Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raging Epistaxis" data-source="post: 2204440" data-attributes="member: 1169">(But if there is nothing above the brainstem, then it's incapable of sentience, self awareness or thought of any sort...)Dang. Failed my Will save - I wasn't going to respond to some of these... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />Umm, not much  - (except giving engineered neo-dinosaurs the ability to change gender?!) since IIRC most poison arrow frogs merely pass on the toxins they get from the bugs they eat which in turn get the toxins from the plants they eat... alkaloids can be some nasty compounds.Goats giving spidersilk protein milk? I have to admit to my ignorance on this particular one. Why on earth would 'they' bother to do that?  Do I get an INT roll to guess at that one? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> EDIT:nevermind. found it.  Looks <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/889951.stm" target="_blank">pretty cool to me.</a> Overall, I have to agree with Shemeska's earlier post about evil scientists on this one. With one addendum: scientists/geneticists/researchers/whatever all suffer from the same alignments as the rest of us.  Sure there are a few _E ones out there, but I cannot imagine that they work in complete isolation so that no one of Neutral or _G has any idea what they are doing.  Meaning it was chemically extracted from the pancreas of slaughtered pigs who may or may not have been raised solely for that purpose.  Now bacteria produce it relatively cheaply in test tubes as a by-product of their metabolism. [/simplification] A change for the better, no?Probably the best example of an inhuman human 'researcher'.  Backed by (arguably) the most inhuman regime of modern times.  But, did you know that some of his findings were groundbreaking in those fields?  Not that I am in any way intending to diminish the horror of the atrocities committed either by his hands or at his behest. My intent is to show that even in the worst case, some good may come of it.  Does the few discoveries he made that can be for the good outweigh the crimes committed? Did the ends justify the means? I say not by a long, long shot.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" />But, even in the case of an honest, ethical researcher/technological advance, is there room for human stupidity/greed/shortsightedness to take over and cause danger? Yes, and there always will be.I see the best solution to the balance between danger and benefit to be transparency and oversight.  Let people not directly involved with the technology/research decide. [/idealism][devils advocate]But, how do you do that when you have a relatively scientifically illiterate public? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> No offense intended to anyone reading, but I don't want those type of decisions made by those who believe urban legends and other conspiracy theories without doing any 'homework' to verify what they read on the internet...  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" />[sblock]Whenever I hear a GM food debate I just want to alternatively cringe or smack the folk who say things like "I don't want no Genes in my food..." Just about everything but water has genes(DNA) in it, duma$$! ARRRGGGHHH! <deep breath> Ok, I know they mean MODIFIED genes, and the technology does have some abuse potential in addition to the tremendous potential benefits, but still the inaccuracy of that statement just really grates on me[/sblock][/soapbox]The other and by far biggest problem with any oversight system is that the benefits or dangers of a discovery/line of research may not become apparent for a very long time.[/devils advocate]So, where was I going with all this?  Hmm...Oh yeah. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Chimeras growing human organs.  IANAI (I Am Not An Immunologist) but:  I would think that theoretically there is some danger of biologic agents adapting to the non-host cells and becoming possibly infective for the non-host species.  If the host immune system totally ignores them.  Other, external factors like the foolishness of humans (like the designer pet example that Torm gave earlier) do serve to increase the possibility of adverse outcomes.  Believe me, I could tell of some atrocities to pets committed here in the good ol' bible belt - some due to malice, many due to ignorance, most due to apathy. Fortunately the chimeras in question would be nothing like a D&D Chimera. Or unfortunately, depending on how you see it. Hmm. Maybe a pet dragon chimera would teach folks a thing or two about responsibility for another's life.  Then again, it might turn out like that Rottweiler yard ornament chained to a post that no one can get near, only with more flames... but I digress again. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It seems to me that knee-jerk reactions (like outright bans) to things that are already happening are kinda like taking your hands off the wheel of the speeding bicycle to cover your eyes.  Are you more or less likely to have some control of the outcome? </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Oversight. Transparency. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Prove they can't. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I think it's kind of like trying to 'think like a mind flayer' or other abberration - assuming that the species of animal in question is intelligent (which for the species you mention is certainly subject to debate...), would not the thought processes of an herbivore prey species be *entirely* foreign to an omnivore/predator species like humans? Not to belittle your point, because it is very valid with a somewhat narrow definition of intelligence/sentience.  Having said that, I personally value my position at the top of the food chain<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> </li> </ul>ye gads, I've developed diarrhea of the post... gotta learn to relax before bed...R E</blockquote>

Verification