Lucibee.

quote:

Suricat, by "alien" I mean coming from another planet - so they are no more alien than hospital superbugs!!!

Lucibee, by 'alien' 'I' mean 'introduced' and 'not indigenous' to the region. They are natural bugs transported to a place that they didn't previously populate and may well have no natural predators within a new environment where they can thrive. I would also include GM bugs in this category.

Hospital 'super bugs' are part of the indigenous bug population that have adapted to their changing environment (much to our detriment) and survive despite the 'disruptive' change that they face.

quote:

And besides, GM is far more precise than natural selection, and means that you can build in safety nets - ie, apoptotic genes that you can use to kill your bug if it does something you didn't want it to, which is unlikely if you designed it properly in the first place.

GM (genetically manipulated) has mostly been associated with GM foods and earned the tag of 'Frankenstein Food'. I think the prefix 'GM' will take a bit longer to regain public confidence before the prefix doesn't evoke distrust and lack of confidence to some degree.

It's the 'design' that lacks public confidence in this instance. Why would you want to include "apoptotic genes" if you - and 'others' - were confident of the design (or would it be the designer)? Anyway, on mutation these safeties may not work as expected and as we have seen in the past, containment can not always be achieved (which in itself suggests possible unknown mutation in the natural local environment).

quote:

I'm not aversed to a wind turbine on the hill behind me - in fact I'd positively welcome it given the number of outages we have a year, usually when there are high winds! But I do think that the environmental impacts do need to be considered first. I still think nuclear is a better option in the long term though.

Nevertheless, wind turbines reinforce the need for a power grid network that subjects the environment to added stresses.

The nuclear option looks good, but the 'third world' looks to 'the west' for answers to the power generation conundrum so that they can enjoy better, more comfortable, lives for themselves. The 'learning curve' for nuclear power is very steep, especially the International co-operation aspect. Do you really think it safe for the 'whole world', if 'the west' shows the 'third world' the nuclear route? I hate politics, but safety 'is' paramount when the nuclear option is 'at the table'! I think there is a better way for everyone. Wind power to generate hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells to name but two.

Best regards, suricat.

PS. Seskinreay. Thanks for the 'tip off', but it's the power grid I'm criticising. I read the transcript.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Lucibee.

quote:

Suricat, by "alien" I mean coming from another planet - so they are no more alien than hospital superbugs!!!

Lucibee, by 'alien' 'I' mean 'introduced' and 'not indigenous' to the region. They are natural bugs transported to a place that they didn't previously populate and may well have no natural predators within a new environment where they can thrive. I would also include GM bugs in this category.

So are you saying that anyone or anything that is not in the place from where it originated should be sent packing?

quote:

Hospital 'super bugs' are part of the indigenous bug population that have adapted to their changing environment (much to our detriment) and survive despite the 'disruptive' change that they face.

Just because they have developed "naturally" doesn't mean they are a good thing. Also, I would have said that the selective pressures inside a hospital are distinctly unnatural!

quote:

It's the 'design' that lacks public confidence in this instance.

I'd be happier about something that had been carefully designed and tested than something that arises spontaneously. Would you rather that all drugs, vaccines, or plants we use had to arise by natural selection?

quote:

Why would you want to include "apoptotic genes" if you - and 'others' - were confident of the design (or would it be the designer)?

To alay the fears of the public, perhaps? Yep, the genetic engineers may well be confident, but as you say, the public may need some convincing, and suicide genes are one way of doing that. Another is to develop an organism that can only survive in a very particular environment, and to ensure that it is always kept in that environment. Then, if it escapes, it is likely to die before it gets the chance to adapt.

quote:

Anyway, on mutation these safeties may not work as expected and as we have seen in the past, containment can not always be achieved (which in itself suggests possible unknown mutation in the natural local environment).

Given the legislation in place, no such organism would be allowed out of the lab until it was fully tested to ensure that all possible scenarios had been accounted for. All new agricultural seeds and treatments go through rigorous testing that is currently many times more stringent than in the pharmaceutical industry.

quote:

The nuclear option looks good, but the 'third world' looks to 'the west' for answers to the power generation conundrum so that they can enjoy better, more comfortable, lives for themselves. The 'learning curve' for nuclear power is very steep, especially the International co-operation aspect. Do you really think it safe for the 'whole world', if 'the west' shows the 'third world' the nuclear route?

Yes, but we already have nuclear - so why not use it while we develop even cleaner and even safer methods of energy generation for the rest of the world?

Lucibee.

quote:

So are you saying that anyone or anything that is not in the place from where it originated should be sent packing?

We're talking about 'bugs' here, not 'people', or 'things'! However, 'migration en mass' can be very 'disruptive'.

quote:

Just because they have developed "naturally" doesn't mean they are a good thing. Also, I would have said that the selective pressures inside a hospital are distinctly unnatural!

I'll agree completely with your first sentence, but for the remainder of that passage. It rather depends whether you take the 'bug', or 'human' perspective on this. I take the 'human' perspective in that hospitals have 'naturally' evolved to become the most 'natural' place for sick humans to be made well. For bugs, this environment must be pretty tough and unnatural.

quote:

I'd be happier about something that had been carefully designed and tested than something that arises spontaneously. Would you rather that all drugs, vaccines, or plants we use had to arise by natural selection?

You've split my posting and offer a response to a point that I didn't address. The point I addressed, GM, has low confidence with the public, thus, the design of this in itself has low public confidence. On your point, most pharmaceuticals used today are simply 'processed' from natural sources and not GM products. Of course fitness for purpose and quality control are necessary!

quote:

Given the legislation in place, no such organism would be allowed out of the lab until it was fully tested to ensure that all possible scenarios had been accounted for. All new agricultural seeds and treatments go through rigorous testing that is currently many times more stringent than in the pharmaceutical industry.

Do I really have to quote a certain government site and its involvement with the last foot and mouth outbreak? These things don't seek permission, they just do what they do best.

quote:

Yes, but we already have nuclear - so why not use it while we develop even cleaner and even safer methods of energy generation for the rest of the world?

We are, but from your previous dialogue it seemed that you advocated nuclear power as the final solution.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Lucibee.

The nuclear option looks good, but the 'third world' looks to 'the west' for answers to the power generation conundrum so that they can enjoy better, more comfortable, lives for themselves. The 'learning curve' for nuclear power is very steep, especially the International co-operation aspect. Do you really think it safe for the 'whole world', if 'the west' shows the 'third world' the nuclear route?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could instead of giving the 3rd world highly corruptable financial aid just simply give them power in the form of UN controlled locally built Nuclear power stations. Highly secured of course!

Clearly a pipe dream but a nice one. They could even export power to the 1st world!

quote:

On your point, most pharmaceuticals used today are simply 'processed' from natural sources and not GM products.

Most pharmaceuticals are synthetically made, either by chemical processes, or using bacteria or yeasts that have been modified either using genetic engineering or by inserting plasmids to encode the molecules they want them to make.

I think the reason that the public are not behind GM is because the media have whipped up scare stories.

I would maintain that it is safer to modify organisms by directly altering just a few genes, than by using shotgun techniques or natural selection. For a start, it is much quicker, much more precise, and actually the risks are lower. A lot of the problems with organisms causing problems in the environment are with conventionally modified organisms and not GMOs. People complain about putting say bacterial genes into plants or mammals, but viruses have been doing that for millenia!

For example, human insulin has been made by recombinant DNA technology in modified E coli since 1982.

quote:

BTW it seems criticizing wind power is off limits

wind power blows!

Lucibee.

quote:

Most pharmaceuticals are synthetically made, either by chemical processes, or using bacteria or yeasts that have been modified either using genetic engineering or by inserting plasmids to encode the molecules they want them to make.

It's nearly 30 years since I was involved with a medical industry, but I would be surprised if the majority were not produced chemically from natural origins.

quote:

I think the reason that the public are not behind GM is because the media have whipped up scare stories.

Who needs the media? For the benefit of all diabetics here, it would be good to note that there is only one strain of E-coli out there that is considered dangerous and mutating (please tell us this isn't the one they used for GM).

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

For a start, it is much quicker, much more precise, and actually the risks are lower.

Do we have the rights to take these risks though Luci.After all we ain't the only things living on this globe.We can't even keep BSE in a lab FCS.

mufcdiver.

BSE is 'something else' muf. However, this only goes to show how 'good' and 'accepted' practices can sometimes turn out to be so bad. Good example on 'bad practice'.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Do we have the rights to take these risks though Luci.After all we ain't the only things living on this globe.We can't even keep BSE in a lab FCS.

Oh dear! If we didn't have those rights, we shouldn't even have got as far as developing our agriculture, and we'd still be hunter gatherers!

We are as natural a part of this planet as anything else. Our technology is our evolution, and if it allows us to live here in large numbers with respect to the other organisms around us, then so much the better.

quote:

Oh dear! If we didn't have those rights, we shouldn't even have got as far as developing our agriculture, and we'd still be hunter gatherers!

We are as natural a part of this planet as anything else. Our technology is our evolution, and if it allows us to live here in large numbers with respect to the other organisms around us, then so much the better.

Burning fossil fuels is part of our Evolution too by your reasoning but you don't seem too happy about that

Yes, but part of evolution also involves the ability to avoid extinction, which we won't if we carry on burning fossil fuels...

Lucibee.

quote:

Yes, but part of evolution also involves the ability to avoid extinction, which we won't if we carry on burning fossil fuels...

What makes you think that we wont be able to avoid extinction if we continue to burn fossil fuels??

What has this to do with DNA??

Could it be that we are fooling 'Gaea' into believing there are too many aerobic organisms alive today??

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Yes, but part of evolution also involves the ability to avoid extinction, which we won't if we carry on burning fossil fuels...

Oh well thats fine then,We'll wipe it out with with some genetically mutated super-bug, save some time!!!!!!!!!

quote:

What has this to do with DNA??

Sorry suricat, in some threads luci seems to give a toss about the world and in others she doesn't, I just thought I'd ask

Hey, mufcdiver, it was you that suggested wiping out the world with a superbug, not me! I've simply supported their use in enabling us to live on the planet.

And suricat, it was mufcdiver who brought up the subject of fossil fuels - not me.

Why am I being blamed for mufcdiver's comments? Is there some sort of weird transference going on here?

Lucibee.

I didn't ask who first brought up the subject of CO2. Your post was 'open' and not directed solely at mufcdiver, so I posted three questions that may cover a posed scenario. I think the questions are valid and because I find the idea intriguing, I used two question marks. I offered a hint at 'the ghosts of Earth's past life' as an introduction into 'false biomass forcing', but you've not replied. Just as well, it's probably best to reserve it for another thread.

I don't apportion blame anywhere (I leave that to the 'gods') and you can think of any number of 'weird transference' you want to, but none of them will include me. Lucibee, if a post annoys you, just ignore it until you can respond well.

Best regards, suricat.

ooo - so we are using code now! What does two question marks mean? Anything exciting?

Sorry I'm not intelligent enough to pick up on your hints about "the ghosts of Earth's past life" (as a lonely asteroid perhaps?) or "false biomass forcings" (is this something you don't stuff the turkey with?)...

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
ooo - so we are using code now! What does two question marks mean? Anything exciting?

Sorry I'm not intelligent enough to pick up on your hints about "the ghosts of Earth's past life" (as a lonely asteroid perhaps?) or "false biomass forcings" (is this something you don't stuff the turkey with?)...

This is one of those posts that I'll ignore!

Oh come on, Suricat! Mufcdiver was accusing me of not giving a toss about the world, so I was trying to explain that he had misinterpreted me. And to you, I simply misinterpreted your use of question marks. Please do explain what you mean about ghosts and biomass forcings...