Can genetic engineering advance civilization?

by kir Posted 2012/07/16 20:00:55

Related Topics: GMO, Diabetes, Eat, Future, Insulin, Living, The Future, Genetic, Lot, Without, Food, SodaHead

43 votes
Read all 74 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Genetic engineering is too dangerous to attempt	7 votes	16%
	Genetic engineering is beneficial and worth it	21 votes	49%
	Undecided	15 votes	35%

There are a lot of examples of how genetic engineering has already helped advance civilization; all the people who would die from diabetes without insulin are examples of this fact. But can genetic engineering really allow us to make strides in the future?

Okay because so many people fail to read the article and because I am getting sick and tired of the uneducated responses, let me make this clear; I do not mean HUMANS!

On a related post, would you eat GMO foods?

Add a comment above

The Nixus 2012/07/17 08:55:56

Genetic engineering is too dangerous to attempt

Man would start to use it on himself in bad ways and charge money for it, I.E to extend life at a financial cost, to re-create man himeself etc

love peace and light to all

reply
kir to The Nixus 2012/07/17 11:32:11

+1
Why does everything automatically go to "man"? I wonder how many of the people who went right to applications on humans didn't read my article at all or at least in full.

You know we already use genetically engineered organisms to save lives right?

reply
kevracer to The Nixus 2012/07/17 19:24:49

how about doctors using genetic research to end cancer, parkinson's disease, HIV/AIDS, and other diseases? Would that be a bad thing?

reply
XQNP 2012/07/17 05:28:53

Genetic engineering is beneficial and worth it

All new technologies have risks. But, when properly tested and contained, they do wonders for the world. Fire, after all, has been responsible for countless deaths over the course of human history. But where would we be without it?

The biggest long-term benefit genetic engineering will bring is probably immortality. That will allow us to start looking into the future and actually caring what will happen hundreds or thousands of years from now. That way, we can switch to sustainable energy, stabilize the environment, and avoid the expansion of the sun, thereby saving humanity many times over.

reply
Wyveryx 2012/07/17 01:30:19

Genetic engineering is too dangerous to attempt

Need I say more lol

reply
kir to Wyveryx 2012/07/17 01:33:02

Why do people automatically assume that I mean humans/eugenics? Read the damn article. One of the first uses I mention is saving the lives of every diabetic who needs insulin to survive.

reply
Wyveryx to kir 2012/07/17 01:34:27

It was a joke.

There are always ways that genetic engineering can be beneficial.

reply
kir to Wyveryx 2012/07/17 01:51:44

+1
Yeah, just be careful with the genetic engineering plus out of all the possibly millions of inhabitable planets out there, don't pick the one that's going to turn into a desert...

reply
Sister Wolf 2012/07/17 00:02:44

Undecided

there has been some veg. that are hydr. and do good but then there are some things that just don't work together so not really sure of my vote.

reply
kir to Sister ... 2012/07/17 00:14:17

There are a lot of benefits to genetic engineering but definitely risks if used incorrectly. I'll probably post more possible uses for genetic engineering in another post. Did you find my post on the topic helpful by the way? I'm not sure if it was laid out well enough.

reply
Sister ... to kir 2012/07/17 00:54:37

it was a little confusing but i do know that most have benefits but the ones that don't mess up badly. lol

reply
sick'n'tired 2012/07/16 23:49:58

Genetic engineering is too dangerous to attempt

+2
Nazi Germany thought selective breeding could create a superior race. Genetis engineering is the same. You can't predict what nature will cause.

reply
kir to sick'n'... 2012/07/16 23:50:55

Genetic engineering and eugenics is not the same thing; I'm not talking about engineering people but simply new plants for food, etc or for the production of medicines.

Did you read the article I linked to?

reply
☆56lady... to sick'n'... 2012/07/31 16:07:41

If you like to read this is an excellent book . . . "War Against The Weak" Edwin Black.

reply
LunarRain 2012/07/16 23:29:54

Genetic engineering is beneficial and worth it

It can do alot of good and if they can I would want them to make pokemon real. They don't have to have the powers but I want them to look like it. :)

reply
Phoenix 2012/07/16 21:33:18

Genetic engineering is beneficial and worth it

+1
Yes but .....

reply
flaca BN-0 2012/07/16 21:03:28

Undecided

The problem is we do genetic engineering without much knowledge. I'm worried about it with crops. And erradicating disease while a great thing on the surface leads to longer lives and more overpopulation. Which of us knows the right answer?

reply
boss hawg 2012/07/16 20:40:45

Genetic engineering is beneficial and worth it

have you not seen the movie gattica? so 10 yrs ago

reply
kir to boss hawg 2012/07/31 16:01:47

I do not mean humans, though Gattica is occurring in a way, or at least I should say eugenics through abortion.

reply
S and S 2012/07/16 20:13:23

Undecided

Hitler did it.

reply
kir to S and S 2012/07/16 20:14:41

You're confusing genetic engineering with Eugenics which is actually still occurring frequently in America. http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

reply
S and S to kir 2012/07/16 23:34:07

actually there is quite a bit of similarity not as much science intervention which speeds up the process. If Hitler had the technology today, he'd definitely be making "perfect" Germans.

reply
kir to S and S 2012/07/16 23:42:41

Except genetic engineering in and of itself has nothing to do with eugenics unless it is used that way. A sledgehammer can be used as a tool for eugenics as well. Just hit stupid people over the head with one.

reply
S and S to kir 2012/07/16 23:46:51

Genetic engineering is frequently refered to as the New Eugenics.

reply
kir to S and S 2012/07/16 23:51:42

Did you even read the article? I never even mentioned humans in it. You assumed that I meant humans but in fact I simply mean of new breeds of plants, new medicines, etc or perhaps even biological technology such as organic computers and self healing buildings.

reply
S and S to kir 2012/07/16 23:55:50

I didn't see any reason to debate Genetic engineering vs Eugenics. and it's a valid example of manipulating genetics (whether engineered or eugenically). the result is still an unnatural result.

reply
kir to S and S 2012/07/16 23:59:17

I don't think we should be manipulating the human genome, but that's not what this poll was about. I was asking if the process of genetic engineering in general could advance human civilization.

In my opinion it already has; after all, how many diabetics would be dying right now if it weren't for genetic engineering?

reply
Psicolabis 2012/07/16 20:08:35

Undecided

Civilization is not defined by genetics, so it can't be improoved by that means

reply
kir to Psicolabis 2012/07/16 20:15:56

I think the people who would be dieing right now of conditions like diabetes would disagree.

Thinking more in the futurist mentality, you don't think moving towards biological technoloy which could eliminate all pollution created by our current technological systems would be beneficial?

reply
Psicolabis to kir 2012/07/30 12:29:24

that doesn't make our civilization go fowar, that make our lives last longer

reply
TuringsChild 2012/07/16 20:06:10

Undecided

Not as currently constituted. And really, Nature has been doing that a helluva lot longer than we have. It's like pitting a first year biology major against a lab full of Nobel Prize winning geneticists.

reply
kir to Turings... 2012/07/16 20:16:50

Not really. Nature does it through completely random chance. It's as likely to create an organism that is so parasitic that it destroys its host before it has a chance to reproduce or worse yet destroy the entire species it uses as a host.

reply
Turings... to kir 2012/07/16 20:22:09 (edited)

And yet nature manages to regularly disarm new chemicals designed to wipe out any number of scourges. Have you heard the latest with Monsanto's GMO corn?
http://www.nationofchange.org...
Meanwhile GMO foods causing organs to shut down are just a 'side effect'. :p

reply
kir to Turings... 2012/07/16 20:26:04

But that's the thing, it's a natural mutation that created the change; also if you're talking about some cases of GMO that killed some cattle, they have not linked that to the genetic engineering.

Now let's compare that to nature's creation of ricin toxin, one of the most deadly toxins known. Not much safer is it? Or how about the black death? Or so many other instances.

But of course it's all a matter of how it's used. Did you even read the article linked?

reply