Comment GM is NOT safe... yet. (Score 2) 267
It's not common code across platforms being used to create the same code. You've got more than ribosomal compiler issues. The DNA to Protein complialtion sequence involves feedback loops on pretty much every level. You think that the NT 2000 kernel is complex? You AIN'T seen nothin'. You're transferring genes across not just Kingdoms, but superkingdoms. DNA that has not been able to work in two organism for Billenia, suddenly is creating novel proteins in an altogether new environment.
What's really at issue is companies pasting genes from one species into another, and then everybody in genetic engineering doing things like using a common promoter for the gene. Single point of failure. Not a pretty sight. Any Unix Security person recognizes the danger of that. And Biological Auditing will put NSA auditing to shame. Your seal of approval is survival. Making crops dependent upon our GM is extremely dangerous. There's very little place for diversity. Monocultured crops put out by Monsanto and the like (read about Terminator seeds: Plants that will NOT have viable seeds, Terminator 2 (Traitor) seeds: Plants that NEED Monsanto PROPRIETARY pesticides/ chemicals to survive, and the Irish Potato Famine) You think the SPA is bad? Seed companies have hotlines to report people who use 2nd generation seeds. Yup. Licensed GM products. I see a slippery slope here. You're welcome to speculate. We're going to Need the FSF and GNU here.
30 years down the line. All insects are resistant to 100s of pesticides. All major food staples like rice, wheat, and soybeans come from farms licensed to use either Dupont or Monsanto seed (assuming they don't duke it out, and Microsoft hasn't bought them out.) What are you going to do? Grow your own? It won't survive. Not a CHANCE. Now have these companies standardize on Windows 2005. Add a failure to meet the target for when the insects adapt to GM strain #31, and we become Ozymandius.
Further along this line is a serious problem with the current GM paradigm. You find a gene for resistance to a bug, by promoting a natural pesticide, so you splice it into the plant. Amazing! A field with this plant survives predation by a certain insect. Well, actually, 99% of those insects can't eat that plant, and that 1% is really insignificant. The second generation of those insects is ALL resistant to that pesticide. So once that strain of insect spreads, the entire world has effectively lost the ability to use that gene's pesticide. Why do companies do this? Because companies like Monsanto and Dupont can afford to create new pesticides every 2 or 3 years.
Wouldn't you know it, some people are allergic to some proteins. Chances are, with any food, somebody is allergic to it. You use a process of elimination to find out what you're allergic to. You put a GM (genetically modified) plant on the market, don't label it GM (like the companies want) and God help you figuring out what's sending you to the hospital.
FDA approval for GM products currently consists of giving the FDA a seminar on the safety of the product. The honor system. How about splicing genes from the poppy into wheat? All our studies indicate people are happy with it.
Now I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't research genetics. This isn't meant as a luddite rant. Science is based upon blind faith in the future. That doesn't entail blind ignorance of the 4 billion years that got us here, what it means to survive and be a part of 4 billion years of evolution. GM should be done with extreme caution, and with monumental levels of supervision. One last note, there are two industries that have been refused insurance by EVERYBODY: genetic modification, and nuclear power. Nuclear power in the US has been dead/ in a holding pattern since 3 Mile island and Chernobyl. Do we NEED an equivalent before we take action?
I hope not, but just in case, I'll be damned if I don't go down fighting for my species.
