4 ms·

I think the "how" is more important. Genetic modification sounds awesome, and really dangerous. If it's not just right, or if the potential of unforeseen mutati

I think the "how" is more important. Genetic modification sounds awesome, and really dangerous. If it's not just right, or if the potential of unforeseen mutations occurring is above zero, I think we risk too much regardless of the benefits. I.e. please be completely certain that the GM offspring mating with female individuals will not result in some other side effect...

noir_lord 11y ago
If it goes wrong and they end up breeding super bloodsuckers, worst case we put them all through the bar exam ;).
ghshephard 11y ago
Other than movies, do we have any evidence that "GM offspring" (whatever that means, turns out defining "GM" is not as straightforward as one might suspect), are, in any way more likely to be dangerous than plain, vanilla, two-mosquitoes having babies offspring? Because, here's the thing - we do know the implications of letting these mosquitoes live. 100s of thousands of people a year die. Every Year.
- soft_dev_person 11y ago
  Do we have any evidence that it won't? If you believe the Monsanto GM corn documentaries, releasing GM into the wild may have bad effects (intended or otherwise) outside the designated population. Plants are obviously not the same as insects, but I would prefer to err on the safe(r) side. Edit: Also, a known bad is often better than an unknown.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    There are miles of difference between altering an organism so it'll survive better against predators or poisons, and altering an organism so it won't reproduce. People shooting any GM advance on the same basket as if every change was the same irks me. It's similar to talk about how computer malware is harmful, thus you must never install anything on your PC.
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    The known bad is hundreds of thousands of people dying every year. It's pretty hard to conceive of how a laboratory tested solution which kills/slows down mosquitoes could be any worse than that, particularly when all sorts of genetic modifications are occurring by the billions in nature every single day without any testing/verification. You know what would turn around everyone's attitude in about 7 days flat (probably fewer) - have those hundreds of thousands of people dying a year be white, rich, Americans. Every conceivable solution to wipe out the mosquitos would be developed, and rolled out with zero debate (and I mean zero - there wouldn't be a single naysayer of any merit)
StavrosK 11y ago
> if the potential of unforeseen mutations occurring is above zero The potential of unforeseen mutations occurring is 100%, GM or no. How do you think species evolve?
- soft_dev_person 11y ago
  I guess you just confirmed my point.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    If your point is "genetic modification is no more dangerous than normally-occurring mutations", then I did.
ascorbic 11y ago
"Regardless of benefits"? If they were killing hundreds of thousands of people every year in the US and Europe, would you feel the same? There's a risk associated with eradicating anything, but here the risk/reward balance is a little different than otherwise. It's worth a bit of risk to destroy the number one killer of humans worldwide.

noir_lord 11y ago

If it goes wrong and they end up breeding super bloodsuckers, worst case we put them all through the bar exam ;).

ghshephard 11y ago

Other than movies, do we have any evidence that "GM offspring" (whatever that means, turns out defining "GM" is not as straightforward as one might suspect), are, in any way more likely to be dangerous than plain, vanilla, two-mosquitoes having babies offspring? Because, here's the thing - we do know the implications of letting these mosquitoes live. 100s of thousands of people a year die. Every Year.

soft_dev_person 11y ago
Do we have any evidence that it won't? If you believe the Monsanto GM corn documentaries, releasing GM into the wild may have bad effects (intended or otherwise) outside the designated population. Plants are obviously not the same as insects, but I would prefer to err on the safe(r) side. Edit: Also, a known bad is often better than an unknown.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  There are miles of difference between altering an organism so it'll survive better against predators or poisons, and altering an organism so it won't reproduce. People shooting any GM advance on the same basket as if every change was the same irks me. It's similar to talk about how computer malware is harmful, thus you must never install anything on your PC.
- ghshephard 11y ago
  The known bad is hundreds of thousands of people dying every year. It's pretty hard to conceive of how a laboratory tested solution which kills/slows down mosquitoes could be any worse than that, particularly when all sorts of genetic modifications are occurring by the billions in nature every single day without any testing/verification. You know what would turn around everyone's attitude in about 7 days flat (probably fewer) - have those hundreds of thousands of people dying a year be white, rich, Americans. Every conceivable solution to wipe out the mosquitos would be developed, and rolled out with zero debate (and I mean zero - there wouldn't be a single naysayer of any merit)

StavrosK 11y ago

> if the potential of unforeseen mutations occurring is above zero The potential of unforeseen mutations occurring is 100%, GM or no. How do you think species evolve?

soft_dev_person 11y ago
I guess you just confirmed my point.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  If your point is "genetic modification is no more dangerous than normally-occurring mutations", then I did.

ascorbic 11y ago

"Regardless of benefits"? If they were killing hundreds of thousands of people every year in the US and Europe, would you feel the same? There's a risk associated with eradicating anything, but here the risk/reward balance is a little different than otherwise. It's worth a bit of risk to destroy the number one killer of humans worldwide.