Slashdot Mirror
Gene Leakage
Mike B writes "A leading UK scientist says he thinks genes from
genetically-modified (GM) crops will inevitably escape into other plants.
"What would happen, for instance, if a gene that conferred resistance against insects escaped?
Suddenly we have no insects. With no insects you have no ecology, no ecosystem, no pollinators, no flowers, God knows what. "
"
No, the human race has been "on a major collision course with ecological disaster" for centuries. People predict ecological disaster all the time, and they've been doing so for hundreds of years. It's a time-honored tradition. Malthus is a good example here. I wonder why it hasn't happened yet...`
(_The_Ultimate_Resource_ by Julian Simon is recommended reading.)
> the exception are very small things with very short periods between reproduction (bacteria/virii) ...
...and bugs...
The possibility of Gene Leakage, in plants and animals, is something that *could* concievably happen and probably already does naturally. It still doesn't take into effect the fact that life adapts to it's surroundings. The insects will find a way to get around the defences of the plants; they always adapt. For example: Pesticide resistant bugs.
Don't write off the insects... they are more resiliant than you think.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Yes, you're right about the "don't understand effects" argument slowing progress, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I'm usually in favour of virtually any kind of scientific progress. For instance I have no problem with genetically engineering children so they come out smarter and better looking. I have no problem with people implanting chips in their brain to improve memory etc. I am not worried about these things because the effects are largely predicatable and mostly restricted to those involved.
However, I do take exception to companies farting about with stuff they plainly don't understand for no better motivation than to make a quick buck when there is a non-negligable chance that they will completely alter the course of evolution on the planet. I take exception to them spending large sums on political campaigns in order to force GM foods down everybodies throats (as it were). Various initiatives from GM industry are trying to:
1 prevent people even being told whether food is GM or not.
2 impose trade sanctions against countries that don't want it.
3 eliminate restrictions, controls and monitoring efforts.
Maybe that makes me anti-science, but the fact remains I don't trust these companies to fully evaluate the dangers inherent in what they are doing or to have our best interests at heart. When one of the most respected scientists in the field comes out and says that this stuff is dangerous then it seems reasonable to pay some attention.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I am very familiar with genetic algorithms, and for many tasks they are not particuarly effective. Why the hell do you think companies are bothering with GM foods in the first place. They ARE producing plants/animals which are "fitter" than the ones produced by evolution.
Let me put it another way. The parameters for natural evolution (particuarly the mutation operator) are not at all optimized. Natural evolution occurs within a very limited set of gene sequences. If you take a pre-optimized solution to a particular problem and add it to an existing GA then you can make huge improvements.
It may well be unlikely that they will produce anything tremendously dangerous, but it isn't like the Shakesperian monkeys. These aren't random combinations but the calculated addition of highly effective solutions from different spheres. For instance, one of things they are doing is combining plant and animal DNA. Plants have far more DNA than animals, there are likely to be some pretty effective strands in there.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Undoubtedly the ecosystem would recover, it always does. What we're concerned about here is the chaos it could cause before it recovers. Consider this scenario:
Monsanto releases its bio-engineered soybean plants that are insect-resistant, but have the side effect of having sterile offspring *most hybrids do by design, IIRC). Agribusiness A plants the hybrids, which cross-pollenate with the normal soybean fields of family farmers B - Z. That fall, those farmers reserve 10% of their harvest for seed, and maybe sell that seed to some other farmers in the 3rd world, etc. The next year, all those farmers' fields won't grow, causing a massive shortage of soybeans. From then on, only Agribusiness A can buy and grow soybeans, and Monsanto has agricultural production by the proverbial balls.
Multiply that situation by all the other crops that can be made sterile, and all producers except those who can afford Monsanto's yearly seed subscription go out of business. Poor 3rd world subsistence farmers could starve to death. All that could happen within about 3 years.
--
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
You are right that much of the concern expressed by the public over GM food is ill-informed, and you are right that life is not fragile.
The point you seem to miss however is that life has gone on but a great may species (and not a few human cultures) have been wiped out. Sometimes that happens because of their own actions.
GM crops do increase the chance we might destroy some part of the ecosystem we depend on, and either kill a lot of people or radically reduce oeveryone's quality of life.
When you hear some of the stories (some of which are probably at least based on fact) of the arrogance of the companies selling these new crops, and their attitude towards local rules on testing, it seems that insufficient care is being taken.
Viruses. Some virsuses seem to contain DNA which has 'escaped' from host species. Some host species contain what looks like old viral DNA. The human genome contains bits an peices that seem to have come from all kinds of different species.
The penecillin thing is different - the point was just that we cannot be sure what evolution will do with what we give it (but then many GM crops are infertile). I think Steve Jones' words got a little mangled by his interviewer.
Julian Simon is (or rather was) a very cool person. His confidence in the idea that we can rely on our own resourcefulness to dig ourselves out of trouble seems by and large to be well placed.
On the other hand, as out powers over the ecosystem increase, I am uncomfortable with the idea of trusting in as-yet-unmade discoveries to save ourselves if anything does go wrong. Even if it does all work out in the end, a great deal of value may be destroyed in the process. You may not care, and I am not sure I do either, but a lot of people certainly do.
I had a 3 from a comment in another thread long ago. until someone changes your rank, it appears to stay the same from then on. i wouldn't have ranked my own comment that highly either.
Bravo, and you're so right. No easy answers, and the counterpoints you give are dead on. But still, it is a nice idea, is it not?
That in the long run, all the good ideas - when considered properly, will come to fruition despite the lobbies and the bottom line?
And is that not precisely what we have an opportunity to do right here? Consider the issues, get them out in the sunlight, knock them down, prop them back up and whail on them some more..
Yeah, in the short term all we really have is thought experiments. In the long term, maybe we can walk away with some answers for future directions.
And now and again, we share a heartfelt chuckle:
"Sir the nerds are revolting!"
"They can't help it, they don't get any sun or exercise."
You made my day!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
It's not about being a luddite and hugging trees. I'm as much of a technophile as anyone here. It's about understanding that we can get further, faster and better if we use nature to our advantage, rather than going against the grain so much.
We're learning, slowly; but we're still fixated on the post-WWII mentality of just throwing more resources at the problem rather than truly understanding it.
Consider: Airports are now being designed with uphill and downhill runways, as well as rampped ones. This allows for shorter and safer runways, by using gravity to help slow and speed up the planes, and allow them a steeper climb and descent in mountainous areas.
Homes are being heated by solar and geothermal (where available) energy, to reduce costs and in the long run reduce pollution. In Scandinavia (correct me if I'm wrong) geothermal is used to heat neighborhoods and steam is run beneath streets to keep them free of ice.
About 50% of the phones in Poland are cellular. The infrastructure is very old, and it's much cheaper to put up a tower here and there than it is to run new lines. And you don't have to restring the towers after a snowstorm.
France gets 70% of it's electricity from nuclear plants. Yes, actually it is safe. You just have to be responsible about it. Sometimes the true 'bottom-line' is a little farther then the next fiscal quarter.
This is a wiser use of resources than blasting away a mountain to let a freeway run straight. It's the same mentality that lengthens a road a mile, in order to build a shorter and sturdier bridge. Sure, the Golden Gate is an engineering achievement, and where necessary, we certainly have the means.
But we also have the means to apply our intellect to doing things in accordance with nature, rather than against it.
Engineering is about laziness. So is intelligence. We put a lot of effort into simplifying and conveniencing our lives... A little more will let us not have to worry about acting against the forces of nature - but rather using them to our advantage.
Don't you think that building a home down, rather than up, would be wise? Let's keep the living area below the frost-line, so as to cool and heat less. Let's pipe sunlight down with fiberoptics - maybe even some of that new 'slow glass' for a nightlight. The energy savings might prove adequate to have an elevator instead of stairs. This is just an off-the-cuff idea; I'm sure there are plenty of others.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
probably a little more clearly stated in my reply called "You miss the point", please see that, as I think it will serve to clarify.
As for mystical nonsense - It's not. I am in agreement with you on our potential capacity as a race. But, I feel that the best way to get there is to use the laws of the world to further our endeavors, rather than putting in a lot of effort to overcome them.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Tsk, tsk..
There you humans go, again thinking it's all about you. It isn't. It isn't about you anymore than it is about the fleas on your dogs back. It isn't even about a Genus, or an Order or a Phylum. It's about life.
You meddle in things you only think you understand, and you speculate on the consequences of your actions, as though your actions were actually significant in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, you change the climate, yes you kill off the weak and inadaptible species. Guess what.. That's why you're here. Evolution has provided you with the ability to modify your environment, and the arrogance to think that it is actually yours to modify.
The world is not yours to modify, save or destroy with your actions. You belong to it, and it will be here long after you are gone. Wether you go to the stars, and leave your cradle behind you, forgotten and covered in plastic and asphalt; or you annihilate yourselves in a spectacular mushroom farm that will leave nothing but cockroaches and twinkies; the world will still be here.
The world, and life, will continue. You are just a piece of the puzzle, just a cog in the evolutionary machine. You are not the appointed guardians of life on your little mudball. You have delusions of grandeur, you are vain and selfish and you lack the instinctive knowledge of worms.
You do not understand balance. You do not realize that, as a part of nature, you must abide by it's laws, or be removed from the equation.
You stand tall and proud, like an oak tree on a sandy cliff. Reveling in your grandeur while the wind whittles the very earth from beneath your very roots. How arrogant you are, to think that you are somehow greater than the nature that bore you.
You build your homes on the windward side of the hill, and wonder why your kids suffer draft induced colds. You build your streets in the valleys and complain when they are washed away in the spring thaw.
You continually butt heads with the nature that made you, and rudely ignore her lessons. She knows you, better then you know yourselves. You breed like rabbits, and overrun her without asking permission. She gave you AIDS to keep you humble and to give you pause to contemplate your place in the scheme of things - and you think you can "engineer" yourselves a cure.
Insolent children, when will you learn that you simply do not have the 5 billion years of experience necessary to guide your own destiny? Your best intentions will kill you, and make roon for a more obedient race.
You must understand this, you must take it to heart and know it in every cell of your soft and delicate little bodies: Learn the House Rules. Abide by them, and conduct yourself in accordance with nature. Give onto her, and she shall benefit you. Insult her and you will be punished. You have been given prophets: Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Fuller, countless others. You will be given more. The lessons are there, you must choose to see them.
It isn't ABOUT you - but it is your choice to be here or not. Think twice because you can only act once.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I'm not sure that this is contraty to what I'd said. The main thrust of my post probably got away from me, but it was, in a nutshell:
:)
Since we can tailor our environment - we should do so with accordance with natural laws, not contrary to them. Making flying fish won't work.
Someone succeeded in making a chicken with legs where the wings should be. More drumsticks for KFC, but how do you catch the damn thing?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Suddenly /. is populated with experts in genetic engineering.
Actually, I am a rocket scientist^H^H^H^H^H^Hmolecular biologist, although I prefer the term 'gene jockey'
We're creating all kinds of combinations that would just never occur in nature (such as mixing of plant and animal DNA).
Sigh. 'Never' is a big word in science. Have you been following any of the sequencing projects? It's looking more and more like horizontal gene transfer (genes moving from one species to another via bacteria or viruses) is a major factor in gene lineages. So, it's quite possible that there's some plant or animal species out there carrying some DNA from the 'other side'.
Who really knows what the effects of introducing radically new gene sequences into the environment will be?
Nobody. Anybody who tells you different is trying to sell you something. However, at some point, there's only so much testing that can be done. You've got to 'ship the product', and trust that your tech support can deal with any problems that arise in the field (no pun intended).
This is something that's going to happen sooner or later (i.e., release of a hacked organism into the Big Room with the Blue Sky). All this effort to stop the release is just going to drive it underground. Then, the release will be done illegeally, without the proper controls, and it will go to hell. The best bet for the environmental groups is not to insist on a block to release, but to insist on more and more oversight of the process.
john, /.
who's glad to see some bio-stuff on
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
Anything beyond yeast? I can't find references to eukaryotic organisms containing plasmids.
ASAIK, only unicellular euks can carry plasmids, and not all of them. You can introduce circular plasmids into metazoans (multicellular organisms) and get gene expression, but they aren't replicated (this is called transient transfection).
People have sucessfully introduced linear DNA molecules into metazoan cells and had it replicate, I believe.
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
It has recently become clear that genes hop from species to species in nature very frequently.
You're okay with that statement...
For example we carry fossilised viral DNA in our cellular mitochondria -- they were once free-living virus but have now become so symbiotically linked to other species that their genes are indistinguishable from the "human" genome.
But you blow it with this one. We do have integrated retro-viral DNA in our genes. We do have mitochondria, which do have a symbiotic origin (probably). However, they used to be bacteria, not viruses (a big difference!). Additionally, you can easily tell the difference between mitochondrial DNA and H. sap. DNA (assuming you're given a large-ish chunk -- 10 or 20 kilobases), based on differences in nucleotide usage and larger scale gene organization.
Pointless Tech Analogy: It's sorta like the difference between text files across systems. Basically the look the same, but if you look closely (at the line delimiter), you can tell the difference.
john
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
This may be beyond the scope of this forum...
Prolly -- but what the hey...
I seem to recall that Mitchondrial DNA had other features? Perhaps reverse twisting, or slightly modified bases (beyond methylation or deamination)?
It's circular, like bacterial chromosomes (one of the early indicators that lead to the endosybiotic hypothesis of mitochondrial and *plast origin).
AC- who's having fun tearing up other genetic arguments further down. /., isn't it?
It is fun to get to be a bio-geek on
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage
Do you have a citation for this? I'm not asking just to be an @$$; I'd actually be interested in seeing the data.
2. One of the primary goals of the GM food industry is crops you have to buy from them each year. Right now third world farmers do rather better by saving some seeds and replanting them. This is like windows licensing your crops.
But, as others have pointed out, this isn't really all that different than hybrids, which are also sterile and give better yield. Why is the Terminator Seed so much more hazardous to Third World crop practice?
3. One of the reasons for such tight current control on GM plants is we don't know enough about genetics yet. We are at the same stage in genetics as the early explosives people were. They knew it could do wonderful things but were never quite sure what was going to happen, and likewise if you got it wrong you made a very big mess.
We're considerably further along than that! That's not to say that there aren't reasons for tight controls on release of gene hacked organisms into the environment, but by playing to ignorant fears, the anti-GM factions are making the situation more dangerous, not less.
4. Faced with a removal of their normal target insects and bacteria either move or adapt. If they adapt your genetically modified food is now useless because they've eaten it, and if they move well then you risk destroying another habitat. Also remember the largest target to move onto is Humans.
This is a decent point, and one where the above argument (early days of the field) can apply. We currently don't have a good handle on the networked nature of ecosystems, and tampering with seemingly minor variables can cause emergent effects. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand, it just means we need to be very careful.
In the UK and most of Europe people tend to prefer their food grown to engineered. We don't allow growth hormone in cattle so our meat tastes a lot better, and most UK supermarkets are talking about ceasing to sell any GM foodstuffs.
If people 'prefer' no anti-GM'd food, why are there government regulations to prevent it's sale? I'm fine with the Invisible Hand determining market choice, but there seems to be a bit of a contradiction between your first statement and your second.
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
>> 1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage.
> Do you have a citation for this? I'm not asking just to be an @$$; I'd actually be interested in seeing the data.
This approach scares me. It seems to be very common to require those who are against a particular technology to prove that it is dangerous. It should be up to those wanting to distribute something like this to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is safe, and not be allowed to release it until they do so, thereby putting the burden of proof on those who will benefit. The minimal field trials that are taking place certainly don't do this.
Asking for a citation of a factual statement isn't all that outrageous, is it? The statement wasn't "GM-ed soya might be harmful", it was "GM-ed soya is harmful". A big difference, and all I want is a little bit of proof. Second, proving that something is perfectly harmless over the lifetime of a human animal is a pretty tall order. How do you define harmless?
Additionally, it's sort of a feature of free societies that you can do what you want as long as it's not dangerous to others. So, if you want to stop someone from doing something, then yes, the burden of proof of danger is on you. Otherwise, I could decide that, for example, your computer use is dangerous to me, and demand that you stop it until you prove that it isn't. A silly example? Maybe, but do you see my point?
by playing to ignorant fears, the anti-GM factions are making the situation more dangerous, not less.
As a member of the anti-GM faction (I used to not care until I took some time to find out what some of what was going on), I'd like to know which of my fears are ignorant, and how me arguing against GM food makes things more dangerous, as it seems that there are practically no controls currently.
The point I was trying to make here was that certain fractions of the anti-GM lobby (from what I can see) are trying to demonize the whole practice of modifying and releasing organisms. It's a rather Luddite-like argument -- "There are things man was not meant to know" -- and I think it's dangerous.
Why? Because you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, and you can't un-invent something. An overwhelming historical fact about our species is that once we've got the power to do something that's potentially very dangerous and disasterous for all concerned, we're going to do it. Given that, strong pressure aganist the testing of these foods (which I've seen in Europe; don't know about NZ) is just going to drive the testing and development underground. It'll be a lot better for all concerned (potentially all period) if the testing and development happen out in the light of day, in an open process. To continue the analogy in your .sig, to GPL the development, rather than use a closed source propitary model.
I've snipped the rest, you make some good points. I just wanted to clear up the two above.
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
The circularized extrachromosomal DNA of bacteria is called a Plasmid. It can be transferred between species and is unique to prokaryotes. Eukaryotic organisms (plants and animals) don't use these types of genetic elements.
Not quite right. Plasmids can and do exist in eukaryotes, such as S. cerevisae (yeast).
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
I thought that the biggest difference between H. sap. DNA and mit. DNA was that H. sap. _had_ DNA and mitochondria had RNA.
Again, BUZZ!. Thanks for playing, tho.
Both mitochondria and the cell nucleus of eukaryotes (the organisms that have mitochondria) contain DNA. This serves as a template for the production of RNA. In the mitochondria, the RNA stays put, and is translated into mitochondrial proteins. This process also requires the import of proteins that are encoded in the nucleus.
In the nucleus, some of the RNA stays put, and functions in processes such as mRNA splicing and ribosomal RNA modification. Other RNAs are exported out of the nucleus, into the cytoplasm. There, they either do stuff (for example, the ribosomal RNA directs the production of proteins), or are translated into proteins by the ribosome. Some of those proteins are then imported into the mitochondria (see above).
The only (known) RNA-based organisms are virii. For example, the transmissive form of HIV is a double-stranded RNA retrovirus.
john, more convinced than ever that a basic bio tutorial for geeks needs to be done...
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
Cool! You could buy a packet of seeds (the binary form) and get a breakdown of the gene sequence with it (the source form).
You'd have to be careful with licenses, though. Someone might produce a kind of cabbage and license it using a BSD-style license, so derived cabbages could be made proprietary. If I crossed this with a GPLed carrot gene sequence and made a spiffy new vegetable, we'd have license incompatibility wars starting all over again.
Bzzzt! Godwin's Law invoked. You lose.
It Must Be Magic. :) Seriously, no, that simply doesnt happen. Genes from plant _SUB_species A may combine with genes from plant subspecies B and form plant subspecies C tho. While that may be a slight problem with closely related weeds and some useful plants, it's not that big a deal. Genes dont just jump around.
And I agree with the penicillin reference being bad. It just proves that nature will evolve another way to penetrate the resistance eventually.
The penicillin resistance in bacteria is a large part our own fault tho. Extreme overuse of antibiotics is pretty much what has accelerated the evolution of resistance so fast. If we hadnt had farmers pumping animals full of antibiotics all the time it might have been another couple of centuries before the resistant strains would start appearing.
It's not common code across platforms being used to create the same code. You've got more than ribosomal compiler issues. The DNA to Protein complialtion sequence involves feedback loops on pretty much every level. You think that the NT 2000 kernel is complex? You AIN'T seen nothin'. You're transferring genes across not just Kingdoms, but superkingdoms. DNA that has not been able to work in two organism for Billenia, suddenly is creating novel proteins in an altogether new environment.
What's really at issue is companies pasting genes from one species into another, and then everybody in genetic engineering doing things like using a common promoter for the gene. Single point of failure. Not a pretty sight. Any Unix Security person recognizes the danger of that. And Biological Auditing will put NSA auditing to shame. Your seal of approval is survival. Making crops dependent upon our GM is extremely dangerous. There's very little place for diversity. Monocultured crops put out by Monsanto and the like (read about Terminator seeds: Plants that will NOT have viable seeds, Terminator 2 (Traitor) seeds: Plants that NEED Monsanto PROPRIETARY pesticides/ chemicals to survive, and the Irish Potato Famine) You think the SPA is bad? Seed companies have hotlines to report people who use 2nd generation seeds. Yup. Licensed GM products. I see a slippery slope here. You're welcome to speculate. We're going to Need the FSF and GNU here.
30 years down the line. All insects are resistant to 100s of pesticides. All major food staples like rice, wheat, and soybeans come from farms licensed to use either Dupont or Monsanto seed (assuming they don't duke it out, and Microsoft hasn't bought them out.) What are you going to do? Grow your own? It won't survive. Not a CHANCE. Now have these companies standardize on Windows 2005. Add a failure to meet the target for when the insects adapt to GM strain #31, and we become Ozymandius.
Further along this line is a serious problem with the current GM paradigm. You find a gene for resistance to a bug, by promoting a natural pesticide, so you splice it into the plant. Amazing! A field with this plant survives predation by a certain insect. Well, actually, 99% of those insects can't eat that plant, and that 1% is really insignificant. The second generation of those insects is ALL resistant to that pesticide. So once that strain of insect spreads, the entire world has effectively lost the ability to use that gene's pesticide. Why do companies do this? Because companies like Monsanto and Dupont can afford to create new pesticides every 2 or 3 years.
Wouldn't you know it, some people are allergic to some proteins. Chances are, with any food, somebody is allergic to it. You use a process of elimination to find out what you're allergic to. You put a GM (genetically modified) plant on the market, don't label it GM (like the companies want) and God help you figuring out what's sending you to the hospital.
FDA approval for GM products currently consists of giving the FDA a seminar on the safety of the product. The honor system. How about splicing genes from the poppy into wheat? All our studies indicate people are happy with it.
Now I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't research genetics. This isn't meant as a luddite rant. Science is based upon blind faith in the future. That doesn't entail blind ignorance of the 4 billion years that got us here, what it means to survive and be a part of 4 billion years of evolution. GM should be done with extreme caution, and with monumental levels of supervision. One last note, there are two industries that have been refused insurance by EVERYBODY: genetic modification, and nuclear power. Nuclear power in the US has been dead/ in a holding pattern since 3 Mile island and Chernobyl. Do we NEED an equivalent before we take action?
I hope not, but just in case, I'll be damned if I don't go down fighting for my species.
He brings up the analogy that disproves his point, and then tries to turn it around to prove it...
We introduced penicillin into places it had never been before in order to confer resistance to diseases on humans. And it worked for a bit, then the diseases we used it on built up an immunity to penicillin, and now we've reached the point where it's starting to be ineffective, because the only bacteria still alive are immune to penicillin. What we've seen isn't penicillin genes "escaping" into other molds, it's the bacteria evolving to circumvent the penicillin.
Take the coyote as another example. Western ranchers have been trying to exterminate them for about as long as there've been Western ranchers. Shooting killed the slow ones, trapping killed the stupid ones, poisoning killed the weak ones, and the fast, smart, strong ones that were left produced fast, smart, strong puppies, until now, far from being endangered, they've expanded their range to include places like New York City. Given the forced pace of evolution they're sure to be subjected to there, they'll probably be driving taxis and lifting tourists' luggage in airports and bus stations before long.
That which does not kill you makes you stronger. Evolution beats engineering.
I don't think we need to worry about the bugs. They were here, essentially unchanged, long before there was anything even vaguely human-like on the planet, and they'll probably be here long after we're gone. If we make plants immune to bugs, we'll just end up with bugs that eat plants that are immune to regular bugs.
Suddenly /. is populated with experts in genetic engineering. Hey, some looney limey scaremongering, must be some kind of luddite, evolution has been going on forever etc etc, GM foods are no big deal...
There is a big difference between selective breeding, natural selection, hybridization and genetic engineering. We're creating all kinds of combinations that would just never occur in nature (such as mixing of plant and animal DNA). I would say the burden of proof should be on the companies producing GM crops to explain why there is no way nasty side effects can crop up.
The GM debate in the states has been cleverly framed so that people questioning the safety of GM crops are painted as uneducated and anti-science. (By safety I mean long term effects of existence of modified genes, NOT the danger that the food might be bad for you - that's easily tested). There's an instant aura of rationality that can be obtained by dismissing allegations of possible dangers as nonsense. Who really knows what the effects of introducing radically new gene sequences into the environment will be ? These are sequences which would never arise naturally. There may well be no danger, but would you happily allow life forms from another planet into our eco-system (hey, its probably harmless), or would it make you kinda nervous.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Last week it was reported that the polar caps are melting faster than ever. Do you think this is "FUD"?
The amount of pollution in the air is increasing yearly. Do you think this is a scheme to put the Green party in government?
I can't get over this notion that environmentalism is a political movement. Do capitalists live on another planet? Their mountains of trash and waste are as close to them as to the hippies and tree huggers. This is not a political issue.
Human civilization has been on a major collision course with ecological disaster for decades. Consumption, waste, manipulation of nature/natural processes, global warming, etc.
Behind it lies the dubious economics of growth and consumption as practiced and preached by the G-7.
It can be summed as simply as this (from Adbusters.org):
Economists need to learn how to subtract
Until you reduce demand, you cannot stop the cycle of consumption that is killing the planet.
You're point seems to support my argument all the more...
Only Anglo-American and Russian civilizations have a habit of trying to conquer nature, as per your statement, with Japanese, Chinese, and Indian civilizations much more intelligent about their role with nature...
However, China and India are no less a threat to global war, nuclear holocaust, and other nasty human killing effects than any of the western states. And until they were put down in the WW, Japan was as much a threat as any other nation.
My point still fits your evidence; whatever the threat humans pose to nature, we pose still more threat to each other. China, Japan, and India included.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I don't have any idea who would outlast the other; nature or humans.
But I do wonder sometimes that our worst foe and enemy are... ourselves.
We create the political mess, the infighting, the squabbling and bickering. I can cite optimism to defend the idea that people will outlive whatever nature can throw at it.
I can cite the grandeur of nature to put humans in their place. Either work, it's your own choice on what to believe..
However, despite nature and it's struggles, can we really survive ourselves?
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
A lot of people are fixating on how dangerous GM foods and genengineering is.
Yes, we're playing with fire here. It's a habit of the human race. Note the ironic application of an old cliche? We're playing with fire.
That's probably how this all got started anyway.
I'm not sure that our priorities are in the right direction...
I'm pretty sure that as a whole, humans are a greater threat to each other than to nature, or than nature to the human race. Nature is reliable in her methods and attempts to deal with us.
We are an evolutionary force of nature unto ourselves, and there isn't anything we can do about it. We can be more careful, certainly, and cautious, and all, but I don't think we mean anything more than minor nuisance, no matter how much we reshape and rework our environment. Whole continents have been rearranged and destroyed, formed and buried under ice, waters have risen and lowered, etc etc, and life has survived and prevailed.
We should worry about what we are doing to ourselves and to each other too.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
There are a whole load of reasons GM food should be a point of concern
1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage
2. One of the primary goals of the GM food industry is crops you have to buy from them each year. Right now third world farmers do rather better by saving some seeds and replanting them. This is like windows licensing your crops.
And if they decide to stop supplying a country that is dependant on these terminator crops (eg the US interfering in another war) everyone starves to death. Good isnt it.
3. One of the reasons for such tight current control on GM plants is we don't know enough about genetics yet. We are at the same stage in genetics as the early explosives people were. They knew it could do wonderful things but were never quite sure what was going to happen, and likewise if you got it wrong you made a very big mess.
4. Faced with a removal of their normal target insects and bacteria either move or adapt. If they adapt your genetically modified food is now useless because they've eaten it, and if they move well then you risk destroying another habitat. Also remember the largest target to move onto is Humans.
In the UK and most of Europe people tend to prefer their food grown to engineered. We don't allow growth hormone in cattle so our meat tastes a lot better, and most UK supermarkets are talking about ceasing to sell any GM foodstuffs.
Alan