[QUOTE=Maloof?;28958451]We don't have the right to advance as a species if the only means of doing so is to mess with nature. The most egotistical, dick-head thing I've ever heard anybody say is that we're 'more important' than the world around us.
Don't get me wrong, I ain't no vegetarian. I'm all for the natural process of things. Just don't expect me to be happy with the idea of ruining this fragile world we're on.[/QUOTE]
What is nature?
Is a little bird in forest a piece of nature?
Yes. Yet they build nests, and in some cases hollow out trees, modify their environment.
Are beavers part of nature?
Yes, they are. Yet by creating dams, they can drastically modify the natural environment and easily flood vast space.
Were the ancient cyanobacteria natural?
Yes! They were! Yet they completely changed the atmosphere of the planet and only thanks to their cheeky behavior which drastically changed their environment, we are here today.
We ARE the nature. We are not anyhow excluded from the chain of evolution. We came from nature and we are still part of it. Yes, our impact on our environment is the fastest and sharpest on history of the planet, but it's no different from that in the past. We aren't only allowed, we are [B]ENTITLED[/B] to progress. We are using techniques and forms of manipulation never seen in nature, but that doesn't mean we aren't just the first ones to come up with them.
And if you want to argument with god - what kind of god would want his creation to stagnate? Why would we be given the power to think, to create, if it was forbidden? If there ever was a god, thinking that he might not want us to progress would make him seem terribly petty, mean and evil! I would say that whoever who says stuff like that is insulting the god!
No matter if we were created by higher entity or random chance, we hold all the rights to do what we can to progress.
Can we wipe ourselves out by fucking up? Quite likely. Serves us well in that case. But stopping progress just because its progress is completely moronic. We should be careful, we should be patient, but we should never, [B]never[/B] stop progressing due to some silly shyness.
I just want to know how far we are from geneticly modifying people.
The world isn't our sandbox, we are part of the sandbox. The sandbox created us, and we now have the ability to play in the sand. Don't get mad when we take advantage of that. We have the right to do whatever we want.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28965859]I just want to know how far we are from geneticly modifying people.[/QUOTE]
we can already do it, its just that its not okay with people morally.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28965859]I just want to know how far we are from geneticly modifying people.[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure that we could modify people to produce cow milk in few months, based on results of the cow research. From the genetic point of view, it's not really much different. Problem is the ethical question, not practical.
Don't quote me on that, this is only pure speculation, but I am afraid that research like this works with a painful amount of try and error. Numerous batches of cattle most probably weren't capable of surviving at all, and even more were born with unsatisfactory results. With cattle it's easy, you just cull the failures who are somewhat capable of living and burn the waste. Problem is that this is not completely fine to do with human children, is it?
[QUOTE=Kybalt;28965901]we can already do it, its just that its not okay with people morally.[/QUOTE]
Well understandably people don't want the possibility of children ending up like the elephant man, but if they can find a way of doing it without running the risk of the child ending up messed up I really can't see the problem.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;28965734]What is nature?
Is a little bird in forest a piece of nature?
Yes. Yet they build nests, and in some cases hollow out trees, modify their environment.
Are beavers part of nature?
Yes, they are. Yet by creating dams, they can drastically modify the natural environment and easily flood vast space.
Were the ancient cyanobacteria natural?
Yes! They were! Yet they completely changed the atmosphere of the planet and only thanks to their cheeky behavior which drastically changed their environment, we are here today.
We ARE the nature. We are not anyhow excluded from the chain of evolution. We came from nature and we are still part of it. Yes, our impact on our environment is the fastest and sharpest on history of the planet, but it's no different from that in the past. We aren't only allowed, we are [B]ENTITLED[/B] to progress. We are using techniques and forms of manipulation never seen in nature, but that doesn't mean we aren't just the first ones to come up with them.
And if you want to argument with god - what kind of god would want his creation to stagnate? Why would we be given the power to think, to create, if it was forbidden? If there ever was a god, thinking that he might not want us to progress would make him seem terribly petty, mean and evil! I would say that whoever who says stuff like that is insulting the god!
No matter if we were created by higher entity or random chance, we hold all the rights to do what we can to progress.
Can we wipe ourselves out by fucking up? Quite likely. Serves us well in that case. But stopping progress just because its progress is completely moronic. We should be careful, we should be patient, but we should never, [B]never[/B] stop progressing due to some silly shyness.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what I meant. And sadly the comment about wiping ourselves being likely is definitely true.. I'm sure we'll do some sort of damage to ourselves while we continue down this path but.. we will hopefully adapt like normal.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28965928]Well understandably people don't want the possibility of children ending up like the elephant man, but if they can find a way of doing it without running the risk of the child ending up messed up I really can't see the problem.[/QUOTE]
But you can't.
Genetics are like a symphony, mess with one minor part and it's unnoticable, mess with another part that's seemingly pointless and you may irreparably damage it, and it was completely unforseen.
I don't mind them modifying cows to produce human milk as long as they keep them out of the wild and keep cow milk producing cows around as well.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=bravehat;28965965]But you can't.
Genetics are like a symphony, mess with one minor part and it's unnoticable, mess with another part that's seemingly pointless and you may irreparably damage it, and it was completely unforseen.[/QUOTE]
Unless you can map the DNA and test all new DNA for it's effects.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;28965975]I don't mind them modifying cows to produce human milk as long as they keep them out of the wild and keep cow milk producing cows around as well.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
Unless you can map the DNA and test all new DNA for it's effects.[/QUOTE]
That would require a strong AI, or a huge specialised supercomputer with a lot of time on it's hands.
I don't know why people have a problem with the concept of drinking breast milk. I mean, we're drinking the milk from an animal right now for christ's sake.
Exactly, drinking cows milk is really no different from just milking a dog and drinking dog milk, really, drinking more humanised milk from cows is a step up for me.
[QUOTE=bravehat;28965965]But you can't.
Genetics are like a symphony, mess with one minor part and it's unnoticable, mess with another part that's seemingly pointless and you may irreparably damage it, and it was completely unforseen.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome]Only 1.5% of human DNA codes for proteins[/url], most human DNA is non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and noncoding DNA (or Junk DNA).
[QUOTE=bravehat;28966392]That would require a strong AI, or a huge specialised supercomputer with a lot of time on it's hands.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project]They already did it[/url], now they're just refining the map.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;28967565][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome]Only 1.5% of human DNA codes for proteins[/url], most human DNA is non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and noncoding DNA (or Junk DNA).
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project]They already did it[/url], now they're just refining the map.[/QUOTE]
The Human Genome project was useless, it was a complete waste, we have mapped our genome and we have no clue what to do with it, or what each part does.
And a lot of that junk DNA could be repressed DNA, just because it isn't active doesn't mean it can be changed willy nilly and have no effect, it could destroy a cell or make it create mitochondria more regularly than it would normally, it could make your shit shine purple but the fact is we don't know yet, so my points still stand.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;28965910]Problem is that this is not completely fine to do with human children, is it?[/QUOTE]
is matter of opinion, ja?
[img]http://www.astrologyweekly.com/natal-charts/images/josef-mengele.php.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=bravehat;28967635]The Human Genome project was useless, it was a complete waste, we have mapped our genome and we have no clue what to do with it, or what each part does.
And a lot of that junk DNA could be repressed DNA, just because it isn't active doesn't mean it can be changed willy nilly and have no effect, it could destroy a cell or make it create mitochondria more regularly than it would normally, it could make your shit shine purple but the fact is we don't know yet, so my points still stand.[/QUOTE]
It's useless because it didn't show exactly what every allele does despite that not being the point of the project? The point was to make it possible to find out what genes do, you can't do that if you don't know what genes you're working with.
[QUOTE=teslath;28957484]But, why?[/QUOTE]
Breast milk is almost always healthier for babies than formula. (Higher calorie, more nutrients, etc.) Now that they can get cows to make milk extremely similar to human breast milk, they can sell jugs of it at stores, so women that don't want to/can't breastfeed can still give their babies the benefits of breast milk.
So if this catches on, we'll probably have a healthier generation of babies coming up.
:science:
For some reason when I entered this thread I thought that by 'Human Milk' they meant semen, then I got really confused as to how the fuck they were making cows produce human semen.
Inb4 vegans think we're cannibals.
[QUOTE=Coffee;28965081]What if the baby doesn't want to?[/QUOTE]
Then you bottle your own milk and do it that way.
[QUOTE=Mr._N;28957972]Why don't we just do this instead?
[img_thumb]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/2907603916_ae1e048f32.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
This is a very good idea.
[QUOTE=The golden;28968879]I don't know, but I think this is one of those cases where "Don't fix what isn't broken" applies.
It's now like cow milk was fucking killing us.[/QUOTE]
Who needs cars? It's not like walking is killing us.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;28969651]Who needs cars? It's not like walking is killing us.[/QUOTE]
Or horses.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The golden;28968879]I don't know, but I think this is one of those cases where "Don't fix what isn't broken" applies.
It's now like cow milk was fucking killing us.[/QUOTE]
If we won't "fix what isn't broken" we will never be able to fix what is broken.
[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;28970455]Horse shit [i]everywhere.[/i][/QUOTE]
Cars do too
[QUOTE=johan_sm;28970468]Cars do too[/QUOTE]
We can run cars off of electricity harnessed in eco-friendly ways. Horses eat food that requires constant farming, not to mention their flatulence contains massive amounts of methane.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;28970468]Cars do too[/QUOTE]
No, to be in line with that analogy, they fart everywhere.
And it's a little more difficult to stick catalytic converters into horses.
[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;28970518]We can run cars off of electricity harnessed in eco-friendly ways. Horses eat food that requires constant farming, not to mention their flatulence contains massive amounts of methane.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing more natural than poop.
[QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;28970518]We can run cars off of electricity harnessed in eco-friendly ways. Horses eat food that requires constant farming, not to mention their flatulence contains massive amounts of methane.[/QUOTE]
The current all-electric cars sucks for roadtrips.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=johan_sm;28971349]There's nothing more natural than poop.[/QUOTE]
Shit is brown, and realism in games is also brown.
Coincidence? i think not.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;28971349]There's nothing more natural than poop.[/QUOTE]
What about piss
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
