7 ms·

Yes...naturally breed them and let genes modify in accordance of naturality. It is intellectually dishonest to compare that with an educated guessing game of m

Yes...naturally breed them and let genes modify in accordance of naturality. It is intellectually dishonest to compare that with an educated guessing game of modifying select genes and hoping it turns out OK. The very obvious difference being humans selected which genes to modify with gene editing while selective breeding allowed the reproductive process to select which combination of genes are passed and which are not. The obvious ethical objection is that human error can happen with gene editing and is intolerable while selective breeding allows for the reproductive system to make errors which are not a responsibility of man but of nature. Ethical slippery sloping to justify ends sucks!

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> The obvious ethical objection is that human error can happen with gene editing and is intolerable while selective breeding allows for the reproductive system to make errors which are not a responsibility of man but of nature. It seems like you're saying, either way you can get errors, but if you do it through breeding you can claim it wasn't your fault because, really, Nature did it. I can't tell if you're serious or not.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  I don't know how accurate it is, but I remember reading that (the first time was a very long time ago) some varieties of plants/crops were developed through literally bombarding them with radiation and then breeding the mutants that were improved, and the results are not considered to be GMOs, because nobody was manipulating specific genes. They were just basically firing a shotgun at them.
  - riffraff 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening EDIT: you may be thinking of this article specifically http://www.ediblegeography.com/strange-and-beautiful-seeds-from-the-atom/ http://www.ediblegeography.com/strange-and-beautiful-seeds-f... > For example, a mutagenic Ruby Red grapefruit grown without the use of pesticides can be labeled as organic and thus be sold for a premium, despite the fact that organic foods by definition cannot be genetically modified.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    I can accept that. Living things have a natural process of eliminating incompatible variants. I think of it as a coder binary patching bugs without understanding how the patched piece affects every other variable essentially creating more problems as opposed to readinf the code and rebuilding the app after understanding it slowly and properly. What is the rush?? I honestly think scientists and science enthusiasts do not understand the most basic principle of justice: you cannot wrong even one innocent person evem if it means saving the entire planet as a whole! If you don't belive that please stay away from any profession that requires ethical decision making.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      There are professions that don't require ethical decision making? Please list three. (I work for the government, and I'm here to help...)
      - cyberbanjo 7y ago
        Require legally or require ethically, Mr TLA?
        perl4ever 7y ago
        Can there be an ethical requirement to be ethical? If you're not ethical, aren't ethical requirements irrelevant?
      - badrabbit 7y ago
        Ethical decision making and being in a position where being unethical can easily cause tragedies and jail time for you is different. I specifically meant right and wrong. Many jobs are simple enough to where you can follow the law and company guidelines and be ok. Good example: truck driver, they have a ton of rules for everything due to how easily a simple mishap like not sleeping enough can get a person killed. They don't need to know much (if any) about ethics they just need to follow the law and rules. Scientists,archaeologists,politicians and other professions involve new concepts and discoveries for which existing law and rules do not have coverage and as such require the professionals to know and excercise ethics in a consistent and acceptable way.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  I am serious and that is what I am saying. Nature has plenty of errors,the benefits of gene editing do not justify even one person being harmed as a result if human added error. If selective human breeding is unethical (eugenics) then so is selective human gene editing!
  - keithnoizu 7y ago
    Forced eugenics is obviously unethical but whats so bad about selective breeding in general as long as your going for intelligence, athleticism, musicality etc. and not country of origin.
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      The traits are irrelevant, you shouldn't group people by traits and say this group should never exist. Ethics aside too many unintended consequences. If you breed for muscularity and athleticism everyone is physically fit but you no longer have smart people that spend most of their time studying. Too much intellect and you suddenly are in shortage of people that spend most of their time getting fit like firefighters and soldiers. Ethically, there is this concept of self determination for humans, that our existence especially with flaws is what gives us individual traits. Previous generations should not amplify any trait on purpose because that implies we are bread for a purpose. We are not purpose built machines or animals, we get to decide what purpose suits us best which is individual self determination. There is a difference though between a person finding a mate because they find a feature attractive (reproductive selection) and selecting a mate because that mate will amplify that feature in their offspring.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    Who said anything about human gene editing? We're talking about animals and plants. > I am serious and that is what I am saying. I think we must not be on the same page, still. You said: "The obvious ethical objection is that human error can happen with gene editing and is intolerable while selective breeding allows for the reproductive system to make errors which are not a responsibility of man but of nature." That sounds like you're saying that, if I genetically modify a cow for more milk production and it turns out that the milk gives you cancer, then of course I am to blame; but if I instead breed cows for more milk production and get exactly the same result, then it not's me at fault but Nature. Even though I'm the one who put a new product in stores without sufficient testing that made people sick, I'm not to blame at all in the second case. Is that really what you're saying?

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

> The obvious ethical objection is that human error can happen with gene editing and is intolerable while selective breeding allows for the reproductive system to make errors which are not a responsibility of man but of nature. It seems like you're saying, either way you can get errors, but if you do it through breeding you can claim it wasn't your fault because, really, Nature did it. I can't tell if you're serious or not.

perl4ever 7y ago
I don't know how accurate it is, but I remember reading that (the first time was a very long time ago) some varieties of plants/crops were developed through literally bombarding them with radiation and then breeding the mutants that were improved, and the results are not considered to be GMOs, because nobody was manipulating specific genes. They were just basically firing a shotgun at them.
- riffraff 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening EDIT: you may be thinking of this article specifically http://www.ediblegeography.com/strange-and-beautiful-seeds-from-the-atom/ http://www.ediblegeography.com/strange-and-beautiful-seeds-f... > For example, a mutagenic Ruby Red grapefruit grown without the use of pesticides can be labeled as organic and thus be sold for a premium, despite the fact that organic foods by definition cannot be genetically modified.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  I can accept that. Living things have a natural process of eliminating incompatible variants. I think of it as a coder binary patching bugs without understanding how the patched piece affects every other variable essentially creating more problems as opposed to readinf the code and rebuilding the app after understanding it slowly and properly. What is the rush?? I honestly think scientists and science enthusiasts do not understand the most basic principle of justice: you cannot wrong even one innocent person evem if it means saving the entire planet as a whole! If you don't belive that please stay away from any profession that requires ethical decision making.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    There are professions that don't require ethical decision making? Please list three. (I work for the government, and I'm here to help...)
    - cyberbanjo 7y ago
      Require legally or require ethically, Mr TLA?
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Can there be an ethical requirement to be ethical? If you're not ethical, aren't ethical requirements irrelevant?
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      Ethical decision making and being in a position where being unethical can easily cause tragedies and jail time for you is different. I specifically meant right and wrong. Many jobs are simple enough to where you can follow the law and company guidelines and be ok. Good example: truck driver, they have a ton of rules for everything due to how easily a simple mishap like not sleeping enough can get a person killed. They don't need to know much (if any) about ethics they just need to follow the law and rules. Scientists,archaeologists,politicians and other professions involve new concepts and discoveries for which existing law and rules do not have coverage and as such require the professionals to know and excercise ethics in a consistent and acceptable way.
badrabbit 7y ago
I am serious and that is what I am saying. Nature has plenty of errors,the benefits of gene editing do not justify even one person being harmed as a result if human added error. If selective human breeding is unethical (eugenics) then so is selective human gene editing!
- keithnoizu 7y ago
  Forced eugenics is obviously unethical but whats so bad about selective breeding in general as long as your going for intelligence, athleticism, musicality etc. and not country of origin.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    The traits are irrelevant, you shouldn't group people by traits and say this group should never exist. Ethics aside too many unintended consequences. If you breed for muscularity and athleticism everyone is physically fit but you no longer have smart people that spend most of their time studying. Too much intellect and you suddenly are in shortage of people that spend most of their time getting fit like firefighters and soldiers. Ethically, there is this concept of self determination for humans, that our existence especially with flaws is what gives us individual traits. Previous generations should not amplify any trait on purpose because that implies we are bread for a purpose. We are not purpose built machines or animals, we get to decide what purpose suits us best which is individual self determination. There is a difference though between a person finding a mate because they find a feature attractive (reproductive selection) and selecting a mate because that mate will amplify that feature in their offspring.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  Who said anything about human gene editing? We're talking about animals and plants. > I am serious and that is what I am saying. I think we must not be on the same page, still. You said: "The obvious ethical objection is that human error can happen with gene editing and is intolerable while selective breeding allows for the reproductive system to make errors which are not a responsibility of man but of nature." That sounds like you're saying that, if I genetically modify a cow for more milk production and it turns out that the milk gives you cancer, then of course I am to blame; but if I instead breed cows for more milk production and get exactly the same result, then it not's me at fault but Nature. Even though I'm the one who put a new product in stores without sufficient testing that made people sick, I'm not to blame at all in the second case. Is that really what you're saying?