pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: First artificial cell is made  (Read 32810 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 21, 2010, 15:36 »
0
Scientists made an artificial cell. It's alive, and it has completely synthesized genom, made in laboratory.

BBC News - Newsnight - Venter: Artificial living cell will benefit humanity
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 15:38 by Whitechild »


« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2010, 15:54 »
0
SF
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 15:57 by borg »

« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2010, 15:55 »
0
Yes and no.  It has some of the characteristics of what we call "life".   I actually think it will be a long time before the remaining gap is closed.

"Completely synthesized" is mostly hype. The genome has been pieced together from sequences copied from the DNA of living creatures.  It's like someone stole parts from junk cars and succeeded in creating something that has no engine, but at least steers and rolls downhill.  

« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2010, 15:56 »
0

Can be good, but also can be disaster!!!

ap

« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2010, 16:00 »
0
Yes and no.  It has some of the characteristics of what we call "life".   I actually think it will be a long time before the remaining gap is closed.
 

could be, or "That's one small step for a single cell, one giant leap for mankind."

« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2010, 16:01 »
0
Actually it's reproducing it self. And yes, only genome is synthesized, but that's enough. If you can put together pieces of other genomes that's it. You get a new creature. Genome is made only of few different molecules. They managed to make them and put them together in the lab

« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2010, 16:38 »
0
I'd call what they're doing at this point "hacking" or "tinkering" with life, rather than "engineering".  But there's no doubt where this is leading.   

« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2010, 16:50 »
0
I can imagine many disasters.  Man always believes he has things under control, until a disaster happens, especially when he believes he has everything under control. 

"The greater a man's talents, the greater his power to lead astray." 
"What man has joined, nature is powerless to put asunder."
Aldous Huxley in Brave New World

« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2010, 16:57 »
0
And Craig Venter is exactly the sort of big-ego high-rolling risk-taker that could create a major disaster - and then blame others.

« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2010, 17:07 »
0
I personally think this is highly dangerous, but also unavoidable. It was just a matter of time. I also think they can't prevent spreading of artificial organisms in future, which even scares me more. Who will stop these bacteria when they get out?

RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2010, 17:32 »
0
I can imagine many disasters.  Man always believes he has things under control, until a disaster happens, especially when he believes he has everything under control. 

"The greater a man's talents, the greater his power to lead astray." 
"What man has joined, nature is powerless to put asunder."
Aldous Huxley in Brave New World

Jurassic Park!  :D

There can be a positive side, curing "incurable" diseases for example, regenerating limbs, organs, eyes... all kinds of other things.

Extreme caution is necessary, but I have a feeling that it won't be a major issue in our lifetime.

« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2010, 17:34 »
0
A lot of "bioengineering" creations are studied, and I wonder how safe they can actually be.  Putting an existing animal or plant in a different environment can be disastrous - we've had tons of examples - and the potential money-making behind bioengineering possibly cuts any extensive tests necessary to at least try to know if there is any risk.

« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2010, 17:37 »
0
I once read a fictional book about a scientist having created an "elixir of youth" and the moral and ethical consequences of it were discussed along the story.  In the end, the person who recovers the recipe decided to throw it away. 

Yes, there are many positive advances in medical and other sciences, but we must be very, very careful.

« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2010, 17:43 »
0
Some years ago I went to see a lecture by Stephen Hawking and he talked about  a time when human characteristics would be genetically enhanced and/or muted. Creating a species with a bit more understanding and a lot more intelligence. Of course the military would want it the other way around. That would set the stage for major advances.

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2010, 20:10 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:49 by sunnymars »

« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2010, 22:37 »
0
We have science and medicine prolonging life, we have politicians and religion encouraging the increase in population yet we're living in a world where natural resources are becoming more and more scarce.

That was basically the issues in that book I mentioned.  Making people live longer would be a waste of resources, and obviously would mean the benefit of the richest in detriment to the poorest.  We all want to live longer and healthier - we already are - but there are other important things to do.

Also, is it interesting for the current world economy status quo to develop a cure for tropical diseases that affect basically poor countries?  Is it interesting that mortality rates in them are reduced, offering more pressure in the rich countries due to more limited resources and a tendency to increase undesirable immigration waves?

I often wonder if there is a real wish to find a cure for diseases such as cancer, not for the ethical/geopolitical aspects above, but for the market involved in long, expensive treatments.  Viagra is not something necessary from a strict medical point-of-view, though very welcome for those suffering from sexual difficulties - a legitimate cause, even if not life-threatening - yet there is a very profitable market even among people who do not really need it.  And, you know, here in Brasil Viagra & such are often the target in drugstore robbery.   ;D

Microbius

« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2010, 05:46 »
0
I can't see anything positive coming out of this.  Even curing diseases and improving health is not positive when the world is so population heavy.  We have science and medicine prolonging life, we have politicians and religion encouraging the increase in population yet we're living in a world where natural resources are becoming more and more scarce. 

In 50 years they may cured AIDS and cancer but what will they do about people dying from hunger and thirst and killing each other for a handful of rice?  We cannot sustain ourselves at the rate we're growing.

This is the real problem facing humanity. There is no one in the political arena with the guts to face up to these problems, which is largely the fault of the political system. If anyone ties to impose any type of population control they will simply be voted out. Even China is backing away from their one child policy. An ageing population and an economic system that relies on constant growth are factors most easily resolved in the short term by population increase, and no one seems to have an eye on the medium to long term.
If I hear scientists talking about the need to feed a population of 9 billion by 2050 one more time I'm going to scream. It's like there is no understanding of cause and effect. Increasing resource production is what drives population growth. This is true everywhere in nature, why would it be different for people? I can guarantee that if there is only food for 6 billion people there will only be a population of 6 billion people. The population can't eat air!
The sooner we get to grips with this the more humanely it can be dealt with, there needs to be limits set on the number of children people are allowed to have. The alternative is that we continue to squeeze as many resources out of the planet as we possible can till the population reaches the absolute limit that can be sustained, by which point everyone will be barely subsisting.
If the global population can be stabilised we will actually be able to feed everyone, rather than what happens now where any attempt to increase resources in an area of shortage causes the population to increase and the same problems to occur on a larger scale in future.

Microbius

« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2010, 05:53 »
0
I can imagine many disasters.  Man always believes he has things under control, until a disaster happens, especially when he believes he has everything under control. 

"The greater a man's talents, the greater his power to lead astray." 
"What man has joined, nature is powerless to put asunder."
Aldous Huxley in Brave New World

Not sure if you can get this outside the UK but here's a very interesting and revealing discussion about Brave New World
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jn8bc

« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2010, 07:25 »
0
I find this development very troubling.  If this cell fines a hospitable habitat who knows what the Darwinian consequence will be.  Will this cell have parasitic properties either now or later, will it mutate into something that can harm the environment or other live forms? If one thinks in terms of  Chaos Theory this is not good news.

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2010, 08:55 »
0
--
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:50 by sunnymars »

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2010, 09:12 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:50 by sunnymars »

« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2010, 10:41 »
0
Scientists made an artificial cell. It's alive, and it has completely synthesized genom, made in laboratory.

newbielink:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8696148.stm#id8690000/8696100/8696148 [nonactive]


This is old news.  Mutant parasitic one-celled organisms like lawyers and microstockers have been around for a long time.

« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2010, 10:44 »
0
This is old news.  Mutant parasitic one-celled organisms like lawyers and microstockers have been around for a long time.
Old hippie/Macrosaur is back  :P

« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2010, 10:45 »
0
Yawn

« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2010, 11:07 »
0
Scientists made an artificial cell. It's alive, and it has completely synthesized genom, made in laboratory.
Not exactly. The cell itself was natural, only the DNA was synthesized, and only the main unit and not the mytochondrial DNA. The info content was also copied from another cell, not designed from scratch. Apart from that, the construction was totally synthetic, yes.

Now it's time for the preachers, the creationists and the religious, climatewarming and green fundamentalists to start yelling booh, sin, Frankenstein. Just like with the advent of the steam train mid 19-th century their brother and sister Cassandras yelled that the cows near the rail tracks would stop giving milk.

In fact, this is just a cheaper, faster and more secure replacement for the technique of recombinant DNA with enzymes used as bio-scissors in vitro real DNA. This latter technique has been around for almost 4 decades. In a previous life, I have been involved somehow with the development of bacteria producing human insulin this way, a protein that benefited countless diabetics that showed to be allergic to animal insulin, that was moreover very costly to extract from loads of killed donor animals.

« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2010, 12:23 »
0
Some years ago I went to see a lecture by Stephen Hawking and he talked about  a time when human characteristics would be genetically enhanced and/or muted. Creating a species with a bit more understanding and a lot more intelligence. Of course the military would want it the other way around. That would set the stage for major advances.

who needs humans?  by then the military will already be using the next generation of cylon centurians anyway...

s

« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2010, 12:30 »
0




In 50 years they may cured AIDS and cancer but what will they do about people dying from hunger and thirst and killing each other for a handful of rice?  We cannot sustain ourselves at the rate we're growing.

actually bioengineering of the plant kingdom is probably the major emphasis right now --

the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger

similar results are being achieved today with corn that fixes its own nitrogen, and the pest resistant strains  - reducing need for chemical fertilizer and pesticides.

steve

« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2010, 16:11 »
0
the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger
At the same time it increased the use of pesticides and other chemical stuff that damages watersheds and ultimately ourselves.

« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2010, 16:19 »
0
the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger
At the same time it increased the use of pesticides and other chemical stuff that damages watersheds and ultimately ourselves.


"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." - ISSAC NEWTON
We learned that in grade school. Elementary physics.
Yet our scientists and technocrats seem to conveniently forget this when it is in their own best interest.

« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2010, 21:17 »
0
the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger
At the same time it increased the use of pesticides and other chemical stuff that damages watersheds and ultimately ourselves.

'chemical stuff' is also called organic farming - the same nutrients are required whether their source is a chem lab or bird guano -- large scale farming requires large scale nutrition, there is nt enough 'natural' fertilizer to feed the world - it's the scale of the farming.  miliions of people are saved from hunger by these methods while a western elite focuses on local production of boutique crops and locavore suburban markets

world hunger is an econimic and political problem, not scientitifc

s

Microbius

« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2010, 05:25 »
0
the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger
At the same time it increased the use of pesticides and other chemical stuff that damages watersheds and ultimately ourselves.

'chemical stuff' is also called organic farming - the same nutrients are required whether their source is a chem lab or bird guano -- large scale farming requires large scale nutrition, there is nt enough 'natural' fertilizer to feed the world - it's the scale of the farming.  miliions of people are saved from hunger by these methods while a western elite focuses on local production of boutique crops and locavore suburban markets

world hunger is an econimic and political problem, not scientitifc

s
Nope, no one is saved from hunger. All this obsession with increasing crop yields does is fuel population growth. The population will increase to the level sustainable by the amount of food we produce. You are getting the cart before the horse.


youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2010, 07:27 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:47 by sunnymars »

Microbius

« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2010, 09:52 »
0
Well however you look at it a stable population is one where births=deaths. Clearly at the moment births>deaths as the population is increasing. The last thing you want to do is reduce the right of the equation even further.
 If anything, not enough people are dying of starvation. Sorry that is what a stable population looks like under the current conditions until someone has the moral courage to face up to the facts. The nicest thing to do is to try and reduce the number of births by placing limits on the number of children people can have. Failing this, at least dont make it worse by trying to increase resource production!

« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2010, 10:48 »
0

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." - ISSAC NEWTON
We learned that in grade school. Elementary physics.
Yet our scientists and technocrats seem to conveniently forget this when it is in their own best interest.

Very important point. Take corn for example, it has fueled a huge boon in agriculture and the feeding of livestock. Yet it is likely to be single handedly responsible for the obesity problem and rest of the issues with metabolic syndrome much of the world is experiencing.

« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2010, 13:38 »
0
Well however you look at it a stable population is one where births=deaths. Clearly at the moment births>deaths as the population is increasing. The last thing you want to do is reduce the right of the equation even further.
 If anything, not enough people are dying of starvation. Sorry that is what a stable population looks like under the current conditions until someone has the moral courage to face up to the facts. The nicest thing to do is to try and reduce the number of births by placing limits on the number of children people can have. Failing this, at least dont make it worse by trying to increase resource production!

as others have said, the populations AND standards of living in india and china have increased over the last 50 years, thanks in large part to the green revolution which now allows these countries to feed their people - neither has had a major famine in the last qarter century - the worst famines that have occurred are usually due to politics - from stalin's purges to china's great leap and cultural revolutions.  afica is the only continent where the green revolution hasnt been as spectacularly productive and again politics not agriculture is the main cause for hunger.
see wiliam shawcross quality of mercy for a detailed discussion of the politics of disaster relief

by far the MOST important thing to do to lower pop growth is to educate women - in cuntry after country as women are given education, they improve their living standards and the birth rate drops

steve

« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2010, 14:22 »
0
Not only education for women, but also put the necessary means at their disposal.  There must be an education for men also, because many women are not allowed by their spouses to take any prevention.  There is a very big cultural thing to change in poor families, especially farmers, that they need many children to help them at work.  This is also because many die in childhood, so they need to have say ten children to have four adults someday. In cities, there is more conciousness towards having less children so be able to provide them a better life. Our maid has two children and our cleaning lady also two.

« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2010, 16:15 »
0

Microbius

« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2010, 16:25 »
0
However you look at it population growth is in positive figures in almost every country including those in the developed world. The only current notable exception is Germany, and that's probably just a blip as historically several other countries have had similar momentary falls below zero.
So the truth is that even if every country in the world had a population as well educated as in Western democracies (and this will never, never happen) population would still be growing at an unacceptable rate, that will only be ultimately limited by the level of available resources or enforced legislation.
However hard we try to think up nice feel good ways of dealing with this there's no getting away from the facts.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2010, 20:17 »
0
Just saw a commerical for the movie Splice.

Looks like the artificial cells gone wild version.

« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2010, 01:21 »
0
However you look at it population growth is in positive figures in almost every country including those in the developed world. The only current notable exception is Germany, and that's probably just a blip as historically several other countries have had similar momentary falls below zero.
So the truth is that even if every country in the world had a population as well educated as in Western democracies (and this will never, never happen) population would still be growing at an unacceptable rate, that will only be ultimately limited by the level of available resources or enforced legislation.
However hard we try to think up nice feel good ways of dealing with this there's no getting away from the facts.

why is it unacceptble? by what reasoning?  you seem to think that a positive population growth is in itself bad - Malthus was disproved many years ago - the carrying capacity of the earth is well beyond what we see now, and there is more than enough potential food for the anticipated increases in pop.  on what are you basing your claim?

the much bigger problem is climate change, for which the developed world is most responsible - maybe we should restrict THEIR growth.  after all, each american uses many times the resources of the developing populations.

steve

Microbius

« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2010, 03:28 »
0
Okay let me re-frame my position. Two points.

I would like humanity to aspire to live in something like the level of luxury we have in the Western world. Art, scientific progress, music-- for people to do anything worthwhile, anything that separates us from the beasts, they need leisure time; not to be "fighting over a handful of rice". The world clearly could not sustain even the current level of population with this standard of living. Middle class guilt would lead the chattering classes to say "right, we all need to live like Anatolian goat-herders then". Well I'm happy with my life as it is thanks very much, and clearly the rest of the world rather likes it too, you don't get mass immigration to middle eastern peasant villages.

Second, whatever the upper population limit, there clearly has to be one. That limit will eventually be reached. Any increase in population brings us closer to that limit, and any refusal to tackle population growth stores up and scales up the problems till that time. It is wishful thinking that people, no matter how educated, will ever be able to overcome the biological imperative to reproduce. This will be true whether the population is 6 or 60 billion, when should we be trying to tackle this? The scale of the problem will only be worse in future.

Microbius

« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2010, 03:45 »
0
 PS. cascoly: " you seem to think that a positive population growth is in itself bad - Malthus was disproved many years ago"

Please read;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe  under Neo-Malthusian theory. Malthus' basic principles have not been disproved.

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2010, 07:28 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:48 by sunnymars »

« Reply #44 on: May 24, 2010, 08:15 »
0
I agree with Steve Cascoly.
Microbius you're facing the problem the wrong way.
The Earth is more than capable to feed us all, and the many, many more to come. As long as we take good care of our unique, beautiful Blue Marble, hunger should not be a problem.

Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.

And in fact, I'm totally excited by the new developments in genetic engineering. This is a fascinating domain and it absolutely is the way to go. No doubts about it.
Scientists won't be stopped and they shouldn't be.
In hundreds of years from now on (provided we don't kill ourselves) humans will reach a state of Semi-Gods.
It's meant to be.   
Give it a few more thousands years and we will be able to save the Sun from dying, the galaxies from colliding and even the Universe from expanding into dark nothingness.
It sounds incredible but we will get there.
It will be an amazing world, braver and a lot more beautiful than Huxley's, it will come to life helped by genetics and I'm only sorry I will not be around to watch it in action.

« Reply #45 on: May 24, 2010, 08:47 »
0
Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.

Really? Morally unacceptable? I think if you visit Mumbai you could well change your mind.
Seeing four million people living in squalor right in the middle of what is considered to be a 'modern' city certainly changed my world view.

India's 'standard of living' may be getting closer to the west for SOME Indians. but not the vast majority.
The cast system may be partly to blame, but at the huge population of that country there is no way they will ever have a decent standard of life for the masses.

It is of little use trying to convince anyone that has never been there though. I urge all people that live in the relative luxury of western civilization to visit the more squalid areas of India (not the resort areas where you are cut off from reality), and see if your notions of population growth and sustainability are not changed forever.

« Reply #46 on: May 24, 2010, 09:07 »
0
Nosaya,
and you want to help change their life standards by imposing birth control?
- 'You live in a shack? Have no colour TV? That's it! You're not allowed to have more than one child! Tomorrow morning get yourself at the hospital, up the table and out with your ovaries!' (or something similar).
Talk about 'Brave new world'...
Is that your solution? Nothing else springs to your mind?
I can think of better ways to improve their standard of life. It takes time, but they'll get there, and I can assure you, meanwhile you're not in any danger of starvation. 

And anyways, imposed birth control is a measure of past, dictatorial societies. Very Hitlerian.
Forget about it, it's not gonna happen.
Think of something else.

« Reply #47 on: May 24, 2010, 09:29 »
0
I don't want to lower my life standards, but there is a lot we can help if we try. We discard a lot, we use a lot more energy than we really need, we don't shop smart.

Years ago we had to save eletric power because of draught (most of our energy is hydro) and because of poor government planning (little investment).  Homes had to cut 5% of their power expenses, and it wasn't that difficult.  We changed many lamps to those compact fluorescents (high investment, real savings, though I'm not so quite sure about the environmental benefit due to the manufacting and discarding) and turned off stand-by devices in TV and videocassete, reduced the refrigerator's power slightly (no icecream melted in this process).  We saved over 10%. 

I am very careful about the use of air conditioner in summer, but I know people who let them run 24h at high power - and sleep with a blanket "because it's so nice".   ::)

Microbius

« Reply #48 on: May 24, 2010, 10:26 »
0
Nosaya,
and you want to help change their life standards by imposing birth control?
- 'You live in a shack? Have no colour TV? That's it! You're not allowed to have more than one child! Tomorrow morning get yourself at the hospital, up the table and out with your ovaries!' (or something similar).
Talk about 'Brave new world'...
Is that your solution? Nothing else springs to your mind?
I can think of better ways to improve their standard of life. It takes time, but they'll get there, and I can assure you, meanwhile you're not in any danger of starvation.  

And anyways, imposed birth control is a measure of past, dictatorial societies. Very Hitlerian.
Forget about it, it's not gonna happen.
Think of something else.

No one is suggesting that controls be placed on some sections of society and not on others, or on some nations and not on others. Everyone would have to live under the same rules. I don't feel that this is likely to happen in our lifetime. Far more likely is  that population will continue to grow unabated followed by lots of wars over limited resources. Countries like China are already putting a halt to exports of rare metals etc. because their growing population needs them. If a small, say middle Eastern, country discovers vast reserves of them, how long do you reckon before the US or someone else finds a reason to invade?
Simply labelling a point of view as "Hitlerian" or anything else is not the same as rebuffing it. Steve has conducted this argument like a gentleman and a scholar, stating the facts as he sees them and arguing against specific points that I and others have made. Throwing names about doesn't help the discussion.... and all the talk of "moving forward" and "the dark ages" has the same ring about it as the theorising that went on at the turn of the twentieth century that there was an end of violence, that somehow mankind had outgrown it, how did that turn out?

ETA. if you get the chance please listen to the program I linked to earlier discussing Brave New World. Huxley didn't find the society portrayed quite as dystopian as you might think.

ETA lol, thought I'd come back to add this in light of the above http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?emc=na
« Last Edit: June 14, 2010, 07:57 by Microbius »

« Reply #49 on: May 24, 2010, 10:29 »
0

Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.



What's unacceptable and immoral is trying to impose NO birth control. Like some famous church does.

« Reply #50 on: May 24, 2010, 11:09 »
0

Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.

What's unacceptable and immoral is trying to impose NO birth control. Like some famous church does.

I don't think either is to be imposed, but to be teached and people should be given the option.  Our public medical system does not perfom any surgery for birth control unless there is a medical need (for instance, removing the uterus due to myomas). Falopian tube ligation is not performed even if the woman is already in a caesarean surgery. As far as I know, vasectomies are not performed either.  Yes, the Catholic Church is culprit of intervening in it too, and as a catholic I find it very annoying.  The church has the right to give the orientation they want to itsr congragation, but not to impose its orientation in the public affairs.

I once had a school colleague whose father worked in a public hospital in a very poor zone, and every time he was performing a caesarean in a woman that already had two or more children, he would also perform a sterilization without even asking for consent. This is highly immoral to me too, but she considered it completely ok.

« Reply #51 on: May 24, 2010, 11:12 »
0
Huxley didn't find the society portrayed quite as dystopian as you might think.

I think our present society is a lot like in Huxley's book. Instead of using genetics, our society uses hunger and ignorance to create its deltas and epsilons. I like to think I am a beta, but I am probably a gamma. ;D

« Reply #52 on: May 24, 2010, 12:51 »
0
Sorry Microbius, Steve Cascoly has a lot more patience than I do :)

The problem comes down to this - is humanity in any danger of starvation? Is there any need for localised (or world wide) birth control?
The answer is no.
The Earth is well capable of feeding us all, and many, many more to come.
By the time numbers rise out of control and finding food becomes a problem, humanity will have already found a solution.
Globally imposing birth control is a very severe measure. No need for it.  
There's always a better way to solve a problem and I'm sure, when necessary, we will find it.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 16:04 by Eireann »

« Reply #53 on: May 24, 2010, 14:48 »
0
The Earth is well capable of feeding us all, and many, many more to come.

In which standards? By which means? With what impact?

Water resources are getting scarcer. We are depleting watersheds, and polluting them at the same time. And now we want crops to fuel our cars. The pressure for more land is increasing, and here in Brazil we've been losing precious and unique habitats to an ever expanding agribusiness.

« Reply #54 on: May 24, 2010, 17:38 »
0
Those problems are very real Madelaide, but they can and will be addressed.
Keeping the planet's natural balance at safe levels is of utmost importance.
But there are ways, smarter, eco-friendlier ways to produce food without disrupting vital natural habitats. They're working on it as we speak.
In the end humanity will do the right thing. We always have.
Short of an unexpected, devastating disaster (natural or man caused) there is no need for global birth control rate.
Unless absolutely necessary, that's a radical measure and people will fight it. Rightly so.
We can do better than chase pregnant women all over the world.
I have a crystal globe here, and I already know we will :)

« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2010, 18:02 »
0
I didn't read the whole thread, but did someone mentioned those giant, Europe like sized surfaces covered with plastic bottles in Atlantic and Pacific ocean?

« Reply #56 on: May 24, 2010, 19:33 »
0

the much bigger problem is climate change, for which the developed world is most responsible - maybe we should restrict THEIR growth.  after all, each american uses many times the resources of the developing populations.

steve

Of course we should "restrict THEIR growth".  We should be restricting the growth or at least encouraging each country to slow it down.

The problem with climate change and pollution is directly correlated with the population growth.  Just about every economical, agricultural and political problem is a result of the massive increase in population.  And let's forcast to the next generation or so when the world has a population of 50 billion.

INVERSELY correlated actually - the us & europe have relatively slow pop growth, as does china at this point, yet they are responsible for MOST of the contributions to climate change;  if pop growth went to 0 tomorrow, we'd still be facing major environmental problems

as societies become more developed, pop growth decreases [for a variety of reasons]

i'm just trying to put pop growth in perspective - we are not facing a malthsian die-off; the worst estimates for pop increase in next 100 yrs is to about 15 billion, and we can produce food for that number - as you said tho, the problems become political and economic

steve
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 19:36 by cascoly »

« Reply #57 on: May 24, 2010, 19:46 »
0
Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.


Really? Morally unacceptable? I think if you visit Mumbai you could well change your mind.
Seeing four million people living in squalor right in the middle of what is considered to be a 'modern' city certainly changed my world view.

India's 'standard of living' may be getting closer to the west for SOME Indians. but not the vast majority.
The cast system may be partly to blame, but at the huge population of that country there is no way they will ever have a decent standard of life for the masses.

It is of little use trying to convince anyone that has never been there though. I urge all people that live in the relative luxury of western civilization to visit the more squalid areas of India (not the resort areas where you are cut off from reality), and see if your notions of population growth and sustainability are not changed forever.


actually, i spent 6 weeks, mostly off tourist tracks in India last fall - orissa and southern india, then small villages in the rajasthan hills.  

i've been to mumbai, and yes it's crowded [we took the 2nd class computer trains during rush hour],

http://cascoly.com/trav/india/Trains.asp?lt=1

but the problems of mega-cities are different from those of the vast majority of indians who still live in the villages.  the std of living has increased for everyone, not at acceptable or equitable rates, certainly, but the lifespan in india ismuch higher than it was just 50 yrs ago.

and on a different tack, life in the villages may not be all that bad - most people have enough to eat, have jobs, but are not working 80 hr wks and stressed out; they live as extended families in real communities.  most of us prob'ly couldnt adapt to it, but it is an alternative

that said, i'd still agree that FORCED pop control is unacceptable - esp'ly, as stated before , because we know there are BETTER ways.  again, educating girls has proved to be the best way to reduce population growth.  

steve
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 21:18 by cascoly »

« Reply #58 on: May 24, 2010, 19:54 »
0
PS. cascoly: " you seem to think that a positive population growth is in itself bad - Malthus was disproved many years ago"

Please read;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe  under Neo-Malthusian theory. Malthus' basic principles have not been disproved.


i thought i might get away with that generalization, but i guess not - i was just trying to emphasize that the malthusian collapse of cilvilization is no longer a real threat - obviously nothing can increase forever without some severe consequences - but in the case of pop, we have seen in country after country, that growth rate declines as the people achieve a higher std of living - the real question right now is what std is going to be set for the world when economies like the US can no longer get away with using 4 times the resources we actually have.

s

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #59 on: May 25, 2010, 03:08 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:44 by sunnymars »

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #60 on: May 25, 2010, 03:25 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:45 by sunnymars »

Microbius

« Reply #61 on: May 25, 2010, 05:22 »
0
I don't think anyone said they want to impose or enforce global birth control but rather to discourage births instead of encouraging them.  Here in Aus the governement was offering women an extra $3000 when having a baby.  This resulted in a great rise in single teenage mothers who do nothing but leach off the taxpayer. Things like this should be stopped, migration should be stopped or reduced greatly so that overpopulated countries can deal with their own population problems rather than handballing it elsewhere.


Agreed that that is a start. But I would be all for enforced birth control. Each woman would be allowed to have 2 children. If she had a third it would be put up for adoption to a woman not fortunate enough to be fertile and she would be expected to undergo treatment to prevent future pregnancies.
Why such draconian seeming measures? two reasons. To allow the decision to be made voluntarily is a genetic tax on altruism. Why should the genes of people like you, who care enough about the future of the planet and humanity to voluntarily give up the right to have children not be passed on while other who couldn't care less continue to pop out sprogs by the dozen for government provided child benefits? It's both unfair and extremely detrimental to the future makeup of society.
It's all very well sitting back and saying don't worry someone else will sort it out, but that someone is at some point going to have to make some very hard decisions which might leave a bitter aftertaste while also being entirely necessary. If you can't take the sting to your conscience for the greater good that just means your not up to decision. Fine; someone else will take it while you can sit on the moral high ground feeling good about yourself.
PS. The Radiolabs episode on morality makes for great listening:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #62 on: May 25, 2010, 05:50 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:45 by sunnymars »

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #63 on: May 25, 2010, 05:52 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 19:46 by sunnymars »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
5195 Views
Last post January 17, 2010, 19:29
by RT
52 Replies
35646 Views
Last post July 30, 2013, 12:02
by amabu
6 Replies
5841 Views
Last post April 03, 2015, 01:36
by fmarsicano
2 Replies
3601 Views
Last post January 08, 2017, 17:54
by sharpshot
453 Replies
62286 Views
Last post March 30, 2023, 06:04
by DiscreetDuck

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors