Amazon.com Widgets
  • Taken to extreme-humans wouldn't have any food from plants

    Humans wouldn't even touch any of the plants in natural nature. This way, humans wouldn't harvest berries, spices, have any fruits, have any vegetables, or anything that comes from plants, because we wouldn't be interfering with nature. It would be interfering with nature to just go and harvest plants, including pick berries, harvest plants that we would use for spices, pick any fruits or vegetables that we grow in the ground.

  • Competition is natural , regardless of form

    If we are causing extinction of whatever species , it's because the species wasn't good enough to survive. The dinosaurs sure didn't care about species conservation.I understand that human morality/ethics might have conflicting views regarding our place in nature - if we have the right to choose which species lives. I don't see a species dying as a genocide like event but more like a gradual decline due to inability to compete or even chance factors.

  • I feel "interference" may not be the right word...

    This is about whether we apply the knowledge we have to situations which seem to demand it. Research advances and it seems there is little point in trying to halt or reverse it, what we need to do is always be alert to the implications of practical applications of such research (and I include the ethical dimension, of course).

    Look at it this way, we used to argue about whether it was nature or nurture which most influenced the sort of person we became, now we know that our development is influenced by the constant interplay between these two, that genes can be turned on and off, this is a natural process, and aiding or directing it, for our benefit (perhaps to help soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, as just one example) doesn't have to be a bad thing. It might feel like playing God, when, in fact, it's just us learning, applying those lessons, it's the discovery of new tools which can be added to our already very impressive repertoire. Anything in our hands can be used for good or for bad, even love, it's up to us to prove ourselves worthy of the knowledge and the power we acquire.

    Another thing which strikes me about the question is the assumption we often make that what is natural is what is good and desirable. Not everything that is natural is good, hate is natural, disease is natural, devastation by tsunami is natural.

    It may be true that nature has its own system of checks and balances and that this system may help the earth regulate itself, and the same idea can be applied to us, that once you start tinkering with genetic engineering, you can, inadvertently, disturb the natural equilibrium of things. Despite that, I still feel that our situation can be improved upon, that the more we understand about how things work, the more control we have over our destinies and over the quality of our lives, and I rely on the experts and the respectable institutions involved in this line of work to consider the potential implications (short as well as long-term). Obviously, we cannot be blind in our trust, which is why (yes, I'm singing the same tune in every question I engage with, it seems) we need to be educated in these matters and engaged, at some level, in the process.

    We don't really live in the age of the lone scientist secluded in his lab, tinkering away in isolation, we are living in an age of greater transparency and global collaboration, an age where research gets published and reviewed, an age where these things are happening in the open and people are able to raise the issues which concern them and have them duly addressed , that's why we have regulatory frameworks and legislation in place, look at the hoops of fire stem cell research has gone through to get to where it is today!

    Http://www.Hta.Gov.Uk/licensingandinspections/sectorspecificinformation/tissueandcellsforpatienttreatment/regulationofstemcelllinesfaqs.Cfm

    http://www.Dnapolicy.Org/

  • In some cases, I think it's alright.

    Breeders routinely interfere with natural selection by selectively breeding. I don't see anything wrong with that. There is a lot of benefit to it. You can produce plants and animals that do a better job of serving our purposes, and less of them that are detrimental to our purposes. Yup. That's what I think.

  • Yes, sometimes humans must correct their own mistakes.

    Interfering with natural selection is something humans have done for a very long time. The damage has been done, and it is not my place to speculate what amount of good (or bad) has come from that interference. However, if we have the power to correct those mistakes now by interfering, I think we have a moral obligation to do just that. Most of these corrections are simple, non-invasive tasks like taking care of or expanding existing habitats for at-risk animals.

  • No, humans should not interfere with natural selection

    Although humans are capable of interfering with natural selection (example we wipe out everything but ourselves), it would not be fair. Sure to think of this debate as a mater of "fairness" may seem ridiculous but when you think about, all the organisms had an equal chance to compete in regards to natural selection. I don't mean equal that all variations survived however there wasn't a constant rule or guard to stop certain species from developing by methods such as mass extinction. An asteroid cannot be argued since that was not on purpose (as far as we know).

  • Science Needs Checks And Balances

    With the advent of cloning and genetically modified crops, it's quickly getting to the point where science could run amok if strong ethical standards are not enforced. Yet, on the other hand, interfering with natural selection has been something humans have done for thousands of years. Only, that was with selectively breeding animals, not with putting insect DNA into soybeans.

    Posted by: rpr
  • If we do...

    We would be doomed. Like if we try to use 'CRISPR'- A means of Genetic Editing- to make mosquitos immune to diseases such as Malaria, the chances to make mistakes(with deadly consequences)are very vast. It isn't that unlikely to make a monster(hyperbole) come into existence.
    Long answer short, WE SHOULDN'T FUCK WITH NATURE

  • Humans can't interfere with natural selection

    By which I mean humans are unable to interfere natural selection. Natural selection is a process in which the environment selects for certain traits that give individuals an advantage, as those individuals with advantageous traits leave behind more offspring than those without the advantageous traits, thereby changing the gene frequency from one generation to the next. Natural selection is inevitable.
    Artificial selection, on the other hand, is a whole other argument.

  • If people take advantage for testing then we will not have crops or animals to live off of.

    If people take advantage of our technology then bad things could happen. Such as there would be no crops, unwanted behaviors, illnesses and un-needed violence.Why would you wish that upon a child or parent. People don't think about the effects on other families. Would you like it if you put a child in this type of economy? It is just plain selfishness.

  • If people take advantage for testing then we will not have crops or animals to live off of.

    If people take advantage of our technology then bad things could happen. Such as there would be no crops, unwanted behaviors, illnesses and un-needed violence.Why would you wish that upon a child or parent. People don't think about the effects on other families. Would you like it if you put a child in this type of economy? It is just plain selfishness.

  • If people take advantage for testing then we will not have crops or animals to live off of.

    If people take advantage of our technology then bad things could happen. Such as there would be no crops, unwanted behaviors, illnesses and un-needed violence.Why would you wish that upon a child or parent. People don't think about the effects on other families. Would you like it if you put a child in this type of economy? It is just plain selfishness.

  • If people take advantage for testing then we will not have crops or animals to live off of.

    If people take advantage of our technology then bad things could happen. Such as there would be no crops, unwanted behaviors, illnesses and un-needed violence.Why would you wish that upon a child or parent. People don't think about the effects on other families. Would you like it if you put a child in this type of economy? It is just plain selfishness.

  • If people take advantage for testing then we will not have crops or animals to live off of.

    If people take advantage of our technology then bad things could happen. Such as there would be no crops, unwanted behaviors, illnesses and un-needed violence.Why would you wish that upon a child or parent. People don't think about the effects on other families. Would you like it if you put a child in this type of economy? It is just plain selfishness.

  • If people take advantage for testing then we will not have crops or animals to live off of.

    If people take advantage of our technology then bad things could happen. Such as there would be no crops, unwanted behaviors, illnesses and un-needed violence.Why would you wish that upon a child or parent. People don't think about the effects on other families. Would you like it if you put a child in this type of economy? It is just plain selfishness.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Quan says2013-07-11T14:16:32.897
It is impossible for us to interfere with natural selection. We are part of it.
fractaldreams says2013-07-12T08:20:35.453
Quan: I don't know if that is true (it might be, looked at in a certain light, you'd have to clarify your position a wee bit...). We certainly can accelerate processes which would take a long time to happen naturally (if at all), we can flip the switch on specific genes, we can regulate biological responses, we have the ability to manipulate for traits according to our whims, we can do all sorts of things which actually translate into us rewriting or redesigning life. We are taking control of evolution. I don't want to think of this as bad thing, as I happen to think it extremely exciting and full of very positive potential. Having said that, I do think we need to proceed with caution because anytime you get a combination of people, power, expertise and resources, the probability exists that it will be abused or simply be ill-conceived (especially in relation to long-term effects or consequences). I mean, think about it, people with the ability to engineer life as they think is best... Scary thought considering how wise we have proved thus far, not. Right. I guess I have some serious ambivalence about this question.
fractaldreams says2013-07-12T14:09:48.677
Quan: my goodness, I hear you (thrice, lol!). Yes, obviously, in that respect everything is natural, but you could go as far as arguing that even the supernatural is natural as arising from the very natural minds of humans. This is just games with words and their not always adequate boundaries. For me, for instance, a plastic bag which is bound to outlive us all (damn things) is not in the same realm of naturalness as one made from biodegradable material, but, I do take your point. I wonder what it would look like if we could speak to each other without distinctions? I envisage a great silence (nothing wrong with silence). Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
fractaldreams says2013-07-12T14:10:43.247
Quan: my goodness, I hear you (thrice, lol!). Yes, obviously, in that respect everything is natural, but you could go as far as arguing that even the supernatural is natural as arising from the very natural minds of humans. This is just games with words and their not always adequate boundaries. For me, for instance, a plastic bag which is bound to outlive us all (damn things) is not in the same realm of naturalness as one made from biodegradable material, but, I do take your point. I wonder what it would look like if we could speak to each other without distinctions? I envisage a great silence (nothing wrong with silence). Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
fractaldreams says2013-07-12T14:27:02.607
Is there a strange echo in DOD???
The_Glorious_Sammy says2014-01-10T20:31:36.240
We already have, with animals and pets.