and as for your update...
... So what if goats make human milk? If a woman can't, and granted that human milk is a good thing to provide, why not goats, or machines, or anything else?
From this point of view, the breast is just a nutrient-making machine. If you can get the same nutrient "artificially", then what's the problem?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 13:49,
Share,
Reply)
I am a firm believer in evolution and survival of the fittest
And fully accept that means that unfit individuals do not survive (however sad that may be)
The biggest problem with GM technology is the malicious (or accidental) manufacture of harmfull organisms capable of great harm.
Imagine the flu virus being GM combined with the AIDS virus, the more GM technology is used and advanced the more liklihood of a disasterous "accident"
(
CanonCaliber A big bore, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 14:07,
Share,
Reply)
But that's utterly idiotic
It's a bit like saying that it's OK not to rescue a child who's about to drown and whom you could save easily, and trying to say that her lack of gills is what makes it OK. It's complete nonsense.
"Unfitness" in your slightly sinister understanding is not a reason not to assist.
As for your second point - it's trite. In effect, what you're saying is that it's problematic to do problematic stuff. Woo-hoo. What's your evidence about the likelihood of a disaster? Is making nutritionally-enhanced golden rice a disaster?
And, either way, if there is such a disaster, by the lights of your first point, you ought to be indifferent, because we're obviously not fit to survive it.
You're making Ayn Rand look sensible.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 14:16,
Share,
Reply)
An interesting read...
www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jJ4CmDnp1pP1ZqHShBeayzTuzsEA
(
Brandy_Bumwinkle, Tue 10 Mar 2009, 14:26,
Share,
Reply)