Welcome to Gaia! ::

But that's just it - the DNA that comes from the fish that we put into the Plant has NOTHING TO DO with what the fish looks like.

Infact, you wouldn't be able to tell it was from a Fish at all.

You are failing to properly explain what your problem is - it looks the same

I think I've just repeated myself eight times or so, but do you catch my drift?

And as I've said, Selective Breeding is no different - you are still altering a Species without their consent.

And what you're trying to say is that if they held us in a timewarp and selectively bred the people they obducted over thousands of years until we had thumbs on our arses and extra limbs and sent them back a few hours after they abducted them, it would be completely different?

I'm saying that it doesn't matter HOW they alter the captives, all that is relevant is that they alter them without their consent.

YOU CANNOT CONDEMN GM WITHOUT CONDEMING SELECTIVE BREEDING TOO.

Well, what gives us the right to slaughter them in their millions every year and eat them?

Because we're hungry?

If we can massacrel them in such quantities just to feed ourselves, why can't we make them better to eat as well?

Probably - I mean, if that Species is better for Agricultural Purposes, why not?


We've already unrecognisably altered countless species that everybody knows about - Cows, Chickens, Wheat... All Domesticaled Species, infact.
"Natural".

It's called Artificual Selection for a reason.

Again, this was what I was trying to get across by explaining the way we work as Biological Machines - there is no Logical Reason why a sperm mixing DNA with an Egg should be any "cleaner" or "more natural" than one of the bits of DNA in the Sperm being chosen by us.

The only difference is that we aren't just choosing the Sperm and Egg generally, but what's in them as well.
Oh, well of course.

I mean, Sexual Reproduction has never achieved anything like that kind of alteration in Nature, has it?

Look around you - every Species on Earth came from roughly the same set of DNA in a Single Celled Organism.
It takes a while, but you can potentially get ANYWHERE that GM can get you with Selective Breeding.

(Oh, sorry sweatdrop - if you believe in ID, maybe this won't be true for you, in which case I appologise for assuming you beleived in Evolution)

Why would we want to make walking fish or whatever else you're frightened of?

There is a limit to what you can Successfully do with GM, since the Mechanics of the Plant will more often than not be ******** up with any more major changes.
Besides, the whole reason we want to make those changes is for profit - it's in everyone's interests, then, to make sure that practically nothing is changed through GM anyway.

(Oh yeah, another thing to be said; Animals are much more difficult to Modify, so making a Fish with legs is similar to making a Von Neuman Machine that can eat a Planet and turn it into Grey Goo (it doesn't take much to see how rediculous this idea is, yet people actually use it as an excuse to oppose NanoTechnology.))

A far lesser evil, but we've commited it already thousands of times over.

Infact, it being a lesser evil, surely altering Plants to make fruit that contain the same sorts of Protiens as Meat does would be saving hundreds of millions of Animals from slaughter?

What's the greater evil, letting all those Animals die or finding an alternative for ourselves?

There's never a single, easy option for growth of a Species - you just have to choose the least of many partial evils under the logic that by saving The World from another one you are doing good overall.

you cant just use one quote box can you?

No, cos each box has a different point ^_^

....
I just explained.

I can argue that, if any other Animal was in our position, it would do the same.

Which is true.

How can it be a crime against Nature if anything else in Nature would do the same?
By it's measurements a Lion can rip the s**t out of a Gazelle.
That does not give it the right to go out and kill one.

It would make us more successfull.

You keep saying that it's "playing God".
Why does it matter what we're playing?

We CAN do it and it makes us more successfull.

As long as we follow the rules of other living beings, there is no further justification we could need than that.

WRONG; our concept of Intelligence is not naive at all.

We are the only Species that can create a working method for doing something they have never done before without Evolution (that is, trying random things and the Species Members that fail die).

With this, we can avoid and overcome Disasters that would typically annihalate lesser Species, we can overcome Parasites and Diseases...

If another Species was to be introduced into any System that was Physically Capable of killing the Wildlife there (for example, a very agressive wolverine-rat into a population of Deers), the Wildlife can't evolve in time and all die out.

If such a Species was to be introduced to our Population, we'd innovate a Technology with which to destroy it ourselves.

Nature speaks this language, and therefore it is this definition of Intelligence that is least naive.

We ARE the most Intelligent Species on Terra.
THAT is a naive definition.

You reckon if some Whales can make beautiful artwork on the Sea Floor it would make them more intelligent than us.

It might make them more complex, more interesting - more like the Society we so yearn to be like (they'd certainly have my respect and attention for it), but it is a childish definition to follow, that has no meaning in the harsh Reality that Nature presents us with.
We'd have them anyway sooner or later!!
If not by GM, then by building creatures from Scratch.
Maybe not even Carbon Based.
We already have Machines that do a reasonable job of immitating Thought...
No, a Law applies for everything it was observed to apply for when it came out; what can happen is that you find evidence that it doesn't apply for everything it says it does, in which case the scale of The Law can be changed.

The fact that Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction for what we see around us cannot be changed, even if we find, say, X Particles that dissobey it.

You repeat it over and over, but you never say why.

It's wrong is all you can think of - look into your thoughts and try to understand specifically why you think it's wrong.

Oh, how silly of me - obviously a GMed Baby would appear instantly instead.

Since neither system produces a finished product instantaniously, I assumed you meant the rate of conception (which can take up to about that long anyway).
No, we DO understand what it is that Genetic Modification does -just not how it works.

That's like saying we shouldn't be making Planes because we don't know how Gravity works.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Unless your system requires that you understand something so completely, which GM doesn't (as we have ample evidence for).
We don't understand at a Molecular Level, or enough at the Physical to make our own one from Scratch - but we know what Protien chain we'll get when we put a 40-long Base Sequence in somewhere, and that's all thats important for our GM Plant.

Well, of course we'll have more sophisticated Technology, but that's because the term is so vague that you could apply it to anything.

Fair enough.
But you can predict what those purposes will be, if you know enough about what you can do.
We're already getting mized enough for such a method to be too unreliable for use by any Nations except for the small few with a high enough Xenophobia, and they don't have the means to develope the Technology neccesary for such a system.
(No, not even North Korea)
No, you don't seem to understand; it's alittle like what you said earlier, the possibilities are vast.

Since it is built of living tissue (and whilst it will be incredibly difficult to do with anything like Today's Technology), there shouldn't be any Biological Reason why you couldn't grow your own crop of Prime T-Bone Steaks on a field.
No constant food requirements, no structures, far less manpower....
And the capability to produce only the parts you want to eat and in as much quantity as you like.

The only thing that would get in the way is people who complain about how wrong it is to have Plants that grow differently to what their God intended (entirely missing out the fact that if it's not what he intended, then we wouldn't be doing it in the first place).
We're Humanity - we don't want to live with second best when there is the real thing instead.

What logic do you have to make such a statement?

If every other Species would play God in our position, what justification do you have for saying we shouldn't?

Are we somehow devinely different to all other Beings?
But forcing them into doing things against there will is not?
I would say that you are making loopholes in your morals.

You can call it bullshit all you like, but unless you say WHY, the act of doing so is meaningless.
You deny that GM will make us more Successfull as a Species?
Yes we can - every Animal does what is needed to become more successfull, whatever it is.
The Principle of Natural Selection.
If one Animal is not willing to do something for it's Evolutionary Success, another one will do it in it's stead.
Now, this is somewhere where the term bullshit IS applicable; see, I didn't say anything about it being beneficual for the resulting mutated Species, but for the Species that gets spared from death and suffering because of them.

Out of context - the human mind is very complicated and no longer works (at least, directly) towards Natural Selection.

Animals do.

If something will make an Animal more successfull, it will do it - Evolution is everywhere, and it is the Evidence I Site.
You don't understand the significance of what you're saying; we are incredibly different to the other Species, because we are capable of adapting without Evolution (it's called Technology).

That makes us different - devinity in comparison.

The taste is unimportant - nobody would bother making food tasty if that wasn't what made it sell.
Either a Business makes a Product to suit it's customers or it collapses and another takes it's place that will.
Evolution in Business.

You make it seem like a selfish and decadent thing to do, when on a Business Scale it is the most practical way of getting things done.
For now, but we are expanding - we would be more successfull with GM.

The Lion is trapped - if it eats the whole heard of Gazelle, it will loose it's food source and die out.

If Gazelle popped out of nowhere and were in infinite supply, the Lion would eat more and more, and their population would grow and grow - just like ours is doing.

Give a Species that Evolves a means to be Successfull and it will take it.
That "twisted way" happens to be Nature's Way.
By your own Logic, you have no right to mock it.
"Successfull enough"
Do Rats get to a certain population and go "oh wait, what are we doing?!! we're successfull enough, let's die down alittle..."?

Of course not.

The concept that we should stop becoming more and more Successfull is a neccesary one, but it requires that we split from Nature, since it is our Natural Urge to be Successfull that is causing all these problems.
Your definition of Intelligence, thus, is more naive than the one I just quoted.

But we can make Machines that just such distances even better.
If it comes to a matter of Survival who can judge the distances best, their Intelligence will be defeated by our own.

It is from this brutal and most un-naive definition (Nature's Definition) that I can say that we are the more Intelligent Species.
Earth is what you grow stuff out of - there'd no doubt be confusion when Space Farming gets going.
Terra, however, is a more formal name.

(Also, I cannot help but think you were itching for an excuse to call me a retard for something)
By your definition they are, but I said that your definition of Intelligence is naive.
It's sweet, and I'm definitely inclined to agree with you, but it's still naive.
Yeah - once there, it's just a question of scaling up.

But this isn't the Lifeform I'd like to see - I'd like to think that we'd make something that doesn't just think, but feel; that understands what we experience as Human Beings and can help us when we are in need of it.
Fair enough, lol, nor would I.
(Not even with a Parachute, cos I'd be crapping myself sweatdrop )
Yes, now it is obvious - you think GM takes away the independance of the being it is performed on, enslaves not only their bodies as we do now, but down to their very core.

Well, one could say that our Children share the same fate - they are crafted of our flesh and blood and have no say in what they become.

We are creating our own Lifeforms here - albeit lifeforms very similar to the previous ones, but different none-the-less.
(Plant, not Animal)
And that sucks, of course - but we're already doing that now.

Fundamentally, despite these huge posts we're making.... I think the main difference between our ideals is that you think it's better for a creature to suffer in a body who's DNA is only from it's parents.

I think that the creature doesn't mind what body it's in if it's born that way, so long as it doesn't have to go through misery when it's alive.

*shrugs*

That's opinion, no amount of Arguing is likely to change either of our's.
Yes.
But not in my lifetime XD
Oh, that's easy;
It will take decades to implement, and so as the sales of real Stake begin to drop, the cattlefarmers of The World will slowly go out of business.
Obviously, they'll still make some profit, but they won't be able to afford to keep as many Animals with each passing year - eventually, the ******** go out of business entirely and the Species is limited to a few select areas where they can go back to Natural Evolution again (though, to be quite honest....
I would prefer to Genetically Alter their Children to undo the damage we've done to their Species, so they can live in The Wild once again).
Who gives a ******** person who can live with a job in which they fire bolts of Steel into the sculls of enslaved Living Creatures and vandalise their carcasses could do with another form of emplyment, if you ask me.

It won't be instantanious - which means the places will go out of business one by one.
When somebody else buys the Land, the hatefull reminders of pain and suffering will be ripped down to be replaced by whatever they want to go there, just like all kinds of Building every single year.
No, I am missing out on what happens to the poor, innocent little Meat ******** for them.

See, it's very similar to my views on the Tobacco Industry; if the bastards go bankrupt, then it benefits The World that they're manipulating and puts an end to the suffering they inflict.
As I said, we're starting to think like you now - "Evolving" our way out of Natural Selection.
Preserving not for our own Benefit, but for the Benefit of something beautiful that we don't want to see destroyed.

These are things more similar to what a God would do then an Animal.
What can I say; I'm not Christian.

I believe that they're wrong - that every Species has to be selfish to Survive in Nature.

That only the most Advanced and Powerfull Species is able to descide to act in the interests of another Being SOLELY for purposes other than directly for it's own Survival.

But I'm different; I'm Human.

An Animal would do what is in it's best interests and the Interests of it's Species.

If it was it's child it was gonna shoot, it would not do it, and die instead.
If it was anything else, anything not essential to it's survival, then The Animal acts to preserve itself.
I don't quite get how this justifies you saying that we should tell Biologists what they should or shouldn't do. sweatdrop

I'm adament that we should play God;

That we should turn around and say "I don't want to kill this being anymore, even though I need to eat it to stay alive"
Or "I like these Forests, so I'm gonna keep them even though it would make me more Successfull to cut them down".

But if we ever hope to be able to do things like that, we need Technology like GM or Space Travel.
That's not the fundamentals of it; if we offer a cheaper alternative that is just as good but which people don't feel guilty about, they'll buy it.
Unless... they are unwilling to accept GM.
Then we have our problems.

You see?

You aren't acting anything like an Evolutionary Animal.

You refuse to use a method, even though it would make you more Successfull, because you think it's Morally Wrong.
Now, this is an example of why we need Technology so badly, because unfortunately you can't live with such Morals and still be successfull.
With the right Technology... perhaps you could.
*Shrugs*
I just thought I should make it clear is all...
How they think is irrelevant if it does not affec thow they act.

We KNOW how they act because we can observe it.

All the unfair and cruel things that happen in Nature should give us a pretty good idea of what their meaningfull thoughts are (that is, the ones that affect how they behave - it doesn't matter in the slightest if Squirrels can do Hhalf Differential Equations in their Minds, if they never apply it to anything and never write it down anywhere, it's completely meaningless).

What?
No, silly, we're too big to Physically Evolve as a Species now;
We're growing too fast, and there are too many different conditions.

Once we get to Space, there will be even more to choose from - if Transport remains as frequent as it is here, Breeding between all kinds of Ethnic Groups will prevent Evolution for our Species as a Whole, and if Societies in Space become more Isolated, they'll Evolve on their own (like what happened on Earth - people from China generally look different to people from Europe, cos of Localised Evolution) and we'll have loads of mini-Species and "Races" (I can't stand that word) instead.

Yyeah, no problems ^_^
I think we highlighted alot of key issues which demand further research...

I was scared off replying by the massive long posts with chopped up quotes throughout your debate! xp