Scientists Create Fluorescent Puppy.
- Thread starter Horiyoshi III
- Start date
I can be on board as long as no animal was harmed in the process. Personally, I can't get excited about it.
cassharper;3055570; said:
cassharper;3055571; said:
You're on the way to a very long and fulfilling life. =)
Transgenics is a very touchy topic, and I think that there are both pros and cons to it (like with everything else!).
First of all, most people have probably been exposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At least 60% of all processed food in America contains GMO products, and since America, along with Argentina and Brazil, account for 90% of the maize (corn) and soybean international trade, most of the rest of the world has also been exposed to GMO products. (82% of soybeans and 25% of corn grown in the US is genetically modified.) Yes, you've eaten lab freaks, but you're okay. As a matter of fact, if those crops were modified to repel pests, then you're also eating crops that have had very little exposure to pesticides, which is awesome.
By 2050 it is estimated that the population will reach 9 billion. How are we gonna keep up? Although currently there is enough food in the world to provide every single person alive on the face of this planet with 2,800 kcals, and by 2030 there will be enough for 3,050 kcals per person, how are we actually achieving that, considering that the amount of arable land is actually decreasing per person? The answer to that is: don't expand your land, expand your yields. That means, get more out of what you plant. The FAO predicts that 70% of future world crop production will come from increased yields, not expansion of arable lands. However, even with selective breeding, there is only so far we can go. Eventually the rising population and the decreasing arable lands will meet, and then when population surpasses crop amounts... disaster. This is where transgenics come it. (The reason for famine in poor countries is not the lack of food, it is the lack of infrastructure and armed conflict. Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen pointed out that armed conflict and political aggression are the root of famine. No democratic country with a relatively free press has ever had a major famine, according to Sen.)
For example, if wheat is genetically modified to be shorter, it can increase yields. Although it sounds like an oxymoron, this is how it works: it's harder to knock short wheat over (lodge it), even when wet, therefore when you run your harvesting equipment (which can only harvest standing crops) through the fields, you get most if not all of the wheat. Also, shorter wheat spends less of its energy and resources on building stems and can therefore use that energy to create the edible (to us) part of the wheat. As a matter of fact, semi-swarf wheat bred by Norman Borlaug could use water and fertilizer more efficiently. Imagine if we could magnify these benefits through genetic engineering.
The only "moral" dilemna I can see is: Are you seriously willing to let millions of people starve simply because you do not "believe in" genetic modification? In 2002, while millions of people faced famine, the Zambian government refused to accept thousands of tons of corn from the US because it was genetically modified. Don't be silly, get off your high horse. If your only objection is fear that we're "playing god"... well, is it better to not modify crops and lose millions of people to famine, or modify crops and NOT lose those millions of people to famine? Don't eat for two whole weeks and THEN answer the question.
Now, REAL problems (as opposed to perceived problems) with GMOs. One of the biggest concerns with GMOs is that they can spread their DNA to unmodified wild specimens and greatly reduce the natural gene pool. If an insect pollinates wild wheat with the pollen of genetically modified wheat, then you've got resistant wheat growing out in the wild, which will fare better in its environment and become concentrated in the wild population through natural selection, also lowering the unmodified corns' numbers (because environmental resistance and carrying capacity will only allow a certain number of a certain species per habitat). Now, if these GMOs have some weakness we did not forsee, such as subseptibility to a certain disease, and the disease enters the area, then most of the wheat will be wiped out, and the (very few) "wild" wheat left may not be enough to "restart" the population.
Also, GMOs created to be pest resistant could increase resistance in the pest themselves. The more of a pesticide that is present, the faster the pests will adapt, and if these GMOs contain this natural pesticide within them at all times, throughout the entire growing season, then pests will adapt rather quickly and could render the new crops vulnerable and therefore "useless".
Genetic modification is not the absolute answer: it is not a fix-all, silver bullet. However, we need to get past our fears of that which we do not understand and become more educated, so that we can make educated decisions. Let's not start a witch hunt against the GMOs and blindly oppose this new technology. Instead, let's learn all we can about it. The population size isn't going to decrease or even stabilize any time soon, so we need to constantly create new technology that will keep up with growing human population size.
And that's my two cents.
