4 ms·

I think there are lots of problems with GM stuff. It all starts with 'We have only one earth'. The vacuum of space combined with the stickiness of matter isolat

by JepZ 9y ago

I think there are lots of problems with GM stuff. It all starts with 'We have only one earth'. The vacuum of space combined with the stickiness of matter isolates biological systems very well. So if someone would start a genetically modified plant series on some space station or distant planet I would have much less of a problem with that. Second, I have got the feeling that many people who experiment with genetic manipulation don't know what they are actually doing. Yes, they might know it on a high-level perspective and for experiments that is fine, but as long as we can't simulate even single cells its is hard to tell that we know what we are doing. As a computer scientist it feels to me like someone is patching the binaries of 'grep' and 'cp' together and hopes to use the resulting binaries to build autonomous drones. It is just irresponsible to use the results are long as the have only one petri dish which is actually the one we are living in. So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research, but also completely against usage outside of laboratories. There might be exceptions to that rule when it comes to 'specific modification' as you call it, but for me it ends where you could not achieve the same result with a handful of normal breeding cycles.

UncleMeat 9y ago
> Second, I have got the feeling that many people who experiment with genetic manipulation don't know what they are actually doing. This is frankly ridiculous. You describe yourself as a computer scientist and presumably have no expertise in the field and then use your gut feeling about how well people understand the consequences of their efforts? I know plenty of people who think that I'm just typing words and random until my code compiles. Demanding that we are able to model living organisms in computers before we can productionize gmo tech is like saying that we can't deploy any web app until it has been formally verified in Coq.
- JepZ 9y ago
  Well, the difference is that we aren't living in the web. So even if the web goes down, the rest of the internet is still there and even without the internet we would survive. So if we would live within the web, I would certainly demand to formally verify every web app before it would be deployed.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    There is no hypothetical scenario for ecological collapse caused by gene editing that, when critically examined, doesn't look like arguing for a flat Earth. Conventional agricultural practices are already causing massive ecological devastation. Gene editing is a very good solution to that problem.
asdsa5325 9y ago
> So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research If you are pro research, maybe you should understand what you are talking about before you make ignorant claims that are completely backward, disconnected, and unfavored by the majority of scientists. You ignorance in this comment is incredible. The large majority of scientists support GMO research and confirm it's safety, while ignorant civilians (like you) fail to understand, fail to listen, and fail to learn.
- JepZ 9y ago
  I am not sure if I am the only ignorant person out here. I am well aware, that I am ignoring any statements about that technology being safe, because this isn't about some tech being safe or unsafe (most technologies can be used both ways), its about risk: The problem I have, is that nobody really knows what happens when you place those products in our ecosystem. We might have some theories and observations but in the end nobody knows enough about the whole system to understand all its processes and sometimes small changes have much larger effects. And as long as we have only one system and no backup, I don't want to risk changing the ecosystem on this planet in ways we can't predict.
  - sampo 9y ago
    They have been growing GMO papaya in Hawaii for 26 years (20 years commercially) now. Nothing happened. It's all "unknown unknowns" territory here. There are no known threat scenarios. But if you're into being concerned of unknown unknowns, you have thousands of other things to be concerned of, too.
    - JepZ 9y ago
      Well, risks are always about probability of occurrence and impact. So while it is unlikely that some GM plant causes some catastrophic scenario, but when it does it is likely to spread so the impact would be big. I know that unknown threats are everywhere and there are a lots of other things I am concerned of too, but in the end I am used to live with that and it doesn't change my view on the topic.
smsm42 9y ago
> As a computer scientist it feels to me like someone is patching the binaries of 'grep' and 'cp' together and hopes to use the resulting binaries to build autonomous drones. No, it's like applying a patch to a code base, compiling it, testing it and expecting it to work. Which is literally what millions of software engineers do every day. > So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research, but also completely against usage outside of laboratories. What's the point in that research than? Idle curiosity? > but for me it ends where you could not achieve the same result with a handful of normal breeding cycles. That's like saying it's ok to run binaries, but only if we compile them by hand on paper without using a compiler. If the result is the same, as even you admit, what's the point of taking the hard route?

by JepZ 9y ago

UncleMeat 9y ago

> Second, I have got the feeling that many people who experiment with genetic manipulation don't know what they are actually doing. This is frankly ridiculous. You describe yourself as a computer scientist and presumably have no expertise in the field and then use your gut feeling about how well people understand the consequences of their efforts? I know plenty of people who think that I'm just typing words and random until my code compiles. Demanding that we are able to model living organisms in computers before we can productionize gmo tech is like saying that we can't deploy any web app until it has been formally verified in Coq.

JepZ 9y ago
Well, the difference is that we aren't living in the web. So even if the web goes down, the rest of the internet is still there and even without the internet we would survive. So if we would live within the web, I would certainly demand to formally verify every web app before it would be deployed.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  There is no hypothetical scenario for ecological collapse caused by gene editing that, when critically examined, doesn't look like arguing for a flat Earth. Conventional agricultural practices are already causing massive ecological devastation. Gene editing is a very good solution to that problem.

asdsa5325 9y ago

> So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research If you are pro research, maybe you should understand what you are talking about before you make ignorant claims that are completely backward, disconnected, and unfavored by the majority of scientists. You ignorance in this comment is incredible. The large majority of scientists support GMO research and confirm it's safety, while ignorant civilians (like you) fail to understand, fail to listen, and fail to learn.

JepZ 9y ago
I am not sure if I am the only ignorant person out here. I am well aware, that I am ignoring any statements about that technology being safe, because this isn't about some tech being safe or unsafe (most technologies can be used both ways), its about risk: The problem I have, is that nobody really knows what happens when you place those products in our ecosystem. We might have some theories and observations but in the end nobody knows enough about the whole system to understand all its processes and sometimes small changes have much larger effects. And as long as we have only one system and no backup, I don't want to risk changing the ecosystem on this planet in ways we can't predict.
- sampo 9y ago
  They have been growing GMO papaya in Hawaii for 26 years (20 years commercially) now. Nothing happened. It's all "unknown unknowns" territory here. There are no known threat scenarios. But if you're into being concerned of unknown unknowns, you have thousands of other things to be concerned of, too.
  - JepZ 9y ago
    Well, risks are always about probability of occurrence and impact. So while it is unlikely that some GM plant causes some catastrophic scenario, but when it does it is likely to spread so the impact would be big. I know that unknown threats are everywhere and there are a lots of other things I am concerned of too, but in the end I am used to live with that and it doesn't change my view on the topic.

smsm42 9y ago

> As a computer scientist it feels to me like someone is patching the binaries of 'grep' and 'cp' together and hopes to use the resulting binaries to build autonomous drones. No, it's like applying a patch to a code base, compiling it, testing it and expecting it to work. Which is literally what millions of software engineers do every day. > So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research, but also completely against usage outside of laboratories. What's the point in that research than? Idle curiosity? > but for me it ends where you could not achieve the same result with a handful of normal breeding cycles. That's like saying it's ok to run binaries, but only if we compile them by hand on paper without using a compiler. If the result is the same, as even you admit, what's the point of taking the hard route?