Should GEO's (Geneticly Engineered Organisms) Be released into the environment
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be arguing that Genetically engineered organisms should not be released into the environment.
1. Firstly, genetic engineering is a fairly new science, and we haven't yet learned the risks and dangers associated with it. If we were to release these organisms into the environment, they will disseminate throughout by interbreeding with other non modified organisms, creating inbreeds and thus polluting natural gene pools with contrived and manipulated variations. These new variations can be detrimental to the health and well being of the ecosystem, and by then we will be unable to retract any of the subjects we introduced.
2. You argued that the GMOs should be released into the environment because they provide us with a lot of benefit, however that alone does not necessitate the exemption of them into the environment. We can reap the benefits of these subjects by keeping them in controlled areas and labs, as we have done with insulin producing bacteria. introducing them into the wild is a non factor.
Some enviremonts are being over run by certain animals like deer for instance some times they don't have enough space in the forest so they eventually find a way into the city... Why? Because there may not be enough preditors to keep population down. So tinker a bit here tinker a bit there you could take out the current preditors and enhance their abilities to make sure that the population is just right. You could even remodel the body to be swifter but the stomacoh to be the right size. Things likes these are what make Genetically Engineering so good and not a bad thing.
"Now if you think about it GEO'S could possibly interbreed which is a 50-50 out come of good or bad"
Flipping a coin to determine the fate of an ecosystem is not sensible.
"Now if some animals breed that aren't meant to it could possible create a newer more profiting hybrid of the extinct animal. Also you can use DNA to bring back extinct animals like certain frogs and horses and other animals back through GEO technology, think about that."
Species go extinct for reason determined by natural selection. Why bring back animals that weren't meant to survive, and disrupt the equilibrium of the ecosystem?
"If tigers were to go extinct you would probably be sad but through Genetically engineering and DNA of tigers you could recreate the tigers and possible make then more compatible to the environment in which they live in at the current moment. Think about this if a tigers scenes were boosted a ton would poachers so easily capture them and kill them. What if you made it to a point were they could grow fur you could shear them instead of killing."
You seem to come back to your point on benefits arising from GEOs. What i am arguing is that although there is indeed benefit from genetic engineering, the harm can outweigh everything else. Mice are commontest subjects for GE, and in one instance scientists disabled a gene in hopes to affect the mice"s ability of blood coagulation, however what became apparent later on was that the subjects were born with half limbs, one eye, and with general organ deformations. Now imagine if this occurred in the tigers you brought up; An inconspicuous organ deformation could arise, but not rendering it infertile. This tiger would propagate its defected genes throughout the ecosystem, and gradually all the tigers would die out. This is a very real possibility, and as I said earlier, it is not worth flipping a coin to determine the fate of the ecosystem.
"Some of the new advancements could be extremely helpful in other ways as well like if you look at this one city where radiation killed off all of the organisms that lived there but in that process the genetics of two horses combined to form an extinct horse and some of this happened to the trees."
You did not site where you got this information from so i have no way of telling if it is valid. But even if extinct species could arise from an unatural process, so what? You showed me no proof why bringing back species is a good thing.
"Some enviremonts are being over run by certain animals like deer for instance some times they don't have enough space in the forest so they eventually find a way into the city... Why? Because there may not be enough preditors to keep population down. So tinker a bit here tinker a bit there you could take out the current preditors and enhance their abilities to make sure that the population is just right. You could even remodel the body to be swifter but the stomacoh to be the right size. Things likes these are what make Genetically Engineering so good and not a bad thing."
I agree deer overpopulation is a serious issue, however genetic engineering is not the most ideal way of dealing with it. Some alternate solutions include transporting a fraction of the deers to another area, loosening on the constraints and regulations on hunters, introducing more of the native predators, and much more. GE is a rather superfluous and unneeded risk to take.
"But yes I think animal testing can be a bit cruel but mice really. Mice actualy cause problems all the time so do rats and other rodents. This is why they use lab rats instead of humans. Can you imagine the pain of being help down and having to be chopped up and having stuff injected into you you'll probably think but actualy do. But again ok they were mice but they were put way past their body limits instead of slowly devolving this over the years."
I never actually brought up the issue of animal cruelty by genetic engineering. The mice example was to point out how GE could produce unforseen side effects, which is why we shouldnt take the chance of releasing them into the enviroment.
"Now if you could create a monster/GEO with the abilities of a large amount of dangerous animals you could create a super animal that can easy dispatch enemy soldiers quickly and silently. Now this is quite effective if you could implement a kill switch as well incase one were to go rogue. This would save time and soldiers. Now yes yes the price of making these and them programming them. But intact they could turn tables with in any war."
Interesting idea, however i dont think any 'super animal' could stand to the ever so rapid advancement in weaponry. It may have worked a couple of centuries ago, but definately not in the modern age. Either way it doesn't bear much relevance to the topic at hand.
tompony forfeited this round.
tompony forfeited this round.
Vote for con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.