural selection to human beings is not only disgusting and rude (and in many cases, racist as all get out), it just isn't true. There is no master race, and the traits which seperate the haves from the have-nots are so far removed from anything "natural" that it renders the entire argument as one big joke.
I'm actually not an environmentalist. I believe our fellow humans come first. Way to shoot down an argument I didn't make.
Except that you need money to own land to grow food on, dipshit.
Your Malthusian Law argument(which was written as a justification for the wealthy class who produced nothing but at least didn't reproduce) has been torn apart by people wiser than I, so I'm not goint to bother going into it.
Well, I guess this is sufficiently off topic, isn't it. Moderators, blast us all down to oblivion.
I capitalized it because we were taking about it as an entity, the way I'd capitalize the name of a corporation if we were talking about it as well. I do believe in a certain level of environmentalism, but it stops far short of the people who call themselves environmentalists, at least out here where I live. To bring this back on topic, and to prove my point: if genetic engineering helps feed the hungry, then I'm all for it. I don't care about the bullshit sanctity of nature, and I'm certainly not above "playing god" when it comes to helping those less fortunate (which is something it probably never will be used for, but a boy can hope).
I'm not exactly a socialist either, unless by socialist you mean that I can't stand to see people starve. I'm quite comfortable with the psudeo-caste system imposed by a capitalistic society, especially since I'm far from the bottom rung, but I believe that any society at any level should start with the basic premise that nobody should be starving to death.
And, most of all, I hate when pasty-faced computer geeks, surrounded by people who have provided for them since day one and afforded them every opportunity our society has to offer sits up and crows about how natural selection is killing off these people, because they weren't good enough. I hate when people talk about how they continue to reproduce like bunnies (trying to describe them as animals so we need not have any compassion for them) when we live in a society which promotes education, birth control, safe sex and abortion. Furthermore, in these developing countries, often people must have lots of children just to help them survive. In most places, a child is a boon, because it's an extra pair of hands to work. Only here, with our child labor laws and skilled labor force, is a child a burden.
actually, this IS a good idea. However, have they tested the quality and integrity of this new goatsilk? Is it really identical? For that matter, is there some high mutation rate. This could become a big problem in the fufture, you "think" you can make goats that produce chocolate milk... what you get though, is some sort of carcinogen. you KNOW this could happen, look at JPL they screw up all the time. Imagine if some pharmaceutical company did that.... -n-rs-
Did you ever notice that they always cross two very strange breeds of things, like in this case Nigerian Dwarf Goats? I wonder how cheaper the research could have been if they'd done something a little bit more common.
Plus, they always give these animals dumb names, once again, these two are named Mille and Muscade. I mean, is it me, or do you get the idea they named them after they made the breakthrough - just so they were something memorable. I highly doubt anybody initially named an animal Muscade. I figure, if you wouldn't name your child it, you wouldn't name your "pet" or "project" it as well.
And why did they choose spider silk as their concentrated trait. I find that as random as say the 3-asses from the south park episide. Next thing we'll be hearing about monkeys which milk silk, and ponies which milk silk, and so on...
Which brings me to my final thought: How stupid does "milk silk" sound. I tell you, its about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Next we'll be able to get red-meated chickens, chickens with four sets of breasts, and of course, pork with 3 asses (increasing the number of rump roasts available).
Genetics, B'AH!
You say you want a revolution?
Cancer cells don't grow into a living animal.
Even if they did, we kill animals every day for food, etc.
Cancer kills you. You have the right to protect yourself.
Don't argue for abortion with this kind of bullshit.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Actually, industrial hemp can not be used to produce the same psychoactive effects as its close relative marijuana. In fact, industrial hemp contains a relatively high level of CBD, a chemical that inhibits any effects that the plant's modicum of THC could have on a person.
Check out The Ultimate Web Resource for Hemp.
I do not really feel like arguing the validity of the 'stepping stone' myth regarding marijuana, but I tend to think that it is greatly overstated by its supporters.
The silk being just a protine, I suspect it would be easy to recycle into more silk of less quality... I think, I am not a biochem guy
Hey dude, just hit the "Reply" button and it will create a new topic
We have been changeing the genetic makeup of plants and animals for centuries. Most common farmyard animals would find it imposable to survive or even reproduce in the wild. I would rather we create new "species" of animals and plants to supply us with orgainc alterintives to "industrial" producucts. I am sure that the German Beef (beef sales are down 50% from fear of BSE) farmers would welcome the new market for GE produced products like goat silk. And enviromentaly speaking I'd rather have some goats makeing silk than a factory and all its dependant industrys just to make some rope. As for the "doing irreparable harm to the natural world" I don't see how farming and proccesing of animals is any more harm full than what the dariy industry is now...
What do you mean "Let nature be the way it was made" what do you think we are, we were made by nature, we are nature. You want to have every thing the way nature (in your view) intended, go live in the jungle or african plain with nothing but your naked self, and don't even think of picking up a rock to hit somthing with it. Because that would be un-natural...
We'll field test it at the next Oscars awards.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If the Spider Woman from the cartoon shot her webs out of her teats, I'd still be watching.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
> however most studies have found hemp which you post so innocently, often is used as a stepping stone to higher drugs. Not saying everyone is going to become a junkie, but I do say limits should be drawn on most things. Actually, most hard core drug users started by drinking milk.
Bzzt. What studies are you referring to? Show me the URL.
I bet they were funded by either the US Govt war on drugs or by the tobacco industry or both. In reality hemp has almost no THC, and America's legal drugs are the real gateways:
The article also says the spider silk gig is just a test, and the scientist wants to use goats to make medicines. These critters are axolotl tanks !
Sometimes it reaches people, but kills local food makers altogether. It's impossible to compete with free product. And after the wave of "aid" is gone, people starve MORE, not less. Usually humanitarian organisations do more harm than good...
What are you arguing? To allow all of it? To disallow all of it? Your post makes no sense whatsoever.
You would have a VERY hard time trying to convince me that the groups that are against hemp and RU-486 would also gleefully condone genetically altering mammals for industrial use.
Oh wait, I forgot...this is Slashdot. We moderate up every anti-conservative jab, whether or not it makes sense. :(
A much better commentary (IMHO) can be found in Waren Ellis's Bad World.
As a side note I found this fantastic column from the recommended readings section on Parking Lot Is Full.
Some day we'll just have the single ultimate animal and get rid of the rest. Then another 20 years down the line we'll find it's susceptible to some terrible illness like Ebola or HIV/AIDS. We'll be well stuffed then.
Does somebody want to draw anologies with the current possible problems threatening monoculture farming? Feeding cows on other dead cows seems to have given us BSE for starters.
Can anybody say 'biodiversity'?
> Their milk looks and tastes like the real thing, but once its proteins are filtered and purified into a fine white powder, they can be spun into tough thread.
.
I dunno about you, but I'd be a little bit wary of milk that can be spun into thread by filtering out the proteins. The very fact that they know what it tastes like seems to suggest that there are people that don't care. Don't proteins get filtered out in your body anyway? Although I suppose you'd be able to market this as an alternative to calcium . .
Chicks ARE cold-blooded, so it doesn't matter what we do to them. I want a spider-chick now!
;-)
[Warning: Impair your imagination before reading on]
Or how about one with vaginas all over her body. Much less chance to hit the wrong hole!
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Yes, humans are going to "destroy" themselves. For the last 50k years or so, or at least since we killed off all the neanderthals, humanity has been exampt from evolution. We have been the master of our domain. However in the end, we have outsmarted ourselves. Our own greed and narcisism will become the driving force for a new evolution, brought about not by lions and tigers and bears eating us, but by genetic alteration of our own genome. Within 500 years, homo sapiens sapiens will no longer exist as a species. Some new species of humans, derived from the current one will be in control of the earth. Someday there will be that famous knock at the door, as the last man on earth sits alon in a room. It wont be aliens knocking, but our own creations. The question is, are we ready to take the next step? maybe.
According to this, the gateway/stepping stone theory has been shown as false.
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
A thought just crossed my mind... what are the consequences of altering the genetic makeup of an animal that is poplar in certain cultures as a 'sacred' animal.
Cows and elephants in particular come to mind.
How does this impact on the animals religious perspective....
Just a though... don't shoot me.
;)
Forget the goat silk - I want goats that give me BEER!
Mmmm... goat beer
but i LIKE pointy objects, they are fun.
A blog about stuff.
I don't think he wants her to suck his wallet empty.
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
... which the goats promptly spun into webs to catch tin cans.
--
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
Is it just me or does alot of the genetic research going on seem a lot like the Alchemists during the Renaissance?
When will we find a genetic problem equivalent to turning lead into gold,
or... I suppose more fitting:
Create the goose that will lay a golden egg?
Right, and they realized they were wrong and moved on. How can you hold a grudge against an entity about something they did wrong hundreds of years ago, and totally ignore all the good they've done since then? Now I'm not Catholic, but I'm not going to say they are worthless when it generates charity and goodwill towards others.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
welcome to The Island of Dr. Moreau.
-
Of course scientists have already made huge contributions to fighting world hunger, and there's less starvation and malnutrition in the world than ever before.
Let's see, has the idea about putting caring above economics been tried before? Yes, come to think of it, in the USSR and China, among other places. The result? 100 MILLION people died.
Also, what's this bullshit about "right to life" got to do with it? The "right to life" Catholic Church is one of the biggest charity providers in the third world.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
And that is the day we gladly hand over the reins to such an obviously advantaged species, homo superior!
What the fuck? Let nature be the way it was made. We can always use nano or chemistry or physics to make fucking spider silk. We don't need to make a mutant goat. Thanks, Travis forkspoon@hotmain.com
The most egregious thing science has ignored is the Los Angeles Clippers. Why do they suck so much? Thanks, Travis forkspoon@hotmail.com
What are the implications of creating new transgenic species as biological manufacturing machines for products that aren't throw-away?
I freely admit I haven't thought about it that much, but silk is at the very least, *less* disposable that the products that are usually created by biologicals. Most everything else is food, so that what gets produced goes back into the ecosystem... If the average food product lasts three months before it's consumed, and these spidersilk products last for seven years, say, before wearing out... I wonder what the effect of introducing that lag time into the system will be.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Diversity is good.
God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Until some geneticist-version of a script-kiddie creates the roach-rat which multiplies and kills us all.
Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
Goats whose milk contains spiderwebs? Who is the marketing genius who came up with this idea?
If you're really looking for a genetic research which will instantly pay off -- create a goat who pisses with beer!
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
Now they just need to make a goat with 5 asses and all will be well.
That said, I am tired of reading constantly about people worried about 'playing God'. We can't play God, because we aren't God. I am not trying to get in a religous argument, I am just saying that genetics etc. is more 'playing humans' than anything. Flashback to the 1500's. Don't you think that electricity, camera's, and airplanes would be considered playing God? But as soon as something is trivial, it can't be playing God, because it's not on the edge of technology anymore. In 100 years are we still going to be arguing over this? Absolutely not. People will realize the enormous benefits that it could bring, and it will become a part of every day lives because it will no longer be difficult. Try saying that it's playing God then, who would care? You would look to them as the Amish do to us. I can't believe this comes from the very people that supposedly embrace technology.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
You are so right. While we're at it, all the resources, manpower, and energy uselessly consumed by the computer industry should be redirected to building homes, schools, roads, and power plants for these poor unfortunate folks.
Whats that? Oh, your little senseless rant does not apply to supply and demand economics on markets you enjoy. Sorry, didnt realize.
Clue there buckyball - being born isn't a blank check written on my checking account. Sorry.
Derek
What an excellent idea, it amazes me what a person with a problem can come up with. I'm suggesting a list below of other animal combinations that may be useful...
elephant tusks -> cows
Think of all of that ivory...
skunks smell + porcupine needles -> doberman pincher or pitbull
combine the ferocity of a good guard dog with the smell of a skunk and the needles of a porcupine and you have the ultimate home defense system. If the dogs teeth don't finish off the intruder, its smell and quills certainly will.
gills -> mammals
Just think, we could create a whole new sub-species of amphibious mammals.
swordfish -> horse = Unicorn!! eagles wings -> horse = Pegasus!!
The possibilities are endless. Perhaps these scientists may have opened up a serious pandora's box.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
Domain Names for $13
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
What we really have is a crisis of bad governments. Most of the food sent to hungry people either rots in storage and shipment, or is diverted before it ends up in the hands (or stomachs) of the people who are hungry. Aid agencies need more trucks, and better roads. Fewer cows in the EU or the US will not feed people in Africa. Better governments in the third world will.
Not necessarily. Some scientists have seriously considered genetically engineering animals so that the males excrete engineered proteins in their semen. It would certainly make a very interesting web shooter.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
But this quote is good evidence that these problems are hardly distinctive to genetic engineering. Companies produce new products with potentially serious health, environmental, and other consequences every day. Look at worries about cell phones causing brain damage, food additives causing cancer, cars causing pollution, etc. We don't even blink when people create those things, but suddenly flinch when people start talking about genetic engineering. There's no rational reason to be especially worried about things produced by genetic engineering relative to other processes- particularly when you're talking about a big thing like a goat that's comparatively easy to keep from escaping and reproducing in the wild.
If anything, genetic engineering like this seems likely to be safer than trying to produce new synthetic materials with the same properties. After all, spider silk is something that already exists in nature, so we'd have a pretty good idea if coming in contact with it were likely to cause cancer, acting like Steve Ballmer, or the like. The goat produced silk is chemically identical, just derived from a different source. And we already have some idea of the environmental impact of raising goats. Compare that to a new synthetic polymer. Because it would be completely novel, rather than simply a new way of producing an existing thing, we would actually need to study it much more carefully to be sure that it had no terrible consequences. And we'd also need to look very carefully at the environmental consequences of the factories set up to produce it, since their impact would not be known either.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
One thing that I'm a bit suspicious about is this quote:
While there may be some biochemical similarities, my understanding is that part of the reason that spider silk is as strong as it is is because of the precise physical arrangement of the protein fibers relative to each other, and that the spiders' glands contain special protein machinery that guarantees correct alignment. IOW, even if you can get the protein, you still have to "spin" it in a special way to get the properties you want, and the goats aren't equipped to do that. So there's a serious question about whether or not the engineered silk will actually be useful. Don't start saving for your ultralight climbing ropes yet.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
What bothers me is that the media never paints a truthful picture. So North Americans grow up thinking they're in a generous society that helps everyone and offers aid and help all over the globe. What about all the manipulation and interference that often plunges these governments into crisis, war, famine? Media organizations don't touch the awful truth, so really most of the people that don't open books on a regular basis have a bullshit world view. Then they go around arguing about how much money is being wasted on foreign aid.
If you want to argue food supplies and world hunger, beware that you know a little bit about what you're commenting on.
A good place to start would be the industrial wastage due to artificial valuation, and subsidies. It's a runaway manipulation by warring countries that doesn't benefit anyone.
Someone needs to tell me why fascists always go running to darwin like he's daddy with a brand new bike. When was the last time you saw the human species do anything NATURAL besides eat shit and fuck? Stop being so cynical.
So Ants use cognitive reasoning? Ants apply abstract math principles to build these structures? Ants build machines to make these calculations quicker. I could go on in this embarrassingly primary pedantic method you just used but I trust you get my point, the one that you seem interested in missing.
Actually, you'd have to smoke a telephone-pole sized joint of industrial hemp to get a buzz. The real issue is that it's otherwise indistinguishable from the kind that makes people paranoid, forgetful, and stupid, and leads them to more dangerous drugs. Industrial hemp is simply a cheap way to get a strong, useful fiber.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Actually, the regular consumption of "disease prevention substances" might end up being bad for you (and everybody else) in the long term.
It goes like this:
- Some disease prevention substances work by being "unpleasent" for viruses and bacteria (ie killing them).
- Viruses and bacteria mutate a lot.
- The more common it is for a certain substance to be in the host's body (the more people consume it), the more probable it is that those viral and
bacterial mutations face that substance. When it happens the best mutations survive and the others die.
- The next generation of viruses, bacterias will be born (and mutate) from some that are already partialy-imune to the substance
- Sooner or later a bug comes up that can thrive on the stuff (maybe even eat it).
- Now you have a viral/bacterial strain that's resistat to the substance
...
- ... and a substance that could previously be used to cure that disease and now is worthless
This problem also affects plants that are geneticaly modified to contain a certain antibiotic - resisting strains develop faster, and then the whole culture field (because of monoculture practices) die.Also because of this people shouldn't take antibiotics before they are actually sick.
Did I get something wrong here? Because the longer I think about it, the sicker I get...
Yes you did, Injesting RU486 is perfictly legal in the US, although Bush wants the FDA to 'reevaluate' it. Anyway, what exactly causes the huge moral sepreation between abortion and genetic enginering?
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
The US Army is majorly funding this endeavor, because many years ago they recognized the possibilities of such a new technology. They wanted it for use in super-flexible, super-light, super-strong body armor that they could also rig up with electronics so they could be fully aware of their surroundings in possible upcoming urban combat situations. They could also use the silk to make ropes that they could use to tow things around in air. They just have to think of a way to keep the plane connected to the rope.
Beyond the options the army has already come up with, this goat silk could be used as the frame for subcompact cars, which would greatly reduce the weight.
Instead of thinking of why goat silk sounds funny, why don't we all try to think of something to do with these endless possibilites. Happy hunting. !
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Got Silk?
"Ewww, what's that coming out of their goat?" "It's the new Intel Pentium V!"
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
that the first Spiderman will be a woman?
I think this is part of a larger problem. If you read the story (you should, it's pretty short) you would know that the military is involved in this. Why does that not surprise me? It seems like every major advancement must come for the government or corporations, while the people must wait years before they get any real benefit.
Growing industrial hemp would benefit the people of the United States more than it would the government (at least initially), but yet it is illegal. Why is this? Does it have to do with locating marijuana more effectively, or would it just not benefit the government quick enough? I think it is silly for the government to spend any more money on war while there are many things that could be done for the people of our country. Sure, it may trickle down to the common folk, but after how many of our tax dollars are spent?
Just out of curiosity I wonder what would happen if somebody ingested this goat milk...
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
Could this news be a little older? You'd think that this had been posted by hemos!
--And sektor spoke and said unto the people. Hey, buttwipe hand me the cheezeos.
This story appeared on the BBC science column months ago, check it out at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_8 89000/889951.stm. I posted the story back then and it got rejected. How come this is now interesting to /. users?? Thanks, not!
He had sisters, y'know.
Well, Webster's 1st definition of "repent" is "To feel pain, sorrow, or regret, for what one has done or omitted to do.". As with many words, the meaning of "repent" has likely drifted over time (the dictionary includes an example quote from Shakespeare).
Genesis 6:6-7 perfectly fits this definition, which can be confirmed from the now archaic positioning of the word "repent" in both verses, as well as the redundant statement "and it grieved him at his heart" in the first (Hebrew writings often utilize repetition for emphasis or clarification).
The 2nd definition of "repent" is "To change the mind, or the course of conduct, on account of regret or dissatisfaction.". Interestingly, the example given is from Exodus 13:17: "Lest, peradventure, the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.". This also fits, of course, and 1 Chronicles 21:15 is the same way.
Why is this absurd? Do we know every single tribe, bit of history, or variant of homo sapiens that has ever existed in history?
People screw up. And?
The rest of your references seem to be things that you think are just too silly to take seriously. Well, assuming the Biblical god is in fact a supernatural deity, wouldn't it make sense that he could do Special Stuff?
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." -- John 18:36
Incidentally, Matthew 23:36 most likely refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
I'd assume that everybody will, assuming there's any truth to the idea of the resurrection of the dead...
Mark 13:30 is the one interesting problem you have presented today.
One could assume that refers to what John saw.
Some readers may also be interested in the idea of preterism.
Oh, make your HTML a little less ugly plzthx
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
She didn't seem to mind...
This is a much more interesting attack than the ones you were making earlier. The Bible is actually far more internally consistent than you give it credit for, especially when you use such pathetic examples. You'd be far better off with your latest strategy: pointing out the many religious beliefs around the world and their sometimes subtle yet major differences.
You touched briefly on it before with your Nag Hamadi link, but it might also do you good to address the notion of "the Bible" as a monolithic entity, along with the fact that a council of sinful men took it upon themselves to announce to the masses exactly what the perfect God did or did not say, and exactly which directions of thinking were and were not to be allowed. A final point of interest is that the different councils came up with different sets of "acceptable" writings.
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
I'd say it's murder, and here's an analogy that I just came up with by my very own self:
Your house is burglarized, and for some strange bizarre reason the burglar brings a newborn baby with him and leaves it in your living room. Now, this burglary was quite traumatic; in fact, you can't stop shaking and crying. And you don't want to have this baby around, because even the sight of it reminds you of the horrible crime that was just committed. You want it out of your house now.
Are you justified in chopping this baby up with an axe and throwing it in the garbage, or should you wait for Social Services to show up, when you can hand the baby off to someone willing to care for it?
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
The Spider and The Goat
Surely bullet-proof vests made from goat's milk will strike fear into the hearts of any enemy...
Hey Paco! Looook at the Amereecan seesies!
---
Research for direct applications is done by private industry. Only companies huge enough that they could potentially profit from any far-flung application that might come from basic research (for example, IBM) are going to spend a lot of time looking for things no one ever thought of before, rather than figuring out how to put old ideas into practice.
Governments fund basic research, because they don't have to worry about whether they'll be the entity that finally benefits from the applications of that research. If any company in their tax base benefits, they benefit.
will we be seeing luminescent rodents in the sewers before 2050? Actually, on second thought this could be quite useful...
Yes...it will make life much easier for the eventual Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles that will live alongside them.
rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
The future looks more exciting than ever!
rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
In lieu of the mad scientist that should be here, allow me to say, "Mwah ha ha! They thought I was mad! But who's mad now! Mwah ha ha!
It's not as if "Science" acts with one mind. What you are saying is as ridiculous as me blaming you for the global warming and the Clippers. What were YOU doing this weekend? Maybe when you were out seeing a movie there was some homeless guy freezing to death in an alley, or dying from an OD, right in your town? And what did YOU do to stop it? Nothing. When you were watching Babylon 5 reruns this week, you weren't doing anything to stop nuclear proliferation, were you? Clearly YOU are at fault for these things and probably many more.
That's a stupid argument, isn't it? So stop blaming "Science."
About on par with "Guns don't kill people, people do." While it is true, guns/lawyers make it a hell of a lot easier and effective.
Oddly enough, while I'm not in favor of total gun control, I have no problems whatsoever with "Kill all the lawyers".
--
Dyolf Knip
That was very well said. I get really tired of hearing people whine that the latest toy is going to be our downfall. It's even worse when they claim it's because "It's unnatural". You want natural, go live in a fscking cave.
Best yet was that fool a week ago who said, and I quote, "I'm sick of technology. I wish it would go away, sometimes."
--
Dyolf Knip
I'm going to assume that you are a vegetarian, don't ever wear wool, don't drink milk, and don't ever use any product that was ever tested on an animal. Because if you did any of those things, you'd be a raging hypocrite and accomplishing nothing but wasting our time and space on /. servers.
--
Dyolf Knip
And even if there is indeed some Heaven/Elysian Fields/Halls of Asgard/Generic Post-Mortem Utopia, how do you know which one to put your money on? For all you know, the only way to get into the club is by wreaking as much havoc on earth as you can.
--
Dyolf Knip
And you weren't modded down, either. If you post without logging in, you start off with a score of 0. Read the /. FAQ, it's quite informative.
--
Dyolf Knip
Hey, that's a good point. How much stronger than this stuff do space elevator cables have to be?
--
Dyolf Knip
--
Dyolf Knip
I say again: Human interference in nature is NORMAL. It is OK for me and I don`t care the slightest bit. Genetic Engeneering is not and I have given 4 decent reasons regarding the danger it implies. I don`t think I`m overreacting, just merely summing up the consequences of allowing GE. Playing god is just one. Aah, ignorance.. such bliss!
:)
If you think I`m overreacting then there is something in you that labels these consequences I described as 'absurd', in any case, as unnatural. So you`re giving away yourself here in that you don`t really mean what you are writing
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Ok, Jorg, this was asking for it =)
1) We DID change our eating habbits. In fact we don`t eat that much meat anymore at all, except for chicken and lambs. People of 25 years of age have died of Creutzfeld-Jacob allready, and knowing the incubation period varies with about 10-15 years depending on the person and the contamination, we`ll be seeing a lot more of that in years to come.
2) Genetical Engeneering from a science perspective should be ok, but selling genetically engeneered plants and seeds is bad, for multiple reasons: A] The companies that can generate this more resistent seeds and sell them to farmers are big and very kapitalistic. Their only concern is to be able to gain more crops per acre, easier to 'manufacture', and to get a better price overall. The quality of the item is not the issue. But what`s even more scaring is that they are pushing natural seeds out of the market, thus making farmers dependent on companies for their seeds. They can do that by rendering plants impotent, so they don`t reproduce new plantable seeds. Call it kapitalistic slavery if you want, or 'free market' at play. It fundamentally changes farming, not so much the product, or benefit to the consumer at the end of the chain. B] From a more philosophical standpoint, the plants and seeds we know today are what they are through natural selection. And while researches are pretty confident that they can turn genes into feature on/off switches, they don`t have the slightest clue what certain combinations mean for future generations. Natural reproduction and selection has made nature adaptaptable in natural ways. In the long term, letting nature take it`s course means things that are bad die. If our genetic engeneerd start to interfere, thy may be able to push flora or fauna through, regardless of deseases, infections, bacteria that should have destroyed the host long time ago. The only thing that won`t b genetically engeneered (protected), is you, the human. And you can see what question is coming now, don`t you?
With great power comes great electricity bills.
B) Hmm, I get your point, but natural selection is not anymore part of human life. Consider our cattle: If it gets sick and we have a cure, we heal them. If we can't we kill them and (hopefully) burn them. Natural selection my *ss! We did the selection on basis of our concepts of "Good" and "Bad". As for human natural selection: that has gone a long time ago. Natural selection is based on the fact that many kids will be born and only the strongest survive. (read: the others die) Now, how low has child-mortality dropped in our "civilised" countries? How many kids does a woman carry in her lifetime? Two, three and all stay alive: if they have a heart-malformation or so....no problem we have surgery to "repair" them even tough they are very likely to give those malformations over to their own kids. Only third-world countries still have real "natural selection". Face it my friend: we have taken control a long time ago! If we lose control by creating something that will destroy us, then let it be that way: your cherished natural selection will be back in place faster than you can say "human extinction"
:) The fact is, I don`t dispute or argue against the fact that man interferes in his environment and it`s evolution (which has allways been like this, only more so the last couple of decades), because it`s a very natural thing. Medicine, hospital care during childbirth, and breeding better cattle have been influenced by man`s standards wherever he could. But what is bothering me, is that GE wants to control the blueprints of life itself, not just the powerconsumtion and the weatherforecasts. The beauty and mistery of nature becomes a computer game which switches genes on and off, for better or .. well.. certainly not worse if we can help it. But we don`t really know now do we. Suppose eventually children are genetically programmed like.. (I`m just wildly guessing here).. blue eyes, blond hair, excellent skin, teeth, nose, no deseases, no deformations, no malfunctioning organs.. all I need to sell this on TV will be a black mustache, a red flag with random black lines, and the word "Ubermensch", and we`re back in business.
Ah but you`re slightly changing the topic, here.
Surely humanity has learned from its mistakes.. or has it..
Klone versus Clone
With great power comes great electricity bills.
first of all, I have to say that this article is very compelling and makes me really wonder what all this genetic engineering can do.
:)
:) I fear the trolling that will go on tonight.
second, when will this "goat thread" be available on the market? if ever? i would love a pair of goatthread pants or something...blocks bullets and won't wear out.
thir of all, why does the date on the webpage read 02.19.01? is this even yet to happen? or is it a typo? or am i just delusional?
last thing...i find it immensly amusing that slashdot will actually post a story that involves goats.
The anti-salmon
A truly revolutionary advance is made in the field of materials science and, on the web's premiere technological forum, all we've got are tired political rants that, for the most part, don't even make sense.
I clicked on the "Read More" button to see applications the tech-wiz crowd could imagine for the strongest fiber yet known, and all I get is why communism was stupid and 50 posts on whether or not food aid is a good idea.
Even the forums at Salon aren't this bad.
--- Submission is feudal.
The only thing to prevent mass starvation is genetically modified rice or grain that acts like birth control. Less children = more food!
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
What use is a spidergoat if it doesn't have four asses?
That sounds like the Monkey with five asses from Southpark.
Wierd dude, wierd...
clown spiders with goat tits.
Wow, where can I get some of those?
Will we be able to just have a few of these repell down from the International Space Station and get a space elevator
...or will we just get a bad Saturday morning cartoon series...
Spidergoat Spidergoat
Ornery barnyard Spider goat...
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I know that the parent was modded as 'Funny,' but I'm going to reply seriously anyhow.
Genetic alteration would allow us to breed animals with human organs.
We're one step ahead of you, chief. Pigs, man, pigs. Pigs is where it's at right now. They are already modifying pigs to express human histocompatibility protiens on the surfaces of their cells (thus, human immune systems don't attack the organs). Two reasons for pigs, first, their organs are the right size (a big issue, if you think about it), second, pigs have few or no disease that cross infect humans. The ethics surrounding this are tangled, at best.
I took a graduate level class about the ethics of science last semester. We used sci-fi novels as our text books, and analyzed what technology is available now, and what we as a society will do with it. Then we analyzed the ethics of the predicted actions. I gotta tell ya, the future could be a really scary place.
I, for one, cannot wait for the day when a genetically modified, super race of humans rules the earth.
You should read the final paper I wrote for my class. A predictive paper about the future of technology and the ethical implications of its implementation. It is entitled "Future Predictions for the Growth of Human Enhancement via Gene Therapy"
I also wonder if you're a vegetarian. I hope so, otherwise you're a total hypocrite. These animals have lives no worse than dairy cows, and they save thousands of human lives.
So if you do know anyone who's diabetic, imagine them going blind and dying a slow death for lack of insulin. Then talk to me about emotions.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
"Jesus!"
"You said it man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus."
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
1) The usual golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." The other one (usually meant as a joke) is "He who has the gold makes the rules." I dunno what the fuck kinda golden rule yours is.
2) Why the hell do so many people think stuff like that? The universe does not obey your Sunday-school rules. Just because "what goes around comes around" makes a good quote doesn't make it true. Unless you want to invoke theological arguments, which have absolutely no place in discussion of facts, (Don't even bother flaming that one. I've heard everything you've got to say and I don't give a shit.) there is nothing which inevitably causes human ingeneuity to come back and destroy us. So fucking what if some sci-fi stories show humanity being destroyed by genetically altered organisms or overzealous nanotech robots? Life is not a $1.50 sci-fi novel!
Does the potential exist for genetically altered organisms to destroy humanity? Yes! Does the potential exist for nuclear technology to destroy humanity? Hell yes! Does the potential exist for the space program to piss off some alien race that then destroys humanity? Again, yes!
Does that stop us from exploring space or researching nuclear power? Hell no! Why? The potential to help humanity, combined with our drive to discover, outweighs the risk as an elephant outweighs a speck of dust. Should it stop us from examining the fundamentals of life and possibly using that knowlege? I think you know my answer to that.
Hubris leading to destruction may make for good reading, but in real life hubris leads to destruction a lot less often than stagnation does. Arrogance and "playing God" are the only things that keep human society moving and evolving. If, from the time God was invented, nobody played God, you'd be out ploughing your fields behind a couple oxen. If you got a scratch and it got infected, you'd have to amputate the limb. You would still believe that every body in the universe revolved (literally) around Earth, and that crossing the Great Ocean was not only impossible, but prohibited by God. I've got news for ya buddy: We are the closest thing to God this planet has ever seen. No, we don't control life, we don't control the stars, we don't even control the weather. But we damn well control ourselves.
Every visible major advance in science has met with incredibly vocal opposition, always on the grounds of "We don't understand this and we shouldn't mess with it." Well if we don't mess with it, we will never understand it. That's how we learn, by doing.
Technological advances have definitely contributed to human suffering and destruction. Not because of technology, but because of intentional, malicious action by humans. You can't stop humans from trying to screw each other out of food, shelter, and life, and you also can't stop us from learning and inventing. All you do by trying is make yourself look like a fool. You have every right to do exactly that, but don't expect too many people to listen.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
Good guess. Industrial, miliary and medical uses were mentioned in the article. They quoted the silk as being 3 times as strong as Kevlar. I can't remember how many times as strong as steel Kevlar is, though.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
But as a physics major, I'm used to this kind of proof being valid. For example, physicists have proven that all odd numbers are prime:
3 is odd, and it is prime
5 is odd, and it is prime
7 is odd, and it is prime
9 can be attributed to experimental error
11 is odd, and it is prime
13 is odd, and it is prime
From this, it logically follows that all odd numbers are prime. This has tremendous implications for cryptology.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
>Prove: Differential calculus.
define f(a,b) = a + b
set a = 0, b = 0
f(0,0) = 0
set da = 1, db = 1
f(a + da,b + db)=0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2
therefore df = 2
df = da + db
Good enough?
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
Do you really think that the pharmaceutical companies and the US FDA will allow this to happen? Super-humans that can live for ever, have desease preventative genes and grow their own medicine aren't really good for generating profits. As an aside: How would they stop genetic piracy? If they did produce apples that cured disease, how would they stop someone from planting the seeds or an off-cut to give to someone else? Are there licencing issues with spider-goats, do you have to register each one that's born ;-)
I don't really think our problems will be resolved at all and I'd bet on the exaserbation of quite a few other problems like natural mutation of virusues to bypass the the new genetic defences and loss of genetic diversity as has happened with penecillin.
And what happens when we have a planet full of super-humans the live forever? The planet over populates. So we start growing super plants that have a greater productive density than normal plants, yet the population continues to increase until we end up in the same position that we're in now except we've wiped out even more of te original ecosystem in order to feed more mouths.
And would the genetics companies give ability to design children away to the poorer people of the world? Doubt it, everyone would have to pay...
So we end up with an even greater divide between the haves and have nots.
I doubt this technology is at all about solving problems for the greater good over the longer term, it's only about making profit for profit's sake at the expense of the ecosystem for the shorter term.
genetically modified rice has met what they're calling "consumer resistance". That means the people who need it are not buying it
/. - it is Vitamin A enriched rice wich would save *THOUSANDS* of people from startving every year... is not being used because of *PROFIT HUNGRY CAPATALISTS* who will not release the rice because of their profit motive and *IP CONCERNS*.
That is *WRONG*! What you are refering to is 'Golden Rice' - I believe it has been mentioned here on
It is really just another example of profit whores fucking the rest of the planet... Read about it here (Skip down to "Dissemination: IP Constraints and Testing").
The whole project has been held up for years due to IP issues and legal problems.
I hate to break it to ya, bub... But here it goes...
I don't see Umfufu, or Tareldiquishimomomo offering up some nice, fat, meaty ribs for the grill.
Cow tastes good. Humans don't. Period. We feed cows grain because were we to offer them some poor, hapless third world national, they probably wouldn't eat it.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Is it just me, or has anyone else started having nightmares about this one backfiring?
"His expansion plan: SpiderCows"
Cow gives birth to orb spider's the size of calfs with poison milk shooting out of their as...er.. abdomens.
Don't say it can't happen look at the killer bees.
Arachnaphobia anyone?
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
If it were just a matter of producing some proteins and seperating them from a mixture, you could genetically engineer bacteria to do it.
Actually, they did. I don't have a link to the original article, but there's mention of it here.
There's a nice very in-depth paper regarding self-assembling biomolecular structures here. Figure 6 is especially pertinent, since it shows the current model for how the glycine and alanine residues are oriented in spider silk.
But don't get me wrong, I very much agree with you that going from a bunch of subunits to a strand of silk isn't as simple as they make it sound. I can only assume that the researchers have found some way to make it work (no other reason to spend all the time and money making the goats) but are keeping it secret, probably because they're not quite ready to publish yet.
---
4-star general in a one-man army.
It's Cindy Crawford, I'm sure she already does, and it smells like air freshner...
The entire continent is afraid of the food itself, because it isn't strictly natural
Uhhh... I think, in Europe, I'd be more afraid of the beef than the genetically modified rice.
I think this should serve as some sort of proof that the European agencies controlling food are not to be emulated in any way in the rest of the world.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Sorry to contradict you, but this has been done already, and the genetically modified rice has met what they're calling "consumer resistance". That means the people who need it are not buying it. Because, presumably, they have no money as well as no food.
Or maybe they've been brainwashed into thinking that it'll give them three arms by all the ignorant, tree-hugging, unemployed, sociology hippies.
Three arms. I should be so lucky.
Until we start caring about world hungerI care about world hunger. I wear a little [insert couleur du jour] ribbon to show that I care about world hunger. And that makes me a good person.
Yessir, I care that millions of people live in Bangladesh, for example, an entire nation that is, like, no more than ten feet above sea level at the delta of the Ganges River. And that the Ganges can best be described as India's sewer, and that despite the fact that these poor helpless Bangladeshis routinely get all their farmland wiped away by a wave that could have propagated from Flipper doing tricks off the sunshine state's coast in 1962, these people still breed with all the good sense towards sustainable population growth of yeast cells in grape juice. And I feel bad for them, because I'm a good person, and because I'm not emotionally mature enough to accept the fact that the world is a cold, hurtful, evil and unfair place, I'm going to hold over your head the fact that your life hasn't been ruined by the stupid choice of farmland that your ancestors made.
Because I'm a good person.
How can you all sit back and watch while the process of natural selection occurs?
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Also, what's this bullshit about "right to life" got to do with it? The "right to life" Catholic Church is one of the biggest charity providers in the third world.
Oh yeah, and they're just wonderfully committed to the right-to-life concept.
Uhhh... What was the death toll from the Inquisition?
Someone has to hold religion accountable for its many undeniable atrocities. History is littered with religious genocides. I'd rather have the free market economy look out for me, than government or religion.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Natural selection is a sick and hideous process, suitable only for unenlightened beasts who don't know any better, and we should be more civilized.
Okay. Fine. Noble thought.
But I'll also bet that you consider yourself to be an environmentalist. Most people who espouse such socialist views are, of course, environmentalists.
The process of natural selection is natural. Hence the name, "natural selection". Right?
Now, by straying from natural selection, as you suggest, aren't you saying that man can take care of things better than nature?
Isn't that contradictory to your (assumed) position as an environmentalist?
Environmentalism and socialism are, in fact, mutually exclusive for that very reason.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Now I'm not Catholic, but I'm not going to say they are worthless when it generates charity and goodwill towards others.
Oh no. The church does things entirely out of the goodness of its heart. For sure.
I'm sure that's what everyone right on up to the pope wants to believe. But is that really what's going on?
I'd therefore *challenge* the Roman Catholic Church to go to deepest, darkest Africa, passing out food and water, teaching the people to read and write, without ever once mentioning anything to do with religion, showing one cross, or passing out even one bible.
I don't think they could do it. They'd be too fixed on "doing unto others" by converting the "savages" into good pope-loving Catholics. I'm sure for every single person that a church member feels that they've "saved", that particular individual would be experiencing a very human and very rational sense of pride and accomplishment and power.
Which are the very things that conventional organized religion says are wrong.
And yet, I believe it to be the ulterior motive that powers them.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
[sigh]
I basically define the anti-communist, my friend.
Now, counterpoint:
India vs. Pakistan.
Northern vs. Southern Ireland.
Croatia vs. Serbia.
Israel vs. virtually every Muslim in the world.
Muslim vs. Muslim re: interpretation of Koran.
Rome vs. just about everyone else.
Colonists vs. North American Indians.
Colonists vs. South American Indians.
Colonists vs. Colonists re: Paganism, Salem, MA.
...
The scope of this is staggering. Yes, I'm anti-religious bigot. I admit it. But it doesn't take a terrifically open mind to see why.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Natural Selection is an analogy of artificial selection, where certain traits are bred into the species by Nature the way that we breed the fattest cows and the fastest horses. That is, if you wish to take Darwin's word for it. It relies on a scarcity of food supply.
Yeah, you capitalize "nature", which almost for sure means that you're an environmentalist.
We can easily foil what you consider to be natural selection.
And yet, in the same breath, you also tell me that we have to enact worldwide socialist policy and thwart natural selection.
"Natural" means "of nature". Natural selection, therefore, is nature's process of ensuring that only the strong survive.
When 1,000,000 people choose to live in a place where the land can't grow enough food to support more than 900,000, who's gonna die? The weakest 100,000. That's what I call natural selection. And, in fact, I think if you asked any evolutionary biologist, he'd agree with me, not you. And it's going on throughout the developing world. Yup, it's not just what I call natural selection, it's the real thing.
And socialist concepts like feeding those who can't feed themselves flies right in the face of nature, which you love so dearly that you capitalized it.
So, you're suggesting that humanity can better control its evolution than nature?
That's insanely contradictory to Capital N - ature.
So, choose now: socialism, or environmentalism.
You have a choice that will make your brain explode: People die of starvation, or the implied statement that man is, after all, smarter than Nature.
You know, my biggest problem with democracy is that it allows people as dangerous and contradictory as you to have an equal saying in the running of a society. I really hope that you recognize your conflicted and dangerous views and refrain from voting.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
...that I have ever had the frustration of encountering.
The biggest problem with genetically modified rice? It can't reproduce. By DESIGN. To line corporate pockets. So people don't want to be locked into a food monopoly,
No. Because harnessing any technology involves risks. And the benefits of the technology have to outweigh the risks.
GM produce is a boon to agriculture because it offers advantages that ordinary vegetables just don't have. It grows in colder climates. Or hotter climates. Or dryer climates. Or wetter climates. Or is immune to natural pests that make for smaller crops.
GM produce has an unfair advantage to ordinary produce. What happens, then, if a GM rice plant is allowed to reproduce in nature? Wouldn't it squeeze out virtually all ordinary rice? Upset the ecosystem by being immune to the rice beetle and therefore starving them to death? No more rice beetle = no more birds eating the rice beetle... etc...
So, the risk of GM technology is primarily that it will get out of human control.
Now, if a seed for a GM rice plant gets out of human hands and grows somewhere, that one plant will live, and will be unable to reproduce, and will die out.
If it could reproduce, wouldn't it take over?
So, to say that biotech firms are doing this exclusively for profit probably stands in my personal record book as one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life.
I suggest you read a book and get an appreciation for how the real world works before you converse with people or, worse still, vote.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
When was the last time you saw the human species do anything NATURAL besides eat shit and fuck?
Ants are natural. They came about before us, and therefore without human intervention.
Ants build complex civilizations with heirarchial structures.
Tools are things that I build with available materials in order to simplify my existance.
My computer is a communications and entertainment tool.
Shelter is a tool for keeping me warm and dry.
Ants build shelter.
Therefore, ants build tools.
Ants are, again, natural.
Tools are therefore natural.
Therefore, my notebook computer is natural.
Almost all of what ants do is based on building or acquiring tools or food or reproduction.
Almost all of what humans do is based on building or acquiring tools or food or reproduction.
Human behavior is therefore natural.
If ants build a civilization where there is insufficient food to feed themselves, they die.
If humans build a civilization where there is insufficient food to feed themselves, they die.
Therefore, intervening would not be a natural act.
I fail to see where my thinking is wrong here.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
I'm actually not an environmentalist. I believe our fellow humans come first. Way to shoot down an argument I didn't make.
And yet, in another reply, you capitalized the "N" in nature.
I've encountered a lot of socialists in my time and they all claim that they're environmentalists.
I live in a socialist country, you realize. I've been to meetings of a socialist party, the "New Democratic Party" (and lemme tell you, it wasn't by choice). I'm also very much aware of socialist policy. If you're a socialist (which you've admitted you are) you must be that one in a thousand that isn't an environmentalist.
And yet you capitalized "Nature".
Most people don't do that.
Interesting.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
I know that I will always protect myself and my family before I help someone else... Ok, ok, I'm a communist. So sue me.
Nope, you're not a communist.
A communist would say that you have to share all the wealth equally. Therefore, yourself and your family would only get as much time and care as everyone else, even if you happened to be a better provider.
Money is, after all, only a tangible representation of time.
Many people around the world are looking at exploding populations and hunger, but a people who cannot feed themselves do not have access to birth control, which would give them the freedom to intelligently consider the repurcussions of reproductions.It's not rocket science to figure out that if you can't feed your kids now, having two more of them is not going to improve the situation.
Contraception and abortion (yes abortion) give a society reproductive options that help control exploding populations and societies time to develop new economic options. Without those options they simply have to rely on high infant mortality.Or, how about abstinence? That's the lowest-tech form of birth control that I know of. And it's the most foolproof.
Surely, they've figured out that if you insert Tab "A" into Slot "B", a few months later, you'll have another mouth to feed?
And yet, if they continue doing it anyway, they're clearly not capable of recognizing patterns. Pattern recognition is one of the hallmarks of any measure of intelligence.
So, they're probably not very intelligent, and are therefore probably too weak to survive the process of natural selection.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
but spreading out wealth and education to try to ensure that fewer large groups get left behind not only will increase there ability to compete, it will also increase markets, which will increase the size of the available pie to be eaten.
You're going to spread out the wealth for which I work hard? You're going to take it from me?
Okay. Fine. Do it. So be it. If I can't keep what I work for, I won't work as hard. Screw it! Instead of enjoying the extra money that I would make if I opened that second business, I'll just sit back, throw my feet up on my ottoman, and watch television. It's not worth my time to do more.
And then the available pie shrinks.
What's the difference between socialism and communism?
Socialism seeks to ensure that everyone has a piece of the pie, regardless of how unfortunate they may be. It redistributes wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven't.
Communism redistributes the wealth equally among all the people of the society, regardless of work ethic, skills, ability, etc.
By my economics and political science training, the two are separated only by the premise behind which the wealth is distributed, but the net effect is the same.
Why does communism universally fail?
Because, if you can get your 300 rubles with or without going to work, how long are you gonna keep going to work?
Similarily, socialism doesn't work because if you can make as much money on welfare as you would if you were working, how long before you hit the welfare rolls and stay home watching Jerry Springer?
What does that do to the country's gross domestic product? And therefore to the prosperity of its people?
Yeah, people are lazy. That's right. If you try to use an economic philosophy that doesn't recognize that fact, you are doomed to failure. Communism is a great idea that can never work. And socialism provides everyone with a wonderful safety net that you cannot prevent people from abusing.
Capitalism may be unfair, but it's the best system man has come up with. It promotes hard work with success. It punishes laziness with failure. It's a terrific motivator.
If socialism is such a great thing, why is it that Canada is leaking skilled people to the United States inexorably? Biggest single reason: high taxes (used to pay huge social programs everywhere). Second biggest reason: unions, another socialist tool that seeks to redistribute wealth, interfere too much with running a business. Net effect: less businesses, and therefore jobs, stay in Canada.
Finally, if communism is such a great thing, why was there a Berlin Wall?
And, why is it gone?
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
when pasty-faced computer geeks, surrounded by people who have provided for them since day one and afforded them every opportunity our society has to offer sits up and crows about
Pasty-faced? Nah. Quite healthy, occasionally suntanned (though not deliberately, it comes from the fact that I often spend summer days carring 100lb of tools through a junkyard while I'm looking for something).
Computer geek? Proudly. But also a car geek, an electronics geek, a literature geek, an A/V geek. Hell, even a radar geek. I've got a Decca 303 PPI on my roof and in my living room. I'm diversified.
Surrounded? Nah. I'm mostly a loner. I'm very feline, though I do enjoy the company of a few very close friends.
People who have provided everything for me? Hmmm. No. I'm a high school dropout; at least half of the reason for that is because - while it's not anyone else's business - I'm gay, and academic life was not for me because of the stresses of school.
High school, as a good-looking straight-looking, straight-acting gay guy who is being harassed by all the rest of the guys for the fact that I'm not going to the school dance, was a living hell. Unless you've lived it yourself, you cannot possibly understand.
Further, I failed my senior-level English Writing class because I was too busy writing a paying column for Popular Electronics magazine to bother doing an assignment where I had to read a book and regurgitate the info to "prove that you can write", as the teacher put it. Needless to say, the pointless futility of the task in the face of something where I could continue to make a name for myself merely helped to sour me on academia.
I didn't come out of the closet until I'd lived on my own for 4 years, at first working at a McDonalds, then gradually dragging myself to a sound and lighting company, and then to TV freelance work where I found myself, a leader in my field, doing sound for Bill Clinton. From there, to a position with a division of Litton.
Fine, though higher education and perhaps a more comfortable future was offered to me, I couldn't accept. With a lot of hard work, motivation and determination, I did it all myself.
Thank you very much.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Chicken = Bird = Warmblooded...
Birds are warmblooded and as far as I know their body temperature varies from species to species but is constant within a species (some have a body temperature of over 42 degrees celcius)
I don't have link but consider this: coldblooded animals like fish and reptiles are very inactive if the temperature of the environment is low: they conserve their energy by keeping immobile if possible. Birds on the other hand do fly on cold winter day: flying is "hard work" for a bird and thus they must be warmblooded.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Well, the chicks you talk about are not cold-blooded, but cold-hearted! What do you want a spider-chick for? She'll tie you up in her web, and suck your wallet empty ;-)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
1) I want white roses for my funeral in 10-15 years when I die from Creutzfeld-Jacob. Please remember it because I won't
I hope my mom made a nice juicy steak for dinner today! (Sidenote 1: Chicken huh? Does the word "Dioxine" ring a bell. Sidenote 2: Lamb? This means baby-sheep! You child murderer!
2)
A) I did not talk about the economical implications, nor about issues of Intellectual Property and Patenting and the things Capitalistic Corporations just love. Not that I don't care, but I think that eventual usefull findings should be used in favor of the whole humanity. Patenting Genetically Engineered species should not be possible, and the fact it is possible in most countries just shows how greedy humans are!
B) Hmm, I get your point, but natural selection is not anymore part of human life. Consider our cattle: If it gets sick and we have a cure, we heal them. If we can't we kill them and (hopefully) burn them. Natural selection my *ss! We did the selection on basis of our concepts of "Good" and "Bad".
As for human natural selection: that has gone a long time ago. Natural selection is based on the fact that many kids will be born and only the strongest survive. (read: the others die) Now, how low has child-mortality dropped in our "civilised" countries? How many kids does a woman carry in her lifetime? Two, three and all stay alive: if they have a heart-malformation or so....no problem we have surgery to "repair" them even tough they are very likely to give those malformations over to their own kids. Only third-world countries still have real "natural selection".
Face it my friend: we have taken control a long time ago! If we lose control by creating something that will destroy us, then let it be that way: your cherished natural selection will be back in place faster than you can say "human extinction".
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Yeah, I know that of course. But imagine you were spider-woman, what would be the better choice: tying him up and get away with all his money, or tying him up and well, suck that other thing empty?
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
You find that the intereference of man with his environment is a natural thing. I agree, it is natural for every living creature to interfere with its environment: cows produce methane, some bacteria create peniccilin, trees create oxygen. This is all part of the balance in the environment.
Man, however created specific breeds of species to suit his own needs. These breeds woudn't survive "normally" or if they did they'd adapt fast enough (on an evolutionary scale) back to a more "wilde-nature-efficient" form.
For example, don't you think that in "the wild", dogs like Labradors and Shepherds have more chances of survival than those bitchy poodles and chiuwawas? I think that if we let all dogs lose and did not feed them, we would pretty soon see appear a Wolf-like dog again.
We chanced other species over centuries and centuries, and it isn't "natural" because we let them f*ck normally. To say it in computer terms: up until now, we tweaked the kernel of life by changing the compilation parameters, genetical engineering will allow us to change the code in the kernel. I know we will get some coredumps sooner or later, but I think those will be a lesser evil against the benefits we can get out of it.
Oh, and as for the Ubermench? I'd like to see my kids be perfect: I have bad sight, genetic tendencies to alcoholism, bad skin and no sex-appeal. Well, if I could correct all of those bad traits of me in my kids, I'd gladly do. They'll be much more happy than me.
You don't need an Adolf Hitler to propagate an Ubermench. Any parent would want a perfect kid, and will probably embrace genetical engineering on their progeniture if it were legal. We'll get enough ubermenschen fast enough that way. But all those ubermenschen will still be different from the other ubermenschen since each pair of parent will have a different view on "perfection".
Actually I think that a todays Hitler would have a hard time inflicting his "perfect-human" vision on this eventual followers. He would have to promote artificial insemination of all females with genetically altered fetuses. Now, it is one thing to follow a leader,...but how many women would volunteer to carry such babies? (I mean that standardized ubermensch you described)
Besides, I like brunettes with brown eyes better.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I really didn't change my eating habits because of some media-hype that will calm down in some months.
On a side note: I'm not really concerned with Genetical Engineering either. If you look at it technically, it's just as if the animal/plant mutated naturally. We woudn't even know if a natural plant was in some way mutated.
Besides, we didn't start genetic engineering right now: we did it for centuries by selectively breeding animals/plants with the characteristics we liked. Or were you convinced that it is natural for a cow to give milk all year long? Genetical Engineering has been here all the time, we just do it in labs now.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I bet if you were willing to fund your own biased study you'd find alcohol and/or smoking were also stepping stones. After all, what percentage of heroin users are also smokers? By that reasoning you can spin it however you want. The real test to see if it is a stepping stone is to find out how many marijuana smokers (or tobacco smokers) end up as heroin users.
Hey, didn't Tex Avery invent this for a Warner Brothers cartoon? If they try and patent it, we have prior art!
Consider me a more sophisticated troll... the kind that gets modded up to 5 for throwing the Apple of Discord into a discussion. ;P
I felt ill because of my lack of power over these domains. We ("human" we) aren't actually democratically saying "Yes! I agree."; these choices are being made by authoritarians and technocrats with no sense of responsibility for long term human "wellness", just their own selfish political or economic advantage. It's a sign we are sick, and THAT makes me sick.
It's 23h59 again. People should wake the hell up.
We thieves, we liars, we vandals, and poets. Networked agents of Cthulhu Borealis.
Raising genetically altered mammals for industrial purposes is cool, but growing industrial hemp is a crime. Custom-designing living beings is all good, but ingesting RU486 in the first trimester is murder.
Did I get something wrong here? Because the longer I think about it, the sicker I get...
We thieves, we liars, we vandals, and poets. Networked agents of Cthulhu Borealis.
This has certainly been done already. And there's huge resistance -- but not because no one can buy it. Consider all the pending and existent legislation in Europe against "frankenfood." The entire continent is afraid of the food itself, because it isn't strictly natural. Whether this is a justified concern is a different issue, but what can you do when consumers and governments are afraid?
spider-silk: redundant
--
--
You are a fucking moron.
The problem is not the base intent of religious organizations, the problem is in the implementation of that intent which gets clouded with irrational mandates from the Vatican and overzealous and corrupt religious figures. People like the Bakers don't exactly help the public's image of large faith-based organizations. Hypocritical policies which engender hatred and ignorance to other people's points of view turn people away from religion. Religion and technology don't have to confict with each other, the way i see it, people in scientific fields examine their faith more logically and don't always choose to follow the rest of the "moral majority" and instead move toward non-organized religion. Religion is what you make of it, not what John Paul tells you. People in technology realize this and form their own views on faith and religiousness.
Evan
====
All things in life are subjective. At least that's what I think.
====
"white bread, redneck, chicken-shit, motherfucker" -- Dr. Dre on "Straight Outta Compton"
We used to think that we were going to destroy our species with nuclear bombs... maybe some still do. We ARE going to destroy ourselves, but it won't be with a big boom. In our rush to play around with what's possible, some little genetically altered critter will get out the lab and the human species as we know it will shortly thereafter cease to exist.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, and maybe I don't understand the technology enough, but I've just got to believe that screwing around with nature like this can only end up with dire consequences.
Someone please tell me I'm wrong...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Yes, there are some issues with patents that are getting in the way, but that has more to do with European bureaucracy than "profit hungry capitalists" (who happy to have food hungry mouths to feed themselves, so of course they want to make money).
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
no fucking way to distribute it.
wait -- NO, IT'S BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE FUCKING ASSHOLES AND WE LOVE STEAK@!
fisfhcuerk.
uh, if you feel so insecure about living among the bourgeosie, maybe you should sell your computer and shit. er.
Is anyone else thinking this man was a hell of a ways before his time?
(If this post doesn't make any sense, you've got a lot of worthwhile reading in front of you)
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Consider this, about a year ago on Ripley's, there was an engineering student who had developed a synthetic spider silk epoxy. He made a suit out of the stuff and they tried to crush him, shoot at him and they had footage of him facing down a bear in the wilderness wearing this outfit. They hooked chains around a car, had the chains attached to a little piece of cloth, to which a small ammount of this epoxy had been applied, the car was then suspended in the air by that little piece of cloth. Like many other proteins in nature they could be self organizing.
Now I'd have to agree with the bad side to Genetically engineering a person, we could end up with something like a eugenics war happening as the unmodified grow suspicious of the modified who may or may not be abusing their new genes. The problem with ethics is there are too many unethical people.
For all we know, we could set into motion something like the story behind the terrans in starcraft (Uneccessary mutations are outlawed and you are purged if you have them), or in the star trek episode 'space seed' the modified believe themselves to be a master race and try to exterminate everyone else. *just my rant*
Now making us more disease resistant is not in my opinion bad, however some people believe differently.
What exactly is that post supposed to prove? You've done nothing but quote a few poorly translated scriptures out of context.
ex: Your first example: Nowhere does it say that A&E didn't have other children, nor does it say God didn't create other humans besides A&E.
The Bible shows people truthfully -- as human beings. At times, they are awesome people who do so much good.... at other times, those same individuals commit horrid acts. That pretty much sounds like most of the individuals I encounter every day.
You either accept or reject the Bible based on faith... just as you would Islam, Judaism, Humanism, or any other belief system. Stop pretending that you have somehow made sense of it all.
-
The IHA Forums
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Likewise, calling what happened to the Native Americans a result of religion is severe distortion. The church had some influence in the area, its missionary activity was draining, and it did nothing to stop what was happening. But the death, destruction, and enslavement happened because people could.
Religion has played a major role in a lot of wars, but mostly because it's a convenient ground for hatred.
Silk took a dramatic drop. And also, spiders are no longer useful to us, so we shall kill em all!
I kept thinking about the scientists comment about the spiders being cannabilistic and that they could not farm their silk because they would kill each other. As a child I would capture black widows and place them in seperate jars so that they would not kill each other. Why hasn't this dawned on these scientist's? Instead they take the complex route and they breed goats with spider genes. Why not farm these spiders seperately? The cost of feeding them would be less then the cost of feeding goats. Another question I have is why did they choose goats?
Why not farm hemp?
Why not grow hemp? It doesnt require a factory and it is environmentally safe.
Mothballed air force base...that means it's out of business. The government got rid of the base (that means it's not government property any more). If you actually read the article, this goat thing was done *privately*, with private funds, on private time, and on private property. The U.S. Government is deserving of enough scorn without making up false rumors.
In Frank Herbert's "Dune", the filthy Tleilaxu use their women to manufacture everything from synthetic spice to "gholas" (essentially reincarnated people). Is this where we're headed?
-Duke
I guess we'll be seeing those spider silk bullet-proof vests sooner than expected. Certain kinds of spider silk are multiple times as strong as steel thread of equal diameter. URLs of interest:
Spider Silk Biotechnology
ABC News calls it "Bio-Steel"
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
Apparantly output potential for the goats is equivalent to 1 kevlar vest a month per goat, and the vests would also be about 1/5 the weight of current kevlar vest. Having worn those rigid things for a better part of the summer teaching kids how to throw grenades and launch rockets I gotta say it's a much needed improvement.
This has been a popular subject in the Montreal area for a little while.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Now that's what I call spinning a yarn!
I adblock all animated gifs.
Blessed be the prime numbered slashdotters
This is like the simpsons where the townsfolk destroy all the science museums in town and then moe gets hurt and says "i hope medical science can help me!" so dont complain about it until the day comes when you will never need it.
- yezzz, my name is a joke.
you wont say genetics bah if you suddenly needed a baboon heart! but anyway, that not my point. my point is.. why didnt they use a cow instead? i cant imagine its mammories would be that much genetically different than a goats.. and it would be able to make more smilk.
mmmmassive mmmmammories!
- yezzz, my name is a joke.
blame science for taking too much time for that, but didnt the article say something about the military too? should the nation's military be spending time tending to goats? Thank You, Military!
- yezzz, my name is a joke.
The article says that the goats don't actually weave webs (the first thing to cross my mind when I saw the article), but they produce the proteins which are filtered from the milk and are spun into silk by machine. My question is this: In a few years, why will we need the goats? Now that we can produce the proteins in quantity we should have enough to research, which should lead to a technique for artificial synthesis, right? And by artificially synthesizing the protein, we (a) should get a bigger yield (we wouldn't have to have an enormous herd of goats to meet demand), and (b) wouldn't have to worry about many of the ethical questions brought about by genetic modification. Perhaps one of you biochem people could let us know if I'm barking up the wrong tree or just ahead of my time =)
Today's sig brought to you by http://www.swankypimp.com
It appears we are in a conundrum. We can manufacture all manner of materials, polluting the environment with waste products. Or we can genetically modify animals to produce goods. Either way, we are doing irreparable harm to the natural world, so which choice to we make? Are we respecting the sanctity of all life more by ruining a habitat or by changing lifeforms' genetic makeups for our benefit? WWBD - What would Buddha do?
Today's sig brought to you by http://www.swankypimp.com
Hopefully soon we can all enjoy spider-chicks, with web shooting titties. Wouldnt really want to suck on them though... perhaps though.
It sounds just real enough, but just farfetched enough. I will be keeping an eye out for more on this -- it looks too much like a Joey Skaggs-style joke.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Worse, knowing that it was spider web technology would make my skin crawl!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
I thought I had an appetite for destruction, but all I really wanted was a club sandwich. --Homer J.
Also, silk has only tensile strength. It's compressive and torsional strength is crap. No sky-scrapers built of silk, no cars, no bridges, no dams. It's got to have compressive and torsional strength for that.
Concrete is the opposite, having immense compressive strength but no tensile strength or torsional strength what so ever... You, as in a normal human, can probably put enough tensile strength into a small rod of concrete to break it.
Steel, OTOH, is a good mix of all three, having excellent torsional strength; fairly good compressive and tensile strength, but not excellent of either. That is why we imbed rebar into concrete, so it has tensile strength.
IAACEM (I am a construction engineering major)
Turner's goats may run dry if the spider silk hits it big. His expansion plan? Spidercows.
The goats are just for experimenting on. The cows will take the brunt of the abuse. But after all they're "just dumb animals" that "don't have feelings" and "can't feel pain."
$ finger #timmy
$ finger #timmy
invalid use of finger
$ finger #timmy
$ finger #timmy
invalid use of finger
The same way they do it now. The make the plants infertile. Seeds don't grow. Welcome to the wonderful world of Genetic Engineering.
$ finger #timmy
$ finger #timmy
invalid use of finger
True. But that doesn't mean we should rush into things. There are lots of pitfalls with GE. The potential exists to destroy the species in question as well as species unrelated to the 'experiment'. The process and the results should be tested thoroughly on a small scale, over time. Then moved slowly into greater production.
Have you ever made a code change, then run a simple test instead of doing full regression testing? The code change introduced a bug, but it was already in production by the time you realized. The customer was pissed.
Now multiply that by the environment.
$ finger #timmy
$ finger #timmy
invalid use of finger
Well that shocked the socks off of me! A slash dot post that is concise, intelligent and to the point.
Perhaps if we could get a few more of these....
McSweeny's did a great interview with some key people in this around August 1999. I don't mention this so much for the na-na old-news taunt but to mention McSweeney's because it is the most hope-inspiring awe-tingling side-crunching source of all things good I've yet to find in any 'journal.' Here's a sample of questions the obliging scientists answered - excerpted from the full interview (it appeared in the third volume of the journal, it's not on-line) INTERVIEWER So, how long before I can get a three-pack of bulletproof underwear? (response - 3 - 5 years). INTERVIEWER So to sum up, you're taking dwarf goats from Madagascar, and inserting the gene(s) of a black widow spider into them, thus altering their DNA so that they will produce, through the natural process of lactation, spider silk in their milk...Not to be crass, but basically these are silk-squirting baby spidergoats? ... SPAGNA (scientist@Berkley in response to INTERVIEWER's question about timothy leary's spider experiments) I found a few pages once ... showing drug vs. normal webs from caffeine, LSD and adenochrome dosed spiders ... (shows a book illustrating the LSD dosed spiders made *improvements* in their web.)
INTERVIEWER Wow, caffeine = bad; LSD = not so bad. Shouldn't we extrapolate this to a human scale, for instance, supplying LSD and other hallucinogens, to, say, architects and construction workers?SPAGNA ...these questions are extremely important ...there are very few social arachnologists ... INTERVIEWER Dr. Lewis, do you have any ethical concerns yourself with spidergoat research? Dr. LEWIS (U. Wyoming) ...Since my kids and I raise sheep, which started as their 4-H projects, I don't have problems with raising animals for a variety of uses...
See you just don't get quality journalism like this from Forbes.
*kill my sig*
closed minded is as closed minded does
This could be a good thing from a structural point of view. Spider silk has a higher tensile strength than any known man-made cable, so a manufacturer could concievably replace a steel cable with a smaller load of spider silk cable. And since it would come out of goats, it wouldn't be as hard to manufacture, as all you have to do is feed the goats and occassionaly collect the threads.
Yes. Like any new technology, when it first comes out it will be used to insulate the already wealthy. The time that the engineered food will become useful to the people that need it is about 10-30 years after it is developed, once the technology has been refined and mass-produced to become incredibly cheap and widespread. Of course, by then there will be new technologies that assist only the rich, but this has always been the way of things. Think about it. We're just now getting to the point where personal computers are starting to become cheap enough for even low-income families to have one. I recall an article on /. a while back about how Brazil (I think it was Brazil) was manufacturing super-cheap computers so that everyone could have one. PCs have been around for a good 20 years in a form recognizable to us now, and just now is the technology trickling down to the common man.
TV was the same way. When it first came out, only the super-rich could afford one. A few years later, most every middle- to high-income family had *one*. Then, a few scant decades later, there's an average of like 3 per household in the U.S. ::shrug:: /s
Knowledge != Intelligence
OK while this may not be incredibly useful in of itself it does show that we now have the capability for truly miraculous things. I have no doubt that someone here will accuse me of wanting to play God or something similar but I personally feel that the benefits of genetic manipulation far exceed and potential problems. Milk that is naturally fortified with every single protein needed? Foods that produce their own pesticides that affect insects? The possibilities are truly endless. Now, all we need is some penguins switch a few things around and boom, flying penguins, oh yeah!
Mephisto's 7 assed turtle?
'Same speed C but faster'
I was going to rant about cruelty to goats, which is a hot button issue for half the readership of slashdot, and a hobby for the other half. But then I realized that compared with dairy cattle, who have essentially the same things done to them on an industrial scale, these goats don't have it too bad.
Sorry to contradict you, but this has been done already, and the genetically modified rice has met what they're calling "consumer resistance". Have you ever had a strawberry, and noticed that it seemed to have two tips? Do you think that happen in nature all the time? NOO (well, they do some of the time). It is a common practice in fruit and vegetable production to double or triple (or more) the number of chromosomes, which usually results in bigger fruits...with a few side effects as with the strawberries. As far as natural resources (food)...you don't really think there aren't enough for everyone, do you? The U.S. alone has the resources to produce enough food to feed all of the starving nations in the world AND their animals, and to feed their animals to other nations, and we're not the only ones with an abundance of unutilized farmland. Keep in mind that genetic engineering of plants is a really, really old practice. They called it splicing.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
So...
SOMEBODY DRANK MILK FROM A GOAT THEY GENETICALLY ALTERED?
Now theres a real geek. I can just see it now:
"Hey, Bob get over here. We have something we want you to try."
"What is it?"
"..."
"Well?"
"Its...milk"
"Oh. Cool! *glug*"
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Dwarf-Goatman, Dwarf-Goatman, does whatever a Nigerian Dwarf-Goatman can.
This is another step on the road to custome crafting organs for people or creating new, powerful medicine. Such amazing times...
There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood.
Scientists at an undisclosed facility in New Jersey, were able to successfuly clown spiders with goat tits. These spiders could be mass produced and due to their small sized, easily shipped to people in need of milk. Also in news, salvation army has laid off 90% of their workers, in order to generate enough money to buy the patents to this process and the genes of the booby spider.
Trust the source!
I've got one. Why don't we genetically engineer human beings with a conscience? Here's another good one. Why don't we engineer empathy towards the creatures who will eventually be in constant pain from us placing strain on their bodies? Or better yet, why don't we alter the idea that we don't really need to be making goats that make us superstrong climbing lines?
Basically, you are saying that the next best thing to do is to re-customize beings that have already been customized by the environment for millions of years. Its interesting how fast humans can throw their agenda on even the most agendaless thing like natural selection to make "appropriate changes" that they see fit, or even REPAIR the "mistakes" of nature. I agree with some of the earlier posters. Please just manufacture machines that make the products you want, and leave any creature with a nervous system alone. I don't care about disease resistant fruit. Do as you please with it, but leave anything that can have emotions far away from this.
Let's make goat-spider-crap deamons that spit fire!@!@ They could attack people and...actually they would pry never attack anyone because people would be scared shitless by looking at the freak goats. Maybe we can cybernetically graft a jet engine up the things ass too so that it could go 88 miles per hour like doc brown and travel into the future....I mean what else do we have to do, right?
We now have silk-lactating goats. We shall rejoice.
Thank you, Science, for ignoring a cure for many crippling diseases long enough to produce silk-lactating goats. Thank you, Science, for ignoring global warming, colonazation of the moon, sickle-cell anemia, heart disease, flying scooters, the Los Angeles Clippers, and nuclear proliferation long enough to create silk-lactating goats.
You may think this is sarcasm, but now that we have silk-lactating goats, we will no longer be short of silk when we need to use one of the many applications of spider silk. These include
1) Decoration for movie sets involving creepy stuff
2) The tailoring trade skill in Everquest
3) et cetera.
Thank you, Science. We'll keep the taxpayer dollars rolling in.
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
I knew that, but I wasn't trying to make a legitmate point, just trying to be funny. :)
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
I think the military should have no problem with the afforementioned LA Clipper problem. All they have to do is issue the woefully inept Clippers firearms.
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
The article doesn't even say that it's been proven incorrect - it just says that the rate has been dropping for people born after the 70's. Oooh... big news there - not as many people doing coke now as in the 80's - kinda obvious.
All it really proves is the power of education and awareness, as more people understand the devastating effects of "hard" drugs and are waking up to the fact that weed isn't instant death, their are more people smoking weed who don't graduate to blo. It doesn't mean that there isn't a higher frequency amongst pot smokers of hard drug use than their is amongst the general population.
If nobody ever re-invented the wheel, we'd all be pushing around flintstones cars, wouldn't we?
I used to work for American Cyanamid (now BASF) in Princeton, New Jersey. They had a program engineering an insect specific virus, called a baculovirus, for control of caterpillar pests. The wild type of the virus can be found nearly everywhere. In fact, those of you who have eaten your veggies have eaten baculovirus. The wild type virus kills its host, but too slowly for commercial use. So American Cyanamid (and Zeneca, Du Pont, and many universities) had a program to hasten speed of kill by adding insect and arachnid genes. We had a very large collection of living spiders and scorpions. Venom was milked and components were cloned. The last virus I worked with expressed both scorpion and honey bee venom components and could kill a caterpillar in a day. It was perfectly harmless to anything other than the ~30 species the wild type infected. EPA blanket approved the technology. Everything looked rosey until cries of "frankenfood" arose. Then, very quickly, all commercial efforts were shelved. It seemed that marketing types were convinced that the public would never accept a genetically engineered virus expressing insect selective toxins. Just too scary... ... but there they sit, in cold rooms and freezers in many countries around the world. An elegant solution with bad press potential.
airuck
Nature is full of toxins. Many synthetics are completely inert. Why would anyone accept the use of natural vs. synthetic as a safety criterium?
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
I wonder if they take any precautions to insure that genetically modified animals are unable to reproduce? Obviously they're only producing females, but can they still mate with unaltered males? Seems this would be relatively easy to deal with, but you don't hear about it.
I found the article very interesting. Now we can filter the protiens to get the proper stuff. using nano bots we can knit this.
Hmm lets get creative.
mix skunk squiting genes, octopus multi-leg genes, fly eye genes, and squid ink genes
what do you get
optical character reader and duplicator in monochrome
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop music news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Now my mom can not only get really pissed when she can't find a store to find goats milk and goats cheese in Florida, she can also get pissed when she can't find a store to buy replacements to her clothes made of goats milk that ripped execept that... goats silk doesn't rip... so I've sort of written myself into a corner... and I'll stop now.
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
As a Popular Science reader wrote in a letter responding to a article about advanced combat gear, there is going to be less and less of a point to living in the future if all anybody can think to do with new technology is kill others with it. Of course I do recognize that many if not most major technological advances to date have been made to advance a military cause, but as long as the immediate response to a new technology is to incorporate it in new pointy objects, we could be running into some serious problems in the near future.
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
God's clever, talking serpent. Gen.3:1
And? That was also when serpents were winged, and one of the most beautiful creatures on the earth. Back before God condemned all of them to live their life on the ground, hated by all men, and forced to crawl on their bellies. Hey, it wasn't the serpent's fault that Satan decided to take the form of a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve. But God still punished all serpents... Why? To teach Adam and Eve the immediate repurcussions of their sin, along with the initiation of the first sacrifice of a snow-white lamb, one of the most innocent creatures in the world. They're all lessons to learn that are more important than the creature that is being used as the canvas.
"And Cain knew his wife." That's nice, but where the hell did she come from
From the many many children of Adam and Eve? Some people have 12 children in about 20 years of reproductive life, wouldn't it be safe to say that if Adam really lived to be 900+ years old that he could've had at least 500 children?
The "sons of God" copulated with the "daughters of men," and has sons who became "the mighty men of old, men of renown."
Thank you for proving my assumption. Stop taking everything so literally. Sons of God is a common reference to upstanding men all through the Bible, and daughters of men can be translated however you want, but it still means women. Actually, since the King James version of the Bible was translated during times where sex was bad, it seems like a very politically correct way of them saying, "Adam and Eve's children multiplied with each other."
"There were giants in the earth in those days."
Once again, a matter of translation. I'm betting the house that its a reference to dinosaurs... you know, before they invented Latin and derived all these words that we take for granted today. It didn't say giant men, that was taken care of back at "the mighty men of old, men of renown."
"God repents. Gen.6:6-7"
God was very sad that his creation had turned so wicked. It doesn't give details, but does say that every heard was selfish, and continually thinking evil thoughts. Not a nice place to live, I guess. Most people say "God failed, he's supposed to be perfect but created imperfect beings!" No, there were still a few righteous people on the world, as there have been before and after. This time it was Noah and his family. And God protected them since they believed, and gave them a new home without all the wicked people. He made humans special; He gave them the ability to worship Him or not worship Him. He gave something that he created the right to say "I don't want you involved in my life." Its a very normal base need for us as well. We definitely care more for the woman that loves us when she could have another, and we don't respect the man that is told she MUST love him.
Noah, the just and righteous. Gen.7:1
Noah, the drunk and naked. Gen.9:20-21
Yes, he is just and righteous and was a drunk who liked to get naked. Everybody has bad habits and makes mistakes. But God ignores those and looks at the heart. Lesson: Stop trying to be perfect; you can't. Instead, try to show compassion and empathy and generally be a nice person.
Lot [the just and righteous (2 Pet.2:7-8)] offers his daughters to a crowd of angel rapers. Gen.19:8
I don't see any contradictions here. Are you saying that he should have told a rowdy crowd to "get bent" and offered nothing? Or should he have offered the messengers from God as they wished? His faith was stronger than bloodlines. He was committed, and was trying to mediate with a mob. Additionally, the angels blinded and confused the mob when they became violent, which means that if they had accepted Lot's offer of his daughters, the angels more than likely would have not accepted it.
"Jacob goes in unto Leah by mistake. Gen.29:23, 25"
Translated: Sometimes you do alot of work and get screwed when you ask for payment, no pun intended.
As for the issues with Moses... If you don't believe the Bible in the first place, then how can you argue that God is not the most powerful in the "series of exchanges" between Moses and the Pharoah? Additionally, the Frog was one of the egyptian gods, so God was trying to teach yet another lesson to Pharoah. Also, after the egyptian mages performed their "trick", the Pharoah realized that the frogs from Moses were no trick, but the real thing. So he called Moses and pleaded with him to have his God take the frogs away! Quite a humiliating position to be in, having to ask a follower of another God to take all the mini-gods away because they were being such a nuisance.
God didn't TRY to kill Moses. He was THINKING about killing Moses, because Moses was not following one of the commands that God gave him, which was to circumcise all his children, so they could be known as children of God. (Additionally, they would have far fewer diseases and irritations to deal with in that climate, during a time when bathing was not one of the top priorities, saving his children the irritation of a bad scratch, and helping them maintain their fertility.) Moses' wife stepped in, circumcised their child, and therefore God was no longer upset.
Moses' referral to his uncircumcised lips means he stuttered. No, they didn't have the word stutter back then, but its quite obvious since right after that, God appoints his brother Aaron to do all the literal speaking for him.
If you've managed to reach this far, I can refute all the other examples you cite in each subtopic, but really don't have the time right now since its 2am and stuff. In the meantime, refute my refutations here and I'll counter-refute your refute of my refutations in the morning.
Protector of Capitalist views,
Protector of Capitalist views,
Meorah
Actually, there is evidence that reservoirs contribute significantly to air pollution. All those gases from decomposing trees and such actually appear to cause a significant amount of air pollution, something I never would have thought of. You don't normally think of a big body of nice, clean water as being a pollution hazard.
In a concrete bunker on a mothballed Air Force base in Plattsburgh, New York, two Nigerian dwarf goats named Mille and Muscade joyfully munch grass and slurp water. Oddly, they are protected from intruders by security guards and razor wire.
Its sad to see that no one will ever question the ethics of the US government and their genetic tests. Surely this isn't the only test they've done, as I'm sure we could all gather at this point a summation of nightmares lurking somewhere.
So what happens when something goes wrong? Who do you point the finger at the scientist or the government? Scientist only do what they're instructed when in military roles, military only follow chains of commands which are so wishy washy when the s##t hits the fan, that you can't pinpoint the finger, or you end up settling for a scapegoat.
Animals were not meant to be bastardized like this and with experiments like these remember the golden rule, what goes around comes around.
Science shouldn't tinker with these types of issues then masquerade them off as if their concerned with finding solutions for life when their solution is based on greed for money.
br.
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
God's clever, talking serpent. Gen.3:1
"And Cain knew his wife." That's nice, but where the hell did she come from? Gen.4:17
The "sons of God" copulated with the "daughters of men," and has sons who became "the mighty men of old, men of renown." Gen.6:2-4
"There were giants in the earth in those days." Gen.6:4
God repents. Gen.6:6-7, Ex.32:14, 1 Chr.21:15
Noah, the just and righteous. Gen.7:1
Noah, the drunk and naked. Gen.9:20-21
Lot [the just and righteous (2 Pet.2:7-8)] offers his daughters to a crowd of angel rapers. Gen.19:8
Jacob goes in unto Leah by mistake. Gen.29:23, 25
God teaches Moses some magic tricks. Ex.4:2-9, 7:8-11, 7:17-20
God tries to kill Moses. Ex.4:23-25
Moses has uncircumcised lips. Ex.6:12, 6:30
God's first plague on the Egyptians: Rivers turned to blood. Ex.7:17-22 (Pharaoh's magicians knew this trick, too.)
Second Plague: Frogs. (Pharaoh's magicians do likewise.) Ex.8:2-7
Third Plague: Lice. (Pharaoh's magicians couldn't do this one!) Ex.8:16-18
Ahh yes and there a lot more absuridities where your bible came from
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
Before this thread gets on the wrong track, you shouldn't try to preach some biblical stuff to me as I can't point out a few thousand fallacies within the book not to mention the fact that the whole sloppy story is full of myths(e.g. revelations has some wonderous happenings some hollywood producer would make a killing doing the special effects for)
Since you mention children let me point out some biblical family values for you.
Lot [the just and righteous (2 Pet.2:7-8)] offers his daughters to a crowd of angel rapers, Gen.19:8 (what a dad and how righteous he is)
A drunken Lot impregnates his daughters. Gen.19:30-36 (oh know he didn't)
Abraham abandons his first son. Gen.21:10, 12
God tells Abraham to kill his second son for a burnt offering. Gen.22:2, 10 (wow and you still think god is some great guy?)
Jacob, with coaching from his mother, obtains Isaac's blessing by lying. God seems to have been fooled as well. Gen.27:19 (Isn't god supposed to know all?)
Why preach what you can't practice is pretty much what you've stated from what I gather so now I ask the same:
Now lets look at Genesis and see how much contradiction it states there:
Humans were created after the other animals. (1:25-27)
Humans were created before the other animals. (2:18-19)
Ok so which one was it?
The first man and woman were created simultaneously. (1:27)
The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib. (2:18-22)
You'd think the story would have no inconsistencies now wouldn't you
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. Mt.16:28, 23:36, 24:34
Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. Mt.26:64, Mk.14:62.
Jesus falsely prophesies that the end of the world will come within his listeners' lifetimes. Mk.9:1, 13:30
Jesus falsely predicts that some of his listeners would live to see him return and establish the kingdom of God. Lk.9:27
Now how about YOU read the Nag Hamadi, then come back to me when you see yourself what Jesus wrote and how it differs from all you "think" you know. Its a shame Catholics burnt so many scrolls once upon a time ago what were they hiding?
Don't preach it teach it.
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
God says that he will do so much evil to the people that whoever learns of it will have ears that tingle. Jer.19:3
God will be "terrible" to humans and will "famish all the gods." Zeph.2:11
God tries to kill Moses. Ex.4:23-25
God makes the Israelites eat flesh until it come out their nostrils. Num.11:19-20
God gets right in and fights with the Israelites. He "slew them with a great slaughter" and even "chased them along the way." What a guy. Jos.10:10
God threw down "great stones from heaven" so that he could kill even more people than the Israelites "slew with the sword." Jos.10:11
God makes the sun and moon stand still so that Joshua could get all his killing done before dark. It was the first Daylight Savings Time. Jos.10:12-13
yawn
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
Well, assuming the Biblical god is in fact a supernatural deity, wouldn't it make sense that he could do Special Stuff?
What did Benny Hill teach us about assumptions? ass u me...
So a deity that rapes a 13 year old (Mary), then impregnates her is ok? Not only did he rape her by making her pregnant, but she remained a virgin, but wait how come out of billions of other women she's the only one to achieve this miracle status? Give me a break
So since you wanna "assume" then what about the other god's other people have written about, Thor (Scandinavians), Aztec Gods, Mayan Gods, Islamic gods, etc., I guess they're all absurd since there is only one then? According to calendar buddhism predates Christianity, this would make Buddha the only god wouldn't it?
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
You seem to do a lot of assuming which is pretty boring and uneventful thus not worthy of arguing. Prove "god" exists then I'll eat my PC. I gave no assumptions only whats written. And as for my page being "ugly" I take that as a compliment since most religious buffs look for a way out of factual findings.
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
Funny how the Nag Hamadi scrolls (which were Jesus' own words) contradicts what God supposedly says in the bible and points out the failure of need for the church, makes you wonder if this is the reason the churches denounce the scrolls. How hypocritical.
As for Mary minding she never had a choice.
Pathetic examples? Is this what you call it, I think of the whole concept in believing in god is pathetic. Try reading some Nietzsche.
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
Bastards...great technology by the way!
CTP
"War makes me sad." - Me
So, what books did you pick up? Can you make rekommendations about books on the current stand of Genetics?
-- Cure for Cancer instead of SETI! (only w32 yet - mail and beg)
Believe me, if you start smoking industrial hemp it's gonna be a stepping stone to a glass of water, nothing more(not that i've tried *cough*). I've been smoking marijuana for 6 years now, basically since my senior year in canadian high school. Well, basically it was a stepping stone to...getting my engineering degree. Sorry to shatter your stereotypes. No one is pissed that beer is a stepping stone to vodka, and believe me vodka will fuck you up real good. Bleeding blood was not a happy experience, I think beer is more my type of drink. Hey man, did you hear about the marijuana overdose crisis? Neither have we, because nobody ever died of smoking pot(if you don't count those that were killed in prison, thank you WOD, and hail John Ashcroft).
Have a nice day and I hope your close-mindedness leads you to a great life. Oh yeah, almost forgot. Goat produces spider silk!, cool, and on-topic.
After a we have learned a bit more, we will be able to use this technology on humans to prevent disease, birth defects, and genetically modify children to fit their parent's desires. Imagine if everyone was predetermined to be born strong, attractive, intelligent, and to live for hundreds of years. All of humanity's problems are soon to be solved. I, for one, cannot wait for the day when a genetically modified, super race of humans rules the earth.
"Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or dead." -Kurt Cobain
Humans are all always dangerously conflicted. Except for the really scary ones who have true belief (as in religion). Our major conflict is with the pathos we have for other people and their families who are going to die because they don't and never will have enough to eat, and our natural desire to protect ourselves and our families by hoarding our wealth and status to stay alive and procreat. Is this wrong? I don't know. I know that I will always protect myself and my family before I help someone else. After that we encounter the questions of can we help someone else and how do we? I don't think that we have answers to those. It's ok to say that we don't know how to act. But to refuse admit that under the argument that the people we don't know how to help are stupid and that they should just move is simplistic and ignorant. People who cannot feed themselves do not have the wealth to pick up and move to another, better location. In addition, what country would accept millions of refugees from a starving country, on the basis that they are hungry and need farmland? Many people around the world are looking at exploding populations and hunger, but a people who cannot feed themselves do not have access to birth control, which would give them the freedom to intelligently consider the repurcussions of reproductions. Contraception and abortion (yes abortion) give a society reproductive options that help control exploding populations and societies time to develop new economic options. Without those options they simply have to rely on high infant mortality.
We're not scaremongering... This is really happening, happening