Corwin

Selective breeding can only select for existing traits. (Usually recessive ones.) Baseline level changes can add entirely new traits into the mix.... and the results are, at least with current technology, HIGHLY unpredictable.

It's going too far too fast. We're messing around with a system that we don't yet know enough about. What are the longterm effects of adding a given trait into the genome of a domestic species? We can say to some point, especially with short term results. Beyond that we're looking at an amazingly complex system that we don't yet fully understand.

We're allowing consumer products to be made and marketed with technology that shouldn't even be let out of a highly controlled lab yet. In any other case, this wouldn't be anywhere CLOSE to market yet, and with good reason. As an example, look at genetic therapy as a medical practice. Aside from a few very VERY basic procedures, we're looking at 20-30 years before any useful applications will be released. Why? Because the researchers are being careful. The agricorps only care about their bottom line tho.... so we get 'oh quit griping.... SHIP IT!!!!!'

fando

My mother is paranoid about "chemicals", but after a long time of dealing with it, I understand that she means substances in food which are toxic, cancerous or can have long term health repercussions. If anything, the loading of the word chemical with negative connotations is a regrettable byproduct of our scientific illiteracy. Anyone up for a healthy dose of yellow-green radiation?

Corwin

Yes PS.... and I inhale that pesticide on a regular basis. I'm concerned about the amounts in GM tomatoes, and any changes made to them.

You think Dow gives a damn about people? Please.

Selective breeding, again, can only select for existing traits. What we're talking about is the ability to change traits or add entirely new ones. GM is also MUCH faster than selective breeding. With selective breeding, if we get a harmful product, odds are there are only one or two of them and they can be destroyed. With GM foods we're talking about entire FIELDS of products that are radically different, and the local ecology simply doesn't have time to adapt to them.

Introducing rats into New Zealand was bad enough.... think of how much worse this could be.

GM holds great promise. It also isn't ready for prime time yet, and sure as all HELL shouldn't be controlled by these companies.

ps418

Not so. Most selective breeding is for quantitative or continuous traits, such as size, height, color, weight, fat content, sweetness, growth rate, nitrogen requirement, etc.

Patrick

Corwin

Yup... that's why we can breed cows to be venomous.

Wups, we can't. Why not? The trait isn't there to select for.

Mageth

Selective breeding can only select for existing traits. (Usually recessive ones.) Baseline level changes can add entirely new traits into the mix.... and the results are, at least with current technology, HIGHLY unpredictable.

Well, you're discounting mutations, which can occur in nature (obviously), and which may be beneficial to humans in domesticated crops, and thus artificially selected for when they occur, but not so beneficial to wild plants.

The difference is that GE speeds up the process.

ps418

True. But gamma and x-ray irradiation mutagenesis is also widely used. The difference here is mainly that we have no clue about what genetic changes are actually being made by the process. Do you support the same restrictions on irradiated crops as for GM?


Patrick

Corwin

Speeds it up dramatically, and IN THEORY allows for a precise level of control over mutation.

In practice, we just don't know enough about the system to have that kind of control.

Again, I'm not 'morally opposed to genetic engineering' as the GM foods camp has a regrettable tendency to paint people like me as.... I'm pragmatic. This shouldn't be out of the lab yet. I don't care if it enhances their profit margin. That's irrelevant.

Corwin

Yes and more so.

The problem with irradiating food (I've never even heard of people intentionally using it for modification on anything but fruit flies...) is that it doesn't solve the actual problem. It kills bacteria and viruses.... but they aren't the ENTIRE problem. It covers up risks by killing spoilage bacteria.... the effects of pathogens, (such as botula) are still there.

NialScorva

Can we go ahead and change the thread title to be Corwin Doesn't Understand Physics, Part 2: Corwin Doesn't Understand Evolution