Hi Peter >Hi Keith ; > >I have made the point previously many times on-list that genetic >engineering is not the answer to anything and in fact it will kill >millions of people. This is one way.
Could be. I don't altogether agree with you though, I don't think genetic engineering should be written off. Certainly there's nothing good about the current offerings of GE crops, and plenty that's bad, and left in the hands of the current players it probably will kill millions of people, and indeed it already is. But the picture might be rather different if some real science were applied rather than just Monsanto's bottom-line, along with some sense and the precautionary principle. We don't need the crops anyway, we already have better crops, and there are better ways of developing them than GE. But it doesn't only apply to crops. >So many times with technology we find that the last condition is >worse than the first. Extrapolating this out to its logical >conclusion, we find that all technology advances are bad. :-) A little too sweeping Peter (useful things, brooms). >Could this be the reason that almost all religious leaders (and by >that I mean Jesus, Mohammad, Bhuddha, etc) shun technology. Do they? Jesus was a carpenter, what did he use to cut wood, his teeth? He said nice things about chickens, but chickens are not as Mother Nature made them, they're a "technological fix". So is agriculture itself, and I don't think Jesus, Mohammad or Buddha opposed it. >Anyone that proposes technological fixes will find themselves at >odds with Jesus. Um, who do you think is right? "Technological fixes" is a loaded term. >Sure technology has given us open heart surgery and moonflight, but >500 years from now, if planet earth is burnt and lifeless due to our >actions(air and water pollution, nuclear exchange, global warming, >infectious disease, extinctions, etc.), then what can we say about >technology? Would you ascribe all that to technology? Tools are just tools, it depends what you do with them. The cases you cite are very largely not the result of humans using tools and technology, the scale is different, it's the scale that corporations and governments operate on, not people. Most people aren't so dumb. It's not the technology that's the problem, it's this: "How to kill a mammoth": <http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30628.html> But you keep shying away from that distinction. So you keep hitting the wrong target. >The last condition is much worse than the first, even if the first >is a caveman existance and even including leprosy and black plague >etc. The thing about cavemen is they didn't live in caves, that's where the big cats lived that liked eating cavemen. They eventually learnt to fight the cats, but not until they'd mastered fire. Definitely a technological fix. Cavemen with clubs, spears, knives... Quite a few animals also use tools, and so do birds. Is this all "bad" technology, in your view? Best Keith >BR >Peter G. >Thailand > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081225/ap_on_sc/do_it_yourself_dna;_ylt=AjW2XcTZOjvv__NlwrDzXTZ34T0D > >Amateurs are trying genetic engineering at home > >Associated Press Writer Marcus Wohlsen, Associated Press Writer - 2 >hrs 38 mins ago AP > >- Meredith L. Patterson, a computer programmer by day, conducts an >experiment in the dining room of her SAN FRANCISCO - The Apple >computer was invented in a garage. Same with the Google search >engine. Now, tinkerers are working at home with the basic building >blocks of life itself. > >Using homemade lab equipment and the wealth of scientific knowledge >available online, these hobbyists are trying to create new life >forms through genetic engineering - a field long dominated by Ph.D.s >toiling in university and corporate laboratories. > >In her San Francisco dining room lab, for example, 31-year-old >computer programmer Meredith L. Patterson is trying to develop >genetically altered yogurt bacteria that will glow green to signal >the presence of melamine, the chemical that turned Chinese-made baby >formula and pet food deadly. > >"People can really work on projects for the good of humanity while >learning about something they want to learn about in the process," >she said. > >So far, no major gene-splicing discoveries have come out anybody's >kitchen or garage. > >But critics of the movement worry that these amateurs could one day >unleash an environmental or medical disaster. Defenders say the >future Bill Gates of biotech could be developing a cure for cancer >in the garage. > >Many of these amateurs may have studied biology in college but have >no advanced degrees and are not earning a living in the >biotechnology field. Some proudly call themselves "biohackers" - >innovators who push technological boundaries and put the spread of >knowledge before profits. > >In Cambridge, Mass., a group called DIYbio is setting up a community >lab where the public could use chemicals and lab equipment, >including a used freezer, scored for free off Craigslist, that drops >to 80 degrees below zero, the temperature needed to keep many kinds >of bacteria alive. > >Co-founder Mackenzie Cowell, a 24-year-old who majored in biology in >college, said amateurs will probably pursue serious work such as new >vaccines and super-efficient biofuels, but they might also try, for >example, to use squid genes to create tattoos that glow. > >Cowell said such unfettered creativity could produce important discoveries. > >"We should try to make science more sexy and more fun and more like >a game," he said. > >Patterson, the computer programmer, wants to insert the gene for >fluorescence into yogurt bacteria, applying techniques developed in >the 1970s. > >She learned about genetic engineering by reading scientific papers >and getting tips from online forums. She ordered jellyfish DNA for a >green fluorescent protein from a biological supply company for less >than $100. And she built her own lab equipment, including a gel >electrophoresis chamber, or DNA analyzer, which she constructed for >less than $25, versus more than $200 for a low-end off-the-shelf >model. > >Jim Thomas of ETC Group, a biotechnology watchdog organization, >warned that synthetic organisms in the hands of amateurs could >escape and cause outbreaks of incurable diseases or unpredictable >environmental damage. > >"Once you move to people working in their garage or other informal >location, there's no safety process in place," he said. > >Some also fear that terrorists might attempt do-it-yourself genetic >engineering. But Patterson said: "A terrorist doesn't need to go to >the DIYbio community. They can just enroll in their local community >college." _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
