Quote:
Originally posted by patrickp
Few if any of the domestic animals (dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc etc) or domestic plants (eg most crops, garden flowers etc) would exist in anything like their current forms if humans had not bred them to it.
|
Bred. Exactly. There is a world of difference between selective breeding, which chooses between naturally-arising genes, and genetic manipulation, which introduces completely novel information into the genetic code. 'Hacking' DNA is fraught with difficulty and poses a terrible risk to all life.
Animals can be inbred with sad results (the Kennel Club has a lot to answer for in this regard) but a few generations of mongrel breeding restores genetic diversity and puts things right. However once a single piece of clumsy, defective man-made DNA gets into the environment, how is it to be stopped?
Quote:
|
<snip>And we're still in the middle of it - the fact that humans are so prone to circulatory problems, back problems, hernia problems etc is because we're still adapting to being bipeds.
|
That's a pretty huge theory to be presenting to a discussion as if it were fact. Could you provide a link to some conclusive evidence in support of this?
Quote:
|
Our society and technology are changing us whether we want it or not. So, if it's going to happen to us anyway, why not try to direct it to some extent?
|
'It'll happen anyway, we have no choice, best go along with it' has been used by people of every generation to defend their part in some of history's worst atrocities. It isn't a valid reason or excuse for anything. People have the right to do, or do not, but they should base it on solid reasons that actively back up their position, not a defeatist shrug of the shoulders.
Quote:
|
And, since it's something that people are going to start doing anyway, it would be wise to start developing ways to deal with it rather than deluding ourselves that it can't happen here.
|
As above, IMO nothing's inevitable. I agree that we have to have laws/policies/procedures to help us deal with new challenges, and I think the UK's current position is illogical and indefensible.
First off, I recognise that there is a difference between genetic manipulation and gender selection by IVF (the original topic of this thread). Genes are not being modified, although they are arguably being scientifically selected as sex is genetically determined.
The UK's position is illogical because we allow selection under somecircumstances but not others. It gets all concerned about proper treatment of embryos in scientific research and then allows a woman to abort a child at 16 weeks for purely 'lifestyle' reasons.
IMO any debate on how we interfere with the reproductive process in the UK should start from the very beginning - the acceptability or otherwise of abortion - and go on from there, applying the same logic to all the questions that need to be answered, including the matter of sex selection that we're discussing now.
Unfortunately if we did that I fear we might be horrified at the answers we receive.