Genetic engineering, the Golden Wood and Gandalf

[alatar]

Originally Posted by lindil

I am of real limited time today so w/ out qoutes and such I am sure you can connect my replies to yours...

Thank you for your reply. I'm going to box up some of your comments so that I have a more readable post.

I am no scientist, heck , my only science in High School was the bare minimum earth science. But I do fear large corporations and their desire for profits. Monsanto and ADM being to of the scariest in my limited understanding. I tend to, and this is a direct result of a very strong Tolkien influence when I was still young and impressionable, distrust Large corporations, I admittedly judge them guilty until proven innocent.

Without motivation and incentive, would anything ever get done? Did Aragorn et al save the world just because it was the right thing to do? Maybe, but surely Arwen's kiss added to the incentive. Frodo endured the pains that he did in order to save the Shire and folk therein. Sam for love, Legolas and Gimli for honor (or maybe body count?), etc. And you never know where someone's greed and desire will lead us. Like Eru said, "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." Are we not creations of God/nature? If we wipe ourselves out, is that not God's plan or just part of nature where our niche will be filled in by something else? And wouldn't it be funny knowing afterwards that by not taking a certain chance (GMO), that we doomed ourselves?

And, as a skeptic, I distrust everything.

Re: the anecdotal evidence I presented of my friend [which you very tactfully replied to btw] does not such anecdotal evidence become often the basis for scientific inquiry? We listened for decades to big Tobacco tell us that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer....

My father smoked like a chimney (unfiltered, and we live in a steel town!) for forty years. Smoking yet no lung cancer must mean that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer. And it was known early on that cigarettes were bad, as the name "coffin nails" isn't a new invention. The same man is dying of colon cancer, and so maybe we should ban eating.

An aside - what kills me about the anti-cigarette campaign (I'm not and never was a smoker, and think that those who do aren't helping themselves) is that the Government distributed cigarettes to the troops in the wars, subsidizes tobacco yet has the gall to say that it's a problem.

GMO's are in this case such a potentially far-reaching, and potentially irreversible shift that the greatest caution is needed. Many scientists on the'left' or rather outside of corporations are very concerned that GMO's are something of a trojan horse, in addition to the greed factor of proprietary seeds... The whole concept of copyrighting seeds which are the worlds inheritance is pretty fundamentally sick. I am not against extremely secluded and guarded experimenting with GMO's but I did not see you address the [for me] essential point that via pollen the GMO [dna?] essentially contaminates [possibly? probably?] forever realted nearby species. I cited the example I have heard of that many species of native Mexican corn are now gone due to serious pollen drift.

I did a little research and it would seem that it all of the data leads back to one person. I cannot verify if the evidence for GMO-contamination of indigenous corn in Mexico is real or not (no, I'm not in the pay of Novartis ). One bit of advice that I'd offer is that not all conspiracies are real, some people on the "good" side has issues too, not all corporations are looking to homogenize the world for profit and there are good and bad people everywhere. The truth will prevail, and true scientists will expose the problem and hopefully find a solution.

One last point, re: the attitude of run or be run over, well in the corporate world that really seems to be the case, every new development not pursued could mean loss of profits or a 'competitive edge' and this mindset has seeped into our culture in general. I think it is fine a fine attitude to adopt for things such as getting housework done, or training hard in something, but I do not trust it at all when it comes too serious scientific or spiritual pursuits where the hazard of uncertainity is coupled w/ irreversible harm from haste.

It has not seeped into our culture, it just may be more obvious now. We are creatures of sin or animals with shiny toys - either way, avarice, greed, cruelty, apathy and the rest of the stuff in Pandora's box is inside all of us, just looking for a way to get out. How about, in regards to testing, trust but verify?

I agree that science in and of itself is neutral. So is in some utterly abstract way and atom bomb till it is exploded. I hesitate to use the analogy, but it does seem apt; would not Saruman have said much the same to G? " we must fight Sauron with all weapons necessary even orcs, or we shall be mowed over"

He did in a way. His idea was to help Sauron take over, then start working on Sauron to change things a bit. But note that Saruman did not breed orcs to attack Sauron, nor did he help the good side when he had a chance. Gandalf permitted each kind to fight Sauron in their own way, and his way was to send a hapless hobbit into Mordor with the RingBomb. Denethor and others thought that that plan was risky, crazy and would most likely end with ME covered in blackness.

Sure, the Fourth Age was different than the Third as a result of Gandalf's experiment, and things were lost and changed forever, yet, had he not done so, the resulting Fourth Age would have been black.

Not to be too brazen, but science is sometimes like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get until you take a bite.