Synthetic DNA

[Pandora]

Scientists are attempting to modify life by adding artificial nucleotides to DNA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... bfbe4ad072

Floyd Romesberg on his research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BULFCY5XC_g

The artificial strings of DNA do not encode for anything yet, but scientists speculate they could be designed to manufacture new proteins which could have industrial or pharmaceutical uses. Experts said the synthetic DNA incorporating the unnatural base pair raises the possibility of life forms based on a different DNA code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_pair ... _.28UBP.29



I wonder how long before the "self-limiting" function of such organisms is no longer true.

[James S Saint]

If it can be done, Man is dumb enough to do it.

And they have been modifying DNA in animals since the 1950's (using radiation), although not nearly so precisely.

[MagsJ]

Just like the reality of GMO food has ended badly, in that some supermarkets advertise zero GMO products in their shops due to the awful mishaps that GMO foods are proving to have on the gut and in turn on the mind and body, I cannot see this ending well either.

[Dan~]

GMO is a terrible idea.
GMO is an amazing idea.

[MagsJ]

GMO is a terrible idea.
GMO is an amazing idea.

GMOs have caused a lot of digestive/autoimmune/unknown illnesses to arise, so I guess it's for the jury to decide on that one.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If it can be done, Man is dumb enough to do it.

Yes, and I would add that the current rule is also something like: If it can be done, then no one should be allowed to stop us from doing it, unless they can prove in advance it is dangerous. (while the us involved will use all the money and resources at their disposal to undermine any attempts to present evidence about the dangers, make a very hard task almost impossible)

And they have been modifying DNA in animals since the 1950's (using radiation), although not nearly so precisely.

And this 'us' confuses their precision over direct effects - on the genes - with their precision over the ecological effects. I am using ecological in a broad sense, not just meaning effects over natural ecosystems. For ex., effects in bodies. They ALWAYS limit their focus on effects to minimize dangers, to help them market their products and, I would add, to keep them from noticing their own fears of loss of control. They have the intuitions of gnats.

[Gloominary]

The last thing we need is more scientific innovation, and industriousness.
Scientific innovation, and industriousness are destroying nature.
Scientists are mad, they don't care about the welfare of the world, they care about fame/fortune.
They want knowledge without wisdom and understanding, they want power without responsibility.
They will happily place all our lives in peril just to make money, or satisfy their curiosity.
Scientists are mad, if they can't stop themselves, they must be stopped, and soon.

[WendyDarling]

It's not just scientists who are the problem, but short sighted inventors and artists as well.

[WendyDarling]

If it can be done, Man is dumb enough to do it.

Yes, and I would add that the current rule is also something like: If it can be done, then no one should be allowed to stop us from doing it, unless they can prove in advance it is dangerous. (while the us involved will use all the money and resources at their disposal to undermine any attempts to present evidence about the dangers, make a very hard task almost impossible)

And they have been modifying DNA in animals since the 1950's (using radiation), although not nearly so precisely.

And this 'us' confuses their precision over direct effects - on the genes - with their precision over the ecological effects. I am using ecological in a broad sense, not just meaning effects over natural ecosystems. For ex., effects in bodies. They ALWAYS limit their focus on effects to minimize dangers, to help them market their products and, I would add, to keep them from noticing their own fears of loss of control. They have the intuitions of gnats.

I advocate for measures to be implemented that put the onus of responsibility on the scientists, inventors, and artists as to whether what they are bringing forth into our midst is wise and safe not only presently, but also taking the future into account as well. We share a reality and it's high time that the creative remember this fact.

[Gloominary]

It's not just scientists who are the problem, but short sighted inventors and artists as well.

Myself I don't have a problem with artists or intellectuals, only with people who exploit the economy or the environment in a big way.
I'm 100% for freedom of speech and artistic and intellectual freedom.

[WendyDarling]

Why do you only think scientists mismanage our environments for profits, fame, and out of curiosity? The problem with creative freedom is that it is sold, then mass produced which I hold the artist/intellectual responsible for as I would a scientist who fiddles with our environment using artistic/intellectual property that was sold, all, the scientist, artist, and intellectual inventor, do the same things to varying degrees. Once a creator releases their idea for general consumption without any forethought, then all sorts of problems arise from the waste of resources to impending danger from this product in the future.

Humanities biggest problem is humanism, that it overvalues its own industry and innovation.
Productivity is not a good, or if it is, you can have too much of a good thing.

Humanity should by and large only produce what it needs to survive, and not a whole lot else.
There's far too many toys, too much crap, junk and waste, and too many people.

I'm 100% for freedom of speech and artistic and intellectual freedom.

Then no need to complain about the innovation, the tech, the toys, the waste, the crap or the harm it culminates into since you support those types of endeavors 100%. You must believe that I want to demonize freedom, creativity. Not at all, but creators must prove their designs worthy of our resources, our environment. If they want to invent for their own amusement, joy I have no problem with that , but when they want to market it and see it produced for everyone, especially if it's dangerous, then I have a problem with their selfish endeavors and I hold them responsible for their ideas.

[Gloominary]

Art and arguments, however in 'poor taste' or fallacious they are, never seriously hurt anyone, at least not directly, perhaps indirectly...emphasis on the in, in indirectly, very indirectly.

I think in a democracy, the most important freedom is freedom of speech.
It's why it's the 1st amendment in your constitution, it's the second 'section' of our charter of rights and freedoms of like 34, or something like that, I think.

We have to trust ourselves to be able to think for ourselves in a democracy, if we can't do that, if many-most of us our too dumb to think for ourselves, might as well not even have one, might as well have a dictatorship, or complete chaos.

And if it's just a few idiots who take these bad ideas seriously, than it's just a few idiots, we can handle a few idiots, so long as they do nothing violent or dangerous with them, they'll just frig up their own lives, and if they do, do something violent or dangerous, we can throw em jail for that, not the speech itself.

Anyway, I kind of understand your point, I think there's some merit to it, even tho I've been doing my best to argue against it, bottom line for me is freedom of speech is near absolute, that's my opinion, and thankfully, for me at least, I'm entitled to it.
As someone who's constantly undermining the status quo, you can see how a person like me'd value that freedom.

[WendyDarling]

I'm not arguing verbal freedom, I'm arguing against creative endeavors that go beyond verbal explanations, into the realm of destructive physicality and by that I'm referring to their use of resources to create more crap and crap accumulates and is harmful. Hell, Indias full of litter heaps everywhere, mountains of manufactured garbage. Private art is relatively harmless, personal pieces, but when it crosses into the public sector, mass production, it needs restrictions that don't waste our finite resources. Inventors need to convince "us" that what they are offering is worth producing, not that it will fatten someone's pocketbook, but it will streamline what already exists by taking less time, using less resources, for a greater efficiency and usefulness.

[Gloominary]

I'm not arguing verbal freedom, I'm arguing against creative endeavors that go beyond verbal explanations, into the realm of destructive physicality and by that I'm referring to their use of resources to create more crap and crap accumulates and is harmful. Hell, Indias full of litter heaps everywhere, mountains of manufactured garbage. Private art is relatively harmless, personal pieces, but when it crosses into the public sector, mass production, it needs restrictions that don't waste our finite resources. Inventors need to convince "us" that what they are offering is worth producing, not that it will fatten someone's pocketbook, but it will streamline what already exists by taking less time, using less resources, for a greater efficiency and usefulness.

Oh in that case I didn't understand you, and am inclined to agree.
Yes, we're in the middle of an ecological crisis, the likes humanity has never before seen, and we're the sole or primary cause.

The vast majority of remaining wildlife must be protected.
Since there are far too many producers and very little left of nature we should be permitted to cultivate, yes, when it comes to mass production, you should have to prove to the state, which in a democracy is all of us, you're producing things people actually need, or at the very least aren't harmful to society.
Corporations should have to get in line, for the permission to mass produce things.
The ones who're producing total garbage, should get to the back of the line, or be kicked out of the line altogether, agreed.

I mean really I hate to do it, part of me wishes we could have the freedom of choice to consume whatever we want, but we can't, not anymore, thousands of species have perished and thousands of more will including ours, we no longer have the luxury, ecological conerns now surpass all others.
We need a brand new system, this one was designed when humanity was on an upswing.
We're on a downswing now, and we only have two options, decline gracefully, gradually, wisely, or suddenly, foolishly, and be destroyed, economic growth/ecological ruin is no longer an option.

[WendyDarling]

We need a brand new system

Such as?

[Gloominary]

We need a brand new system

Such as?

One that's based on need instead of greed.

[Gloominary]

More direct democracy in government, where each able bodied citizen is both legislator and enforcer, more direct democracy in business, economic recession, sustainability, environmental growth, more localism, self-sufficiency, less science, technology and medicine, greener science, technology and medicine...