old ways

[J-J]

I sugared the pill a bit didn't I? I agree there are deeply problematic aspects to this approach.Are we anywhere near wise enough to start meddling too much with our genes on a grand scale?Definitely not,I would say.But I think we are becoming wise enough to dip our toes into the water and begin to, for example eliminate certain ailments that involve a defect in a single gene.And stem cell technology which promises the possibility of replacement body parts grown to order.As a vegetarian,I like his idea of growing meat in trays in a factory from stem cells without any central nervous system - if there is no consciousness involved then there is no ethical problem and I can start eating meat again.

So we have begun this process already but I share some of your trepidation about the pace of change.In reality I think it will take a lot longer than Dave supposes,because the science will be harder than he thinks and people don't want to transform themselves into something they don't recognise.That is IMO a powerful reason why change will be gradual,acheived in small subtle increments.I certainly hope that these issues are dealt with responsibly and with input from public opinion.Personally I feel that the public have been a little bit mislead by some on the issue of genetic modification-it's not the bogeyman they make it to be.

BTW He is serious,although as I suggested earlier he defines quite an absolutist kind of stance I think in the knowledge that the reality will fall somewhat short of it.He's defining one pole of a new debate,I suppose.I don't think you have to swallow the lot,personally,but it's food for thought at least.

I didn't see the bit about government control using drugs.It certainly doesn't sound like the kind of thing I would agree with.I'll have to look for it now.

[Mamie]

Actually I don't have a problem with gene manipulation on a minor scale as you do. New technologies are just that new.

It actually annoys me that some people(that elusive they) won't eat something because it contains chemicals that they can't pronounce so it must be bad like mono and diglycerides for example. Folks it's just fat from unspecified sources.

Indeed plant and animal breeding over the centuries is gene manipulation. But like I said major changes in human beings should not happen overnight(1000 years is ON in universal time). The use of gene therapy for a particular disease that results in death is a good candidate. Canola oil wouldn't even exist if we didn''t manipulate genes by selecting for certain characteristics.

I'm a meat eater myself. I think some of the Press on animal husbrandry is utter >>>>. So we'll disagree on that point OK?

[J-J]

Hi Mames
That post clarified a few things for me.I think we are not so far apart on this.
We agree that gene therapy for getting rid of congenital ailments is a good thing.In another page on the site he points out that rising demands for better mental health result in previously 'normal' behaviours or psychological conditions to be pathologised,and recognised as conditions requiring treatment,for example 'depression'.As advances made in understanding the human genome progress we will reach the stage where we are faced with choices of keeping or deleting some of these 'disorders'.I think most people will choose to bestow that benefit on their child,it's a deep instinct.People will become happier through GM.But I think it will be incremental and we won't at any stage encounter half the population electing to 'upgrade' themselves to some new kind of creature altogether.I don't think it could work that way anyway.But I think ultimately something like what Dave describes could well come true,some would argue it's inevitable,so long as we don't blow ourselves up first.

I think this gives us another reason to urgently attack the problems of poverty and ignorance in the world.Things are already unevenly balanced,these issues will make the differences between the haves and have nots worse if things stay as they are.

PS don't worry about the vegetarianism.I don't preach it;I think the argument is not absolutely clear cut so it should be left to the individual person.I'm beginning to think maybe it would be ok to eat free range.I don't know.

[Mamie]

Right it's a personal choice. As anything should be within the limits of I should be able to do anything I want provided it doesn't cause harm to someone else.

I'm probably going to go back and read some more. I just had to ask if this was one of those elaborate web hoaxes like the "Baptist" church one.

As for actually achieving the ultimate goal of Dave's work maybe.

[TheLostOne]

I am a vegetarian by choice. I am also one for a douple of reasons, other than my "religion". I don't think that it is a good idea to be able to just walk into a store and pick up some cut up sheep or shreded cows. I know that some people believe that, and I quote this, "Animals were put on Earth by God for us to eat". Well, I don't mean to disgust anyone, but we could say the same thing about humans only vice versa.
The term Animals encompesses all living, breathing creatures that may or may not have souls (depending on your own personal beliefs.).
So if people were to reincarnate into animals it would be very similar to cannibalism even though it would be another life.