From: Reggie [rqlii@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 07 April, 1998 15:21 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Genetic Engineering... in news ---"R. Stefko" wrote: > > >This is how it always starts. Small at 1st, Eugenics wars later. ]:) > > Um, am I the only one here who doesn't have a problem with human cloning and > genetic engineering? > From a purely scientific view, nothing is wrong with it. The problem arrives when the human tendency for immoral behavior rears its ugly head. On the plus side, it means a cure for disease and so on. On the bad side, whats to stop the powers that be from creating a slave race, truly expendable soldiers, and violating personal integrity rights we haven't even conceived of yet? Example: You want Vanessa Williams, Elle McPherson, Pamela Anderson, etc as your personal sex-toy? For the right price, a genetic sample from their last check up is all you need, then poof large as life in the flesh. Far fetched ? maybe. If everybody in the world was benevolent and kind, I would bitch, but imagine if Sadaam got his hands on a genetically altered virus that attacked invisibly on the chromosome level. (Kinda like the Fischer Virus, but for people) Daque "I can clone u from your hairbrush" Kendall Note: How'd ya like the BP tie-in ? :) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: R. Stefko [stefko@westol.com] Sent: Tuesday, 07 April, 1998 14:26 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Genetic Engineering... in news >This is how it always starts. Small at 1st, Eugenics wars later. ]:) Um, am I the only one here who doesn't have a problem with human cloning and genetic engineering? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jason A Werner [c577200@showme.missouri.edu] Sent: Tuesday, 07 April, 1998 17:51 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Genetic Engineering... in news Warning: If you're a nit, run for your life. I'm a'gonna start pickin' I'm _not_ trying to flame anybody, but this is a particular pet peeve of mine. Reggie wrote: > From a purely scientific view, nothing is wrong with it. The problem > arrives when the human tendency for immoral behavior rears its ugly > head. On the plus side, it means a cure for disease and so on. Actually, the difference in the level of genetic engineering involved in somatic cell cloning and the level of engineering required to cure any sort of disease with a genetic component is sort of like the difference between winding up a toy and letting it go and convincing the toy that it's actually a '78 El Camino with plush interior. With cloning, you're just prodding the cell to do what it's supposed to do normally, just backing it up a few years. Put any nucleus in the presence of the requisite inducers (which, convieniently enough, can be found in any embryonic cell), and it'll start making a new whatever. But when you start talking about treating disease, you're actually talking about getting in to the cell's instruction manual, ripping out entire pages, and sticking in new ones, all without upsetting any of the other normal functions of the cell, and without freaking the poor thing out so bad it turns cancerous. All in all, it's a fairly significant challenge. > On the bad side, what's to stop the powers that be from creating a slave > race, truly expendable soldiers, and violating personal integrity > rights we haven't even conceived of yet? Money. Lots of it. Genetics labs aren't cheap. Also, you have to remember, it's not like we're sticking people in the Reduplicator (TM) and getting out whole, adult people. With somatic cell cloning, you get a single, pluripotent cell from which you have to take eighteen or so years to grow a new person. You also have to have a surrogate mom to carry the thing for 9 months or so, which is also something less than a picnic. I've never done it, but _my_ parents always insisted raising a child was an expensive proposition. Seems it'd be a lot cheaper for a government to just conscript their soldiers from babies made the old fashioned way. > Example: You want Vanessa Williams, Elle McPherson, Pamela Anderson, > etc as your personal sex-toy? For the right price, a genetic sample from their > last check up is all you need, then poof large as life in the flesh. Far > fetched ? maybe. If everybody in the world was benevolent and kind, I > would bitch, but imagine if Sadaam got his hands on a genetically > altered virus that attacked invisibly on the chromosome level. (Kinda > like the Fischer Virus, but for people) > Attacking cells on the chromosomal level is what all viruses do. There's been a debate since they were first discovered regarding whether or not viruses are actually alive. They require the protein-manufacturing facilities of a living cell to replicate themselves. All viruses are, are packets of genetic information contained in a protein (and sometimes lipid) coat. There are several kinds of cancer that are more or less known to be caused by a latent virus infection. The virus infects a cell, enters the nucleus and sticks its genetic information into the cell's genome. The changes can involve many different cell mechanisms, but the end result in these cases is a loss of regulation of the cell growth cycle. The cell starts replicating out of control, and voila, you have a tumor. If you want nasty bugs, you don't even really have to engineer them. There's been a lot of talk about anthrax as a war or terror weapon lately in the news. Trust me, the Black Death was _far_ worse than anything we ever thought about when coming up with the Fischer plague. My whole point is this -- It's important not to underestimate the possibilities of bioscience. However, it's also important not to demonize it and make it into the all-powerful genie. Remember, INFINITE COSMIC POWER...itty bitty living space. I have a tendency to lecture, and I have to keep jumping down off my soapbox. I've even been taking my... snort... twich... pills lately. Hope I haven't freaked anybody out. -- -Jason Werner Biohazard Games ------------------------------------------------ I lacked the courage to investigate the weaknesses of the wicked, because I discovered they are the same as the weaknesses of the saintly. - Wm. of Baskerville -------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Reggie [rqlii@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 07 April, 1998 20:43 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Mad Rantings This is what I get for rambling. But will I learn my lesson? No, of course not. My point, (yes there was one), was that once a genie/demon/etc is let loose from its lamp/bottle/respective container, it is impossible to put it back. I don't know what Einstein had in mind when he was working on his projects, but I'm sure Hiroshima wasn't it. In fact I vaguely remember a quote by him to the effect of had he known what his work could be used for, he would've been a watch-maker instead (I can never remember that exactly). Should we ban all nuclear power? No, that would be silly. Our concern should be its use. So should it be with genetic manipulation, cloning, or whatever. Yes eugenics research is excruciatingly expensive, but when has that stopped us when we thought it would give a significant advantage ? (Nuclear weapons, SDI satellites, etc) As time goes on, science & technology will continue to make things more feasible, and I wonder will gene-slamming be the next genie? Picked Nit :) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: William Hindmarch [hindmarc@stu.beloit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, 07 April, 1998 21:37 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Genetic Engineering... in news Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute. > head. On the plus side, it means a cure for disease and so on. On ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Based on current statistical climbs, the human race will outgrow the amount of food it can produce within 25 years. Then people will begin to starve to death not because we don't feed them, but because we can't. We already have too many people; more than we know what to do with. The medical profession seems to accept that we are mortal, but no one seems willing to accept that death may sometimes come when we want it. Even if a "cleaner" genetic code is possible, it will weaken the race. Someday this civilization will fall away, history tells us. If we overspecialize we breed in weakness. Before long, only the people who were poor and unmedicated in this civilization will survive into the next one. The wild, uneven, and argumentative means with which we apply our medical technology serves as a decent illustration that we still do not know how to use it. I hardly think we should make the mistake - right now - of trying our hand at evolutionology. Humans are goal-directed creatures. Evolution is *not* a goal directed process. wil "not always the pessimist" hindmarch *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Hilarion [rhogan@mnsi.net] Sent: Wednesday, 08 April, 1998 0:58 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Genetic Engineering... in news On 08-Apr-98 William Hindmarch playfully chanted: | Let me play devil's advocate here for a minute. Sounds like a good game. Let's. ;)~ | |> head. On the plus side, it means a cure for disease and so on. On | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | | Based on current statistical climbs, the human race will outgrow the | amount of food it can produce within 25 years. Then people will begin to | starve to death not because we don't feed them, but because we can't. | We already have too many people; more than we know what to do with. There is far too much waste by a select elite in the world. We don't know how to stop ourselves from consuming. We could easily feed more in NEED if we did not waste our resources on our WANTS. | The medical profession seems to accept that we are mortal, but no | one seems willing to accept that death may sometimes come when we want it. | Even if a "cleaner" genetic code is possible, it will weaken the race. I'd agree with it being the spice of life. That next plague antigen might be a recessive trait, y'know. Just because we haven't used it yet doesn't make it useless. | Someday this civilization will fall away, history tells us. If we | overspecialize we breed in weakness. Before long, only the people who were | poor and unmedicated in this civilization will survive into the next one. Unmedicated? I assume you mean 'geneered. I don't even mind the overspecialization... it's if we lose our adaptability by gaining that in the forn of rigidity: that will be our downfall. | The wild, uneven, and argumentative means with which we apply our medical | technology serves as a decent illustration that we still do not know how to | use it. There's always more than enough documentation after experimentation. We know how--but not why or when. I hardly think we should make the mistake - right now - of trying | our hand at evolutionology. | Humans are goal-directed creatures. Evolution is *not* a goal | directed process. I guess that's a question of religion. Or philosophy, too. Hmm. If someone sees nature as having a certain goal, whether it's only a step in the stairs... | wil "not always the pessimist" hindmarch Right behind you! :)~ --- rhogan@mnsi.net Do we chase our tail or the moon when we follow the path of self-modification with out objectivity? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: William Hindmarch [hindmarc@stu.beloit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, 07 April, 1998 22:00 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Mad Rantings > container, it is impossible to put it back. I don't know what > Einstein had in mind when he was working on his projects, but I'm sure > Hiroshima wasn't it. In fact I vaguely remember a quote by him to the Einstein (and, later, even Oppenheimer) felt that using the technology as a weapon would be a mistake. When asked if it *could* be a weapon, Einstein of course replied that, yes, it very very could. (I know that's not proper English.) He also wanted to have nothing to do with it. Throughout history (my major), mankind's major technological endeavours have had two effects, usually both every time. 1. New technology redefines a society or civilization's operating or living conditions, altering political and economic forces sometimes to the point that they are no longer recognizable. These forces often have glaring implications on a civilization. Rome's aqueducts were the shit when they were up and working. They also drove a good portion of the population crazy from mineral poisoning. Nuclear weapons were a big, big deal (get a photo of the Bikini Islands testing), and soon all warfare was measured against them. 2. New technology almost always has little lasting effect on the long-term progress of a civilization. Rome's architecture and plumbing were stunning examples of engineering at the time. So were the water pumps and clocks in Egypt and Greece. So were the gardens of Ur and Babylon centuries before. Almost without exception, humanity has had to invent most major life-changing technologies more than once before they become "common place." This is, presumably, our first attempt at all this genetic engineering stuff. I doubt we'll get it right. It won't be able to go too far until the political and economic hurdles of both the technology and the civilization that owns it are overcome. In the modern world, with advanced communication, the field is tipped a little bit (rather like those games where you tip a maze in several directions to get a ball bearing to the end of the maze). Multiple civilizations gain similar technologies all at once (or in rapid succession) and then take turns tipping the field, all of them wanting to play the game at once, but no one wanting the little ball to "go down the hole." Too many civilizations in one place cannot survive any more than too many species or individuals in one place can. Unless we use one of the more uncommon technologies (in this case, a sociological discovery applied to every day life) earth life has developed: cooperation. wil "technology is any scientific discovery applied to everyday living" h. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jason A Werner [c577200@showme.missouri.edu] Sent: Tuesday, 07 April, 1998 22:53 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Mad Rantings Reggie wrote: > My point, (yes there was one), was that once a > genie/demon/etc is let loose from its lamp/bottle/respective > container, it is impossible to put it back. I couldn't agree more. > I don't know what Einstein had in mind when he was working on his projects, > but I'm sure Hiroshima wasn't it. In fact I vaguely remember a quote by him to the > effect of had he known what his work could be used for, he would've > been a watch-maker instead (I can never remember that exactly). I know the one you're talking about, and I can never remember it either. Wish I could. But all this begs the question: Who's responsible for policing the scientists, and indeed, should anybody be? There's all sorts of things in the works today that that could be perverted for great evil, so how do we stop that from happening? Or do we just count on our own good luck and sense of propriety? It seems to have gotten us through a few nuclear stand-off's, but will it be sufficinent? I'm not taking a position, and I certainly don't have the answers, but I think they are pressing questions. -- -Jason Werner Biohazard Games ------------------------------------------------ I lacked the courage to investigate the weaknesses of the wicked, because I discovered they are the same as the weaknesses of the saintly. - Wm. of Baskerville -------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.