What Are You Reading Right Now?

bb - Did you finish the Whole Earth Manifesto? If so, how was it?

bailey bud wrote: Still scratching my head about Stewart Brand, SC. It was good, but counter-intuitive ---- but I can see what he's saying. I do think all the acid he dropped in the 60s (legally, by the way) changed the way he thinks. I think he's a bit on the edge, although I'm not persuaded that he's wrong.

I can see where one might conclude that nuclear energy is actually green (my former home - Abu Dhabi concluded the same thing). I can see where cities might be good.

I simply can't swallow the thought of genetic engineering being good. I'm way too suspicious of "chemical" and "engineered" nutrition --- and generally refuse anything other than raw food, these days.

Cheers.

As a former geneticist/molecular biologist I have to say that I'm mostly with you there on the genetic engineering. It does have the potential to do what's hoped for it (increased food production, less use of pesticides, producing drugs for cheaper and in greater quantities by using unconventional sources like coding it into sheep milk producing cells, etc); however, there are many variables that must be controlled for and oversight that must be vigorously maintained in order to ensure safety for consumers and lack of environmental harm. Where the transgenes are inserted into the host genome must be carefully selected - it must not in any affect host gene function, regulation, or protein production. The entire genome should be sequenced and analyzed once the transgene is inserted in order to confirm this, and subsequent generations of whatever plant or animal that the transgene is inserted into must be re-sequenced and analyzed to ensure that the transgene doesn't "jump". The vectors used to insert the transgene must be carefully selected and monitored (they are usually stripped down versions of retroviruses or adenoviruses as those are effective at inserting into host DNA) - not because they themselves can cause disease once stripped of their nastier properties, but because they do retain the potential to "jump" their gene after it's been inserted where it was intended to go. Then, once you have the transgenic plant or animal made and it's growing, the transgene product production must be monitored for safety for us and the environment. For example, pesticide resistance can be conferred by making the plant produce a protein that renders the pesticide ineffective - but what's the result of us ingesting said protein when we eat that plant? Are there safe amounts that we can intake or would it slowly contribute to something like cancer? Multiple year, large participant double-blind, placebo controlled studies would need to be conducted to determine if diet including GMO's vs. non-GMO's raises risks of disease. I do not at this time, nor in the near future, see policies as such being implemented and followed - only corporate greed and lax regulations. For those reasons, I do not support GMO's at this time. But if more careful analyses and studies following people were to be instituted, then I would be on-board. The need for greater food production is not critical at this time, we would do better to more efficiently and effectively grow what we do in the regions best suited, and not waste what extra we do have.