What is your stance on genetically modified food and the current government regulation of GMOs? And here's an interesting article involving GMOs: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/world ... &ref=world
I understand that there's still a grey area when dealing with GMOs... but as of now, it's a good opportunity for us to get seemingly better food with more nutrients which many developing countries need for their population. But, since I don't entirely trust all GMOs, I would have to pick and choose which kinds I eat. Since I know one of the big concerns is GMOs that are created with pesticides in it to resist insects and stuff.. for those cases, I wouldn't eat a genetically modified apple because you eat the skin and that's where they modified it to resist insects. But, say, an orange.. I would feel safer eating a genetically modified orange because you don't eat the skin. If it does turn out that GMOs are harmful, at least you didn't eat the part that was tampered with.
Though there are some doubts about if GMOs are safe and not harmful to the human body, i don't see anything wrong with trying them. But growing GMOs may have disadvantages, such as providing harmful pests with resistance etc
You know, I debated this in my grade 10 science class. That was 11 years ago and the debate still continues on. If the GMOs are going to provide third world countries with access to foods that are more full of necessary nutrients then I am all for it. If the GMOs are developed so as to be able to survive in drought conditions, again I am all for it. There is far too much poverty and starvation going on in the world, that continues to go on with no one batting an eyelash over it. What I am not all for is the producers of these GMOs charging these third world countries an exorbitant amount to use their products and technologies. These countries are third world for a reason - they don't have adequate resources to survive without help from other nations. If the first world countries, with all of their technological advancements, donated their information to the third world nationS the whole world would be a much better place. But who am I kidding, we live in time where money makes the world go 'round.
Rmbr some pesticides can't be washed off unless unless you scrub hard and long and you use soap and water (but who would wanna do that since your vegtables and fruits would taste soapy yuck) and there is a high chance you could damage the fruit. I read somewhere that tomatoes are the most genetically altered for bigger fruit and less seeds. I still don't know where I stand on the topic because we can't really see the effects until the future.
I think that the problem is that the "natural" can no longer keep up with the demanded food supply of the world.
What's wrong with the natural? You should board a plane and fly to any poor, African country. Take a look around, that's what's wrong with the natural. Millions of people are starving to death, we just do not have enough food for all people on earth right now. If we can genetically modify food, so that one unit of food can feed more people, we could partially eliminate starvation.
People aren't starving because there "isn't enough food". It's because of overpopulation, which has happened because humans run completely contrary to nature and bend over backwards to ensure that the weak survive. Nature weeds out the weak, the dumb, the unresourceful, but we do not. Some of the earliest known civilizations were in Mother Africa, but the people who had the most time on this planet to get their acts together still need the most help. People who cannot afford to feed themselves keep breeding. And so on and so on. People - the quantity and quality of them - are the problem, and that's the ugly truth. For a deeper look both into humanity's lack of foresight and the topic of feeding everyone in the world, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
Attempting to apply the concept of "survival of the fittest" to human societies in such a simplistic manner is not exactly accurate. What kind of people do you consider to be "weak," "dumb", and "unresourceful"? The fittest individuals are not necessarily the smartest or strongest. They simply have to produce the most offspring. So by definition, these people who "keep breeding" ARE the fittest. Also, overpopulation is unlikely be the only cause of food shortages. The earth is capable of producing enough food to feed the entire human population, but food resources are currently heavily concentrated in industrialized countries due to various factors, such as better technology, better farmland, etc.. If better technologies are available to third world countries, they should have no problem feeding their citizens. Of course, I'm by no means saying that the human population can increase forever without consequence. I just believe that the problem will sort itself out once the populations of developing countries transition from having high birth rates and high death rates to having low birth rates and low death rates.
I think applying "survival of the fittest" to humans does work, and it's called Social Darwinism. While the 'unsuccessful' still extend their family line, they would start dying out if aid organizations stopped their work. What this means is that, if there were no groups such as Feed My Starving Children, or FaceAids, a lot of people wouldn't live. As grim as that sounds, it would make survival of the fittest work - for those that aren't capable of getting their own food would die, and those that are just barely capable would fall down the social ladder and then wouldn't be capable. This may come off as sounding almost genocidal, acting against the unfortunate, but I believe that a society that was more self centered and didn't worry about others would allow Mother Nature to 'do her work' and destroy those that can't feed themselves (and their children) For the record, I support help organizations and regularly volunteer my time to them, though I do prefer to volunteer my time to organizations helping people closer to home. I'm also in support of GMOs, because I believe they hold a potent future that could solve many problems - even problems so small as 'my chicken fried rice is too spicy'
However arent we in a way dependent on the rules of nature for our very survival? If it no longer rains, where will out water come from? If the sun dies out, do we really have the technology and capital to do anything aboutit? I think in a way we still need to realize that we have only created a false impression that we are the "fittest"
No one is saying that humans are no longer dependent on the rules of nature. We're simply discussing whether humans are still subject to natural selection. Natural selection via "survival of the fittest" does not apply anymore to humans. Natural selection requires characteristics that affect fitness to be determined by heritable genetic factors. However, due to the rise of complex societies, human survival is affected more by which social class you are born into, while heritable genetic factors have much less effect, except in extreme cases. For example, if we compare a person of average intelligence, health, etc. born into a poverty-stricken village in a third world country verses a similar person born into a middle-class family in a developed country, the likelihood of survival of these two people will be completely different, even though there is little difference in "fitness" between the two.
It took me a while to get back to this one - result of being an overworked slob I expected, naturally, that discussing "weeding" human beings would bring some defensive reactions. However, all the arguments I've seen against what I said are flawed. powerof0 (1st) - The only people I consider to be weak, dumb, and unresourceful are the weak, dumb, and unresourceful people. If you're one of those guys who hates to call a spade a spade because it makes you feel like a posturing egomaniac or braggart, I get and even slightly respect that humble mentality. BUT I have no problem telling it like it is. There are losers out there as well as winners. Calmwinds - The possibility of there being an undiscovered math wizard or piano virtuoso among the downtrodden is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not they can survive and eventually thrive with minimal assistance. A high IQ would probably give them a greater fighting chance but unfortunately, even intelligent, strong spirited people born into poverty/violence/etc usually end up not realizing their true potentials. Life isn't really like Good Will Hunting. Great portrayal of a troubled kid, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen guys jumping out of the woodwork to raise up a troubled kid like that. Also, IMHO, modern technology is largely responsible for the dumbing down of people. I think it gives people the illusion of power, ability, and competence, while at the same time robbing them of it. "Look at me - I have a voice activated phone that I can surf the web on almost anywhere - I am GOD." Meanwhile, said dummy couldn't explain to you how any part of the phone actually works - it might as well be magic - and lacks even the brainpower to stop trying to text while driving. powerof0 (2nd) - In your second post, you hit right on what I was saying myself. Of course more people would survive having a cushy life than a difficult one, but that's an argument for my point, not yours. There is a HUGE difference between the presumed but untested resolve of a middle class American and the daily trials of the poverty-stricken street rat in your example. Now the fact that modern life ensures the continuation of many of the "weak" simply because they never face real difficulty is something else entirely.... but that may be impossible to analyze or remedy, so we address what we can. Those who have it the hardest need to step it up the most. Or should. Not wait for another drop-off or handout. Having come from a poor, abusive, violence-laden upbringing myself, I can tell you from personal experience that environmental factors will not determine the survival of an exceptional individual, but the heights they attain and how slow or fast they get there. Certain people will fight sometimes even when they see no end to the fighting and cannot even realistically imagine relief or hope, simply because they refuse to let anything beat them. Those would be the ones who aren't "weeded out".
My previous posts were discussing whether natural selection still affects human populations, but since we're not talking about that anymore, I guess it doesn't really matter now. Anyway, what we seem to be discussing now is whether society should help the weak or let them die. Since this is a question of morality, there is really no right or wrong answer. I can defend eugenics, euthanasia of the feeble-minded, or other viewpoints more extreme than ending welfare and still not be "wrong." But to continue the debate, I guess I'll write up a response later when I'm done with my work.
I wasn't really arguing the morality of it. The tone of my post gave away how I felt about that, but it was hardly the central point. Maybe I should have said that those who have it the hardest need to step it up the most but for the handouts. I agree 100% that humans are increasingly less and less subject to natural selection - because of the interference of other humans - which means that those who would die if left to fend for themselves survive instead, and give birth to more hungry, needy mouths, which leads to overpopulation, which leads to issues with food supply, which is back where I started. So if we start back at the beginning, all I'm saying is that 1) many people survive in today's world because of handouts that would die without them, 2) that fact has led to Earth's population becoming ever more heavily inflated, and 3) the self-inflicted overpopulation affects food supply globally. And I don't think that can be disputed. The only one I think you might question is #3, but please read the links I provided in my first post and see just what the Earth is facing on that score. Food supply vs. global demand was an issue 100 years ago when they invented synthetic fertilizer to cope with it (not that the general public was aware of it), and now the 100 year old answer has created new problems.