Genetically modified animals

[marharth]

The next question is if an animal that has injected dna (for example a monkey) is it not only ethical, but can an offspring be aborted morally and legally if the dna were human?

Err... Can you reword that?

[Ghogiel]

The next question is if an animal that has injected dna (for example a monkey) is it not only ethical, but can an offspring be aborted morally and legally if the dna were human?

yes probably. a chimp already shares 99.9% of its genome with humans. Human rights acts are for humans, and unless it gave birth to an actual human, then I doubt it will get those rights.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Ghogiel

[SilverDNA]

Well if it is on animal ethics you might read up fom Peter Singer "Animal Liberation" might give you the basics if you look up the Wiki

Here the WIKI LINK Animal Liberation

 

Peter Singer is one of the most controversy because of his ultarian approach on euthanasia and infanticide on human beings and uses methods of arguments that date back to Hobbes Kant and Rawls and the likes.

I don't like him much for a that! Too outdated approach for the 21st century.

 

He was given this weekend a prize from the Giordano-Bruno-Foundation about his Great Ape Project in Berlin.

Edited June 5, 2011 by SilverDNA

[Aurielius]

Man is an omnivore not a vegetarian, giving up meat to satisfy a singular ethical point of view would make the rise of our species somewhat a specious climb to the top of the food chain. I for one would not want to impugn the efforts of our hominid ancestors that managed to avoid becoming a meal for the better equipped predictors to rise to this pinnacle. Edited June 5, 2011 by Aurielius

[brokenergy]

Man is an omnivore not a vegetarian, giving up meat to satisfy a singular ethical point of view would make the rise of our species somewhat a specious climb to the top of the food chain. I for one would not want to impugn the efforts of our hominid ancestors that managed to avoid becoming a meal for the better equipped predictors to rise to this pinnacle.

 

I had to reread it several times and A, man's eating habbits has nothing to do with genetic engineering of animals and plant (which is the main point of this topic people). It's important to remember that most research goes into making advances which are benefical to people everywhere, such as more drought tolarant plants and a quicker reproductive-cycles for animals. There is nothing wrong with improving something that could help millions of people, who would otherwise die from hunger. People who want this practice to stop are silly and extream groups who want everyone to be vegan are just well... *insert unhappy words here*.

 

Look, I do think that people need to lower their consumption of meat but I don't think that we should cut it off completely off our diets. If people want to talk a more general topic about animal rights they should start another thread but as long as geneticlly modified animals go, I supported it. It helps scientists with their research and the flow on effects help you.

[marharth]

Man is an omnivore not a vegetarian, giving up meat to satisfy a singular ethical point of view would make the rise of our species somewhat a specious climb to the top of the food chain. I for one would not want to impugn the efforts of our hominid ancestors that managed to avoid becoming a meal for the better equipped predictors to rise to this pinnacle.

Our ancestors are dead. Just because they did something to help the human race evolve, does not mean that humans should do it as well thousands of years later.

 

We now know enough about nutrition to show that mankind does not need meat to live. There is no reason why mankind has to stay omnivores.

 

I personally eat meat and I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with vegetations. That does not mean that meat is necessary for mankind, and mankind has to continue eating meat to survive.

 

@brokenenegery, his quote did have to do with genetic engineering, not sure how you thought it didn't.

 

The leading use for genetic engineering is for food products.

[brokenergy]

@brokenenegery, his quote did have to do with genetic engineering, not sure how you thought it didn't.

 

The leading use for genetic engineering is for food products.

 

It was more about human survival and eating habbits rather than giving anything constructive about genetic engineering. Geneticlly modified animals are also used in the medical field and the bio-tech industry as well as food engineering. Saying no to this research doesn't equal to not eating meat or being a greeny, but rather being more conserned about animal and human wellfare (not my position). People get dupped into thinking that geneticlly modified meat is harmful while there are strict guide lines over such things (as there should). The bigger problem is that there is a huge gap between the scientists and the public which needs to be addressed. Until we address that, people are always going to believe what they want to believe.

[ginnyfizz]

Are we really so convinced that genetic engineering is for the greater good rather than for the profits of the giant agroscience companies that are pioneering it?

 

I am no animal rights fanatic and I eat meat. However, that does not mean that I do not care about the conditions in which animals are kept and are turned into my dinner. And there are a number of levels on which I am uneasy about GM animals. How much do we really know about the long term effects of genetic engineering of animals, both on the animals and on the people consuming them? NOTHING MUCH, because it is all comparatively new. I do find it a little patronizing to suggest that we sceptics are all naive dupes ;

 

"dupped into thinking that geneticlly modified meat is harmful while there are strict guide lines over such things (as there should). The bigger problem is that there is a huge gap between the scientists and the public which needs to be addressed. Until we address that, people are always going to believe what they want to believe."

 

Brokenenergy, I am a country yokel from a farming background, and know a good deal about both animal husbandry AND the tactics of the huge agroscience businesses. They are hard nosed salespersons indeed. But until there is evidence garnered over a long period that GM is safe, I will make darned sure that I buy from GM free sources.

 

Nor am I convinced that GM animals are the answer to the problems of Third World famine. Introduce more animals, when over-grazing is a massive contributor to drought and famine?

[Aurielius]

Man is an omnivore not a vegetarian, giving up meat to satisfy a singular ethical point of view would make the rise of our species somewhat a specious climb to the top of the food chain. I for one would not want to impugn the efforts of our hominid ancestors that managed to avoid becoming a meal for the better equipped predictors to rise to this pinnacle.

Our ancestors are dead. Just because they did something to help the human race evolve, does not mean that humans should do it as well thousands of years later.

For some strange law of attraction you always choose my posts to respond too, intellectual masochism? It was droll Tongue in Cheek humor, it seems in addition to your many fine intellectual qualities you have now added no discriminable detection of humor. It must be the moth and the flame type of thing but if you really want to be singed ..go ahead and make this another one of your cause d'etres. Me ..I'm just going to have another bacon cheeseburger and not worry about the cow or the pig that gave their all to make my lunch.

[marharth]

Man is an omnivore not a vegetarian, giving up meat to satisfy a singular ethical point of view would make the rise of our species somewhat a specious climb to the top of the food chain. I for one would not want to impugn the efforts of our hominid ancestors that managed to avoid becoming a meal for the better equipped predictors to rise to this pinnacle.

Our ancestors are dead. Just because they did something to help the human race evolve, does not mean that humans should do it as well thousands of years later.

For some strange law of attraction you always choose my posts to respond too, intellectual masochism? It was droll Tongue in Cheek humor, it seems in addition to your many fine intellectual qualities you have now added no discriminable detection of humor. It must be the moth and the flame type of thing but if you really want to be singed ..go ahead and make this another one of your cause d'etres. Me ..I'm just going to have another bacon cheeseburger and not worry about the cow or the pig that gave their all to make my lunch.

 

I chose your posts to reply to since I almost always disagree with what you have to say, don't start feeling special. I could easily reverse that argument on you as well.

 

Care to explain how your post was supposed to be humorous?

 

If your post really was made out as you claim, you could of avoided being rude about it. You were once incorrect about a post I made, mistaking something I said as satire as something I really meant. It really shows weakness when you can't refrain from being rude all the time.

 

Also at ginny, I thought that a lot of store products are already genetically modified, I could be wrong.

 

As I said before, I think genetic engineering in a bad idea with a profit motive. I think it could work if you had different goals besides profit.

 

Is there any evidence to show that genetic engineering is unsafe? I don't see why it would be any less safe, unless it gets into more serious gene modifications.

Edited June 5, 2011 by marharth