The Instigator
tompony
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sagacity
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should GEO's (Geneticly Engineered Organisms) Be released into the environment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
sagacity
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 33945
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

tompony

Pro

I believe that GEO's (Geneticly engineered organisms) should be released ini the enviremont because they could be extremely helpful to everything around them
sagacity

Con

i thank my opponent for starting this debate.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
tompony

Pro

Now if you think about it GEO'S could possibly interbreed which is a 50-50 out come of good or bad but if you think about it some animals are going extinct. 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. 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. 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. Some of these things are quite positive but you also forget one big con in the colloquy but sadly I can't tell you it would work to heavily against me.
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.
sagacity

Con

"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.

http://www.all-creatures.org...
Debate Round No. 2
tompony

Pro

Well if you think about it removing deer from one habitat could disrupt another and completely fistful the balance then you would be in another situation. 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 know I've probably lost this debate but still I think GEOs would be affective in warfare as well. You see my main question of GEO's would be how would they change warfare from today and how will they impact the future?. Now I'd like to know the options from any one reading. Now my information about this is a small but extended. This could effect warfare at a huge price but it could improve at a small amount. 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.
sagacity

Con

"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.


Debate Round No. 3
tompony

Pro

tompony forfeited this round.
sagacity

Con

my opponent forfeited.
Debate Round No. 4
tompony

Pro

tompony forfeited this round.
sagacity

Con

I believe i have stated my case clearly.

Vote for con!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sagacity 4 years ago
sagacity
Vote away!
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Good luck on your first debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
tomponysagacityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF