What is Digg?165 Comments
- badwithcomputer, on 05/25/2008, -5/+57dugg for the gattaca thumbnail- that's a seriously underrated film.
- PotatoSamurai, on 05/25/2008, -5/+38>Well, I'm pretty sure mother nature sees all of it as perverse, even when you're just trying to make sure your kid doesn't have downs syndrome. She's going to be the judge in the end and bad things are going to happen.
http://fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html
You may like to hide in personification, but what you're essentially saying is the same "God don't like it" BS we've been hearing since the development of a heliocentric model of the solar system.
If you have such a problem with the "unnatural," feel free to go without vaccines, fruit (all bioengineered or cultivated; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inside_a_wild-t ... sanitation, and all the other things which help people live well. - moskaudancer, on 05/25/2008, -1/+34"Why do you insist that the human genetic code is 'sacred' or 'taboo'? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself."
-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye" - tardmaster, on 05/25/2008, -0/+30I wish I had been genetically engineered for perfection.
- doctajoyce, on 05/25/2008, -2/+31Isn't the whole purpose of our wonderful technology to improve our quality of life? I don't know about anyone else but I want the best for my children and if i have the ability to prevent some of the serious negative maladies embedded in my genes I am all for it. Morality isn't a consistent thing anyway, it changes and adapts with the times.
- Ramble, on 05/25/2008, -0/+25Mother nature isn't a person or thing, I'd like to know what kind of bad things might happen?
- dzw120, on 05/25/2008, -1/+24We should just genetically engineer in some more moral fiber.
- MasterThief117, on 05/25/2008, -1/+17If the technology exists to do artificial evolution, and if people really want to do this, I don't see the problem. This could be for the best.
Imagine: Disease-free futures. No more cancer, no more HIV/AIDS. Maybe the genetic altering of ourselves is the cure to these horrible diseases. - ThatEvilGuy, on 05/25/2008, -1/+16The most popular genetic modification will be .......... you guessed it........ a bigger penis.
- Startemus, on 05/25/2008, -0/+14So true. We fight against Nature all the time. It is how we survive.
- Frost9999, on 05/25/2008, -1/+13Does mother nature also judge people that use pills to get over headaches or surgery to stay alive? No, because there's no such thing as mother nature, and we will not be judged by some imaginary personification of the natural world. Genetic engineering is just a new step in medical technology. Altering your genome to obliterate cancer or make cosmetic changes is a good thing if it can be done safely.
- icantseeyou, on 05/25/2008, -0/+11Nice story with something to leave you thinking about. I wish I had been engineered to be taller, better looking, and without my health issues... how about that?
- Ramble, on 05/25/2008, -0/+11That was full of win.
- svensko, on 05/25/2008, -0/+11There is no such thing as genetic perfection. This is highly optimized genotypes for your environment but different genotypes will fail in different environmental settings. Think of it this way, you may be genetically engineered to have 500 pounds of muscle mass but what good is that going to do for you if we drop you in a vat of acid?
- Accolade1, on 05/26/2008, -0/+9You lost me at "more people with ... cell walls." I didn't know that the human population was turning into flora.
- Emnsta, on 05/26/2008, -0/+9Mother Nature is not an actual entity
- Chandon, on 05/26/2008, -0/+9Chemistry is that part of physics interesting to a chemist, and I can assure you that DNA replication and protein synthesis are interesting to chemists.
- MattBD, on 05/25/2008, -4/+12It's a very difficult issue, there's no two ways about it, and a very controversial one to boot. Obviously, the governments of different nations will have differing views on genetic engineering - some may not allow it at all, others may only allow it under certain circumstances (such as if an unborn child has a serious genetic disorder such as cystic fibrosis). Like with anything else, the differences in legislation would mean that people might go abroad to get procedures they can't get in their native countries, such as in Ireland at present where abortion is illegal but women often come to the UK to get it.
I suspect many smaller nations might end up having more liberal policies about genetic engineering, so for instance if you wanted to genetically engineer your child to be clever you might go to a Carribean island to get procedures illegal in your home nation - I doubt many governments would order the termination of a pregnancy if the unborn child had been genetically engineered using procedures illegal in that country, as long as the procedure was carried out elsewhere. - Amadeus2490, on 05/25/2008, -1/+9"Think of it this way, you may be genetically engineered to have 500 pounds of muscle mass but what good is that going to do for you if we drop you in a vat of acid?"
lol That's just classic. - inactive, on 05/25/2008, -0/+8What you call "mother nature" is more accurately described as "random chance", which doesn't have any personal opinion on anything.
- MiserJ, on 05/26/2008, -0/+7Dugg for Alpha Centauri reference.
- Frost9999, on 05/25/2008, -2/+9This article is a bit behind the curve. Yes, genetic engineering is coming. We will be able to remove problem genes and code new ones in to help with a myriad of health problems. Other technologies will allow us to create implants that greatly enhance our senses... better sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. Our intelligence will be augmented by computer systems that are wired into our brains. Every piece of human knowledge will be searchable just by thinking about it. All of these things are coming, they're being worked on right now and no amount of ethics or morality discussion will stop them.
- cathl, on 05/25/2008, -0/+7We all want the best, but the debate is over what is best.
- sodade, on 05/25/2008, -4/+11"Obviously, the governments of different nations will have differing views on genetic engineering."
Watch america fall behind the rest of the world because they can't understand pragmatic reality. - StaticThunder, on 05/26/2008, -2/+8I intend to do whatever I decide to with my own genetic material; its mine. I resent the idea that you get a say in my reproduction unless I get a say in yours -- enough people who should never have had kids, have had kids become wards of the state; society has given up any right to make those sorts of decisions. You indoctrinate your kids with superstitions, abuse them, raise them in broken homes, and then I indoctrinate mine with disease resistances, mental health, good looks and longevity and you have a problem? We'll see who wins in the end.
I see no way for you to prevent this from happening. You can outlaw it locally, it will just move overseas. It would be best if you simply tried to take advantage of it and educate people on the potential consequences. - Matt2k, on 05/25/2008, -2/+8> Problem is, where do you stop?
You never stop. The only thing that's doomed to fail is standing in front of progress and getting run down.
Genetic manipulation will happen. The only question is whether you want to be a part of the decision making progress, or a speed bump that people have long since forgotten about. - vdgmr1213, on 05/25/2008, -1/+7If only all our children could be "genetically different"
- fintheman, on 05/26/2008, -0/+6I will gladly use generic modification for when I have children.
- inactive, on 05/25/2008, -2/+8Since there is no god or 'mother' nature, it is up to humanity to judge it's own endeavours. If humanity as a whole feels that the positives outweigh the negatives, then it will be done.
- Accolade1, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5A population where there aren't genetic defects will probably not occur in our lifetimes. Citing your example, trisomy 21 results from nondisjunction of the 21st pair of chromosomes in mitosis/meiosis. This can occur no matter what the genotypes of the parents are.
- Astroseksy, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5Just plain ol' modification eh?
- TakeMyCrabs, on 05/25/2008, -3/+8Since parents are the only ones involved in conceiving, it should be their decision 100%.
However, if they can't take care of their kids, that's not the state's problem either. Overpopulation is the biggest problem society if facing: limited resources for a growing population. The more people, the less resources per person, the worse the quality of life per person. So if you can't make it on your own (including parents, friends, etc), too bad. - 33PercentGod, on 05/26/2008, -1/+6I will go on record that t I have absolutely no problem with the government giving me a chainsaw hand or a machine gun leg.
Absolutely no problem whatsoever. - MnMs, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5I want my kids to have tentacles and IQs of 300... is that really too much to ask?! DAMN ELITISTS
- bxblox, on 05/25/2008, -0/+5Whats DDD?...
- StaticThunder, on 05/26/2008, -3/+8And you see a problem with this?
- xexx, on 05/25/2008, -3/+8People like you belong in the back whining and crying as the world passes you by, and it's just fine with me, such closed minded ***** has done nothing but suppress us as a species.
- aethelberga, on 05/25/2008, -1/+5I can pretty much see everything he postulates happening eventually, especially as health care gets more expensive - having a 'genetically defective' child will be seen to be socially irresponsible, like driving a hummer or being obese. Also, as genetic testing & gene therapy improves expect to see these things corrected in utero, as a matter of course.
- inactive, on 05/25/2008, -2/+6Problem is, where do you stop? The first generation will all be bred to be 7 feet tall with 10 inch dicks, and to top that the next will have to be 8 feet tall with 15 inch dicks. Eventually we'll get to the point to where every man on the planet is 80 feet tall and has a 7 foot long *****.
- svensko, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4What? Mutations AFTER birth can cause cancer. While yes you can be genetically predispositioned to it, even if you aren't, you can still get it. You will still be able to get HIV/AIDS. The genetic altering of ourselves will change our phenotypes but I think you're failing to realize how much of an impact that ENVIRONMENT plays in genetics as well.
- shadoweva09, on 05/25/2008, -0/+4There wont be a "Gattaca society" at least in the U.S. however you will see many more people with the mutation that makes cell walls thick enough to make them immune to the black plaque and HIV viruses. So is it really a bad thing to use?
- Myonosken, on 05/26/2008, -2/+6Abortions are cheap right now, but illegal abortions (whilst obviously out there) aren't widespread. And did you just champion the one child policy that has led to China having the highest female infanticide level in the world?
- NuclearFalcon, on 05/26/2008, -0/+4If everyone's IQ went up... wouldn't that change the average IQ of 100?
- GlassAgate, on 05/26/2008, -0/+4I claim the name "JC Denton".
- GlassAgate, on 05/26/2008, -0/+4I want four arms, like Goro!
- caboosemoose, on 05/26/2008, -0/+4Your point being? Its 2008 and Russia obviously and the United States in the vast majority still are run by caucasian men.
- WolverineBlue, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3http://www.cababstractsplus.org/google/abstract.as ...
Edit: link doesn't work.
English Title: Acid tolerance of acid-adapted and nonadapted Escherichia coli O157:H7 following habituation (10°C) in fresh beef decontamination runoff fluids of different pH values.
Personal Authors: Samelis, J., Kendall, P., Smith, G. C., Sofos, J. N.
Author Affiliation: Center for Red Meat Safety, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.
Editors: No editors
Document Title: Journal of Food Protection, 2004 (Vol. 67) (No. 4) 638-645
Abstract:
This study evaluated survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 strain ATCC 43895 during exposure to pH 3.5 following its habituation for 2 or 7 days at 10°C in fresh beef decontamination waste runoff fluid mixtures (washings) containing 0, 0.02, or 0.2% of lactic or acetic acids. Meat washings and sterile water (control) were initially inoculated with approximately 5 log CFU/ml of acid- and nonadapted E. coli O157:H7 cells cultured (30°C, 24 h) in broth with and without 1% glucose, respectively. After 2 days, E. coli O157:H7 survivors from acetate washings (pH 3.7 to 4.7) survived at pH 3.5 better than E. coli O157:H7 survivors from lactate washings (pH 3.1 to 4.6), especially when the original inoculum was acid adapted. Also, although E. coli O157:H7 habituated in sterile water for 2 days survived well at pH 3.5, the corresponding survivors from nonacid water meat washings (pH 6.8) were rapidly killed at pH 3.5, irrespective of acid adaptation. After 7 days, E. coli O157:H7 survivors from acetate washings (pH 3.6 to 4.7) continued to resist pH 3.5, whereas those from lactate washings died off. This loss of acid tolerance by E. coli O157:H7 was due to either its low survival in 0.2% lactate washings (pH 3.1) or its acid sensitization in 0.02% lactate washings, in which a Pseudomonas-like natural flora showed extensive growth (>8 log CFU/ml) and the pH increased to 6.5 to 6.6. Acid-adapted E. coli O157:H7 populations habituated in water washings (pH 7.1 to 7.3) for 7 days continued to be acid sensitive, whereas nonadapted populations increased their acid tolerance, a response merely correlated with their slight ( - tomh218, on 05/25/2008, -4/+7We should look to Gattaca for answers.
- fearofsociety, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3Oh, they can grab that gene from me then. ;)
- travis6690, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3That's what SHE said.
Oh wait... -
Show 51 - 100 of 166 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is ,){kind=link}