Good or bad ideas?

[Cornish Steve]

I just read the following at a news site:

"Australian scientists plan to isolate, and possibly transfer to other species, the kangaroo's digestive bacteria, which unusually produce almost none of the potent greenhouse gas methane.

"One of the primary sources of atmospheric methane is the digestive tracts of millions of cows, sheep, pigs and, um, humans. It's the byproduct of trillions of bacteria, properly called digestive flora, without which no mammal could get nutrition from starches and plant fibers."

To me, this seems rather similar to the issue of genetically modified crops, which can be grown under Africa's harsh conditions and represent an excellent solution to uncertain food supplies in that region.

The kangaroo story, in this case, is couched as 'green': save the planet. On the other hand, environmentalists criticise GM crops as man interfering with nature. In all honesty, I could argue that the kangaroo initiative is messing with nature and that genetically modified crops can lift millions from the curse of starvation.

When is manipulating nature good, and when is it bad? Why is implanting bacteria into other mammal species seen as green and acceptable while modifying crops is viewed as anti-green and unacceptable? From a green perspective, what defines 'good' versus 'bad'?

[access is power]

Good luck finding the answer to that on here :S. Personally I think it's too late. I think that the human's hold on the Earth is slowly coming to an end, we've had it for a good 50,000-100,000 years and havn't made a particualry good impression. The Earth has changed to drastcly and too quickly for my liking which I take as a sign that our time is almost up. There isn't enough time to put up defences against what ever natural disaster it will be that takes us and I partially blame the governments who have always put the Planets welfare last after education and taxes. I get really mad when I see people like Geroge Bush going on about how the world must win the war against terror and can't help thinking "open your f**king eyes Mr Bush perhaps you havn't realised yet but we're slowly drowning and well... give it 200 years and we'll all be dead anyway so f**k you and your stupid war on terror."

But anyway back on subject... yer, manipulate nature as much as you like if it will save a few million people from suffering I'm all for it but I personally think we're all doomed anyway and have left it to late to save the Earth. Sorry for going off subject but it really gets to me when everyone fusses about the present like taxing big cars and switching too energy saving bulbs so that 0.00001% of the planets CO2 emmisions are cut down when it's blatantly obviouse that the real trouble is going to begin in the next few years. Look at the facts, in the last 10 years how many natural disasters we had, the tsunami, 2 huge Earth quakes in Pakistan, about 100 hurricans, loads of forrest fires through out the world, and well... its only a matter of time before the super volano in Yellowstone bubbles over destroying most of California. So there you have my opinion and well if you do decide to call me stupid, arrogant or whatever else then I think you're a dam fool.

All the best Miggz

[ken_uk]

Im fine with it all, as long as

1. There is no long term, or unexpected side effects that kill of the human race.
2. They dont use the research as cover for more deadly research.

I reckon science will kill of the human race, long before its time..

Too much power in the hands of humans, and humans are renowned for being stupid.

[Spiderden]

Man started manipulating nature when he invented the plough and hasn't stopped since. If we are to maintain our population growth for any length of time, then GM food is the only answer, though this is only delaying the inevitable.

... its only a matter of time before the super volano in Yellowstone bubbles over destroying most of California.
That must be one big volcano, Yellowstone is in Wyoming which is a hell of a long way from California.

As for introducing bacterial into mammals to reduce the amount of methane produced, I like my farts just the way they are thank you very much.:D

[gibby]

I think its totally missing the point

in the US 10 billion animals are bred & slaughtered each year
ok they produce alot of methane gas & that is a problem
but they are feed antibiotics, tranquilisers, growth hormones, pesticides & herbicides are added into the feeds

all of this stuff comes back out of the animals in urine, feces & in human urine & feces of those that eat the meat, dairy & eggs - billions & billions of tonnes of the stuff pollution the water & planet

at the same time 1 child & 1 adult starve to death every 3 seconds as 80% of the food grown in poor countries is used for feed for cattle for the US & Euro markets

it takes between 5 to 8 times more food to feed an animal to feed a human than if we feed the animals direct. Very similar with water

factory farming produces over 80% of the worlds pollution

so - sorting out the gas from animals isnt going to do us any good as we will still have all the problems factory farming is causing

going back to traditional farming would be better but really we need to cut down the luxuary of consuming so much animal products.

some claim its too late & others say its not - but until humans stop being so selfish it wont make any difference

G

[ken_uk]

factory farming produces over 80% of the worlds pollution

Any references/source/links to back that up?

[gibby]

I shall dig em out when Im back in the office

I know the WHO & the vegetarian society & vegan society have links to these figures & reports

should be able to post with links or sources shortly

G

[Fuzzy]

Didn't I read somewhere you'd left the Forums ?

Good luck finding the answer to that on here :S. Personally I think it's too late. I think that the human's hold on the Earth is slowly coming to an end, we've had it for a good 50,000-100,000 years and havn't made a particualry good impression. The Earth has changed to drastcly and too quickly for my liking which I take as a sign that our time is almost up. There isn't enough time to put up defences against what ever natural disaster it will be that takes us and I partially blame the governments who have always put the Planets welfare last after education and taxes. I get really mad when I see people like Geroge Bush going on about how the world must win the war against terror and can't help thinking "open your f**king eyes Mr Bush perhaps you havn't realised yet but we're slowly drowning and well... give it 200 years and we'll all be dead anyway so f**k you and your stupid war on terror."

But anyway back on subject... yer, manipulate nature as much as you like if it will save a few million people from suffering I'm all for it but I personally think we're all doomed anyway and have left it to late to save the Earth. Sorry for going off subject but it really gets to me when everyone fusses about the present like taxing big cars and switching too energy saving bulbs so that 0.00001% of the planets CO2 emmisions are cut down when it's blatantly obviouse that the real trouble is going to begin in the next few years. Look at the facts, in the last 10 years how many natural disasters we had, the tsunami, 2 huge Earth quakes in Pakistan, about 100 hurricans, loads of forrest fires through out the world, and well... its only a matter of time before the super volano in Yellowstone bubbles over destroying most of California. So there you have my opinion and well if you do decide to call me stupid, arrogant or whatever else then I think you're a dam fool.

All the best Miggz

[Eco-tourist]

I figure that with more conservationist farming methods: genetic engineering, even some of the other "modern" developments, wouldn't be necessary.

This would be particularly so if we all became vegitarians.

However, I see GMs as almost inevitable, but I'm not unduly alarmed.

They will either work, or they won't.
If they don't--particularly in the long term--then that will likely take care of them as an issue.

If they do, then they will become part of our industrialized/post-industrial/super-industrial/call-it-what-you-will world.

As for the effects on the rest of nature, nature would do the selecting--just like it would for toy dogs, cats, rats, roaches, tropical birds in temperate zones. If the GMs can't compete, again, the issue is reduced; if they can, become part of the nature. The natural equilibrium is disturbed, stabilizes, and a new natural equilibrium emerges.

[Markb]

I don't think nature can be interfered with for too long, simply because nature won't let it happen - it'll bite back. I'm obviously no scientist or genius, but I am of the opinion that the so-called greenhouse effect and what is happening around the planet is just a natural cycle of the earth.

The earth has been around for millions of years (I don't know the exact figure) so is man so arrogant as to believe that in just over two hundred years since the Industrial Revolution (approx) that they could inflict that much damage on on a planet? Nature adapts - so does the earth.

Here endeth my opinion:)

[Dawg]

So who has heard of Norman Borlaug? A genetic modifier, a scientific changer of things, a rejecter of traditional farming methods.
Nobel Peace Prize winner, amongst other awards, Dr. Borlaug is credited with saving more lives than anyone else in history; in excess of a billion. And this was done by modifying wheat.
Some will nay say his acheivements, to which his own reply is apt:
"some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."
He had 'good' ideas...
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug)

[Jenni384]

GM is not the answer.

The answer lies in combatting human greed. There is enough money and food to go round. But greedy people don't let it go round fairly.

That is a very simplistic view, I know, but as a generalisation I don't think it is too far from the truth.

GM and all these newfangled schemes are like putting another plaster on an already-festering wound. It may help temporarily, but in the long run it's worse.

To solve the problems of the world requires a holistic approach, not just an attempt to alleviate certain factors. The money poured into GM reseach et al could be better spent going diirectly to those in need.

Yes, I'm an idealist, but it makes me sick how much is spent on research when we can't even put our own existing house in order.

/rant mode off

[Dawg]

GM is not the answer.

The answer lies in combatting human greed. There is enough money and food to go round. But greedy people don't let it go round fairly.

That is a very simplistic view, I know, but as a generalisation I don't think it is too far from the truth.

GM and all these newfangled schemes are like putting another plaster on an already-festering wound. It may help temporarily, but in the long run it's worse.

To solve the problems of the world requires a holistic approach, not just an attempt to alleviate certain factors. The money poured into GM reseach et al could be better spent going diirectly to those in need.

Yes, I'm an idealist, but it makes me sick how much is spent on research when we can't even put our own existing house in order.

/rant mode off

I'm sorry but this is pernicious rubbish.
Humans are going to breed, and in the third world this is a traditional insurance against old age poverty. GM will help provide more food to feed these people. Are you advocating that they be allowed to starve because of the greed of being born? Starve when methods exist to feed and possibly clothe, educate and medicate them?
What "holistic" ("the tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of the parts through creative evolution" -Jan Smuts, who coined the word, and is also seen as the grandfather of Apartheid) research is going to do that? Research needs specialisation and expertise, and whilst a utopian overview might seem the route to Nirvana for you, I prefer that peoples lives to be saved.