The Minority Report
This is a forum designed to cover all aspects of alternative research from religion to the paranormal to other aspects of global conspiracy.
Psychotic Scientists Want To Re-Engineer Our Species To "Save The Planet"
|Minority of One|
Posts : 1044
Join date : 2010-08-16
|Subject: Psychotic Scientists Want To Re-Engineer Our Species To "Save The Planet" Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:53 am|| |
From M.o.1 -- The gist of this mainstream article is that human beings are the problem and in order to make us "better", they must genetically engineer our species by making us smaller, weaker, docile and controlled. Think I'm joking? Read more and find out:--------------------------------------------Should we re-engineer our species to save our planet?
Humans (as a society) have been putting some effort lately into living sustainably
, which is good, as far as the future of our planet is concerned. The problem is that we're really not set up for sustainable living: in many ways, we're designed from the ground up to exploit our environment. But we can fix that, or at least make it a little better, with some minor genetic tweaking.
Matthew Liao, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, has written a paper entitled "Human Engineering and Climate Change" for publication in a journal called Ethics, Policy and the Environment
. There's been a lot of discussion about using drastic measures like geoengineering
to help deal with climate change, but Liao is suggesting that it might be safer, easier, and more effective to alter the human species instead of the entire planet. Here's some of what we might be able to do; the quotes are from Liao's paper, which you can read here
.Use drugs to make meat taste bad
Eating meat is a terrible idea in a lot of ways: it's horrendously inefficient, contributing anywhere from 10% to 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and the animals we munch on don't particularly enjoy the process. Problem is, meat tastes really, really good, so we crave it. This is fixable: "while eating red meat with added emetic (a substance that induces vomiting) could be used as an aversion conditioning, anyone not strongly committed to giving up red meat is unlikely to be attracted to this option. A more realistic option might be to induce mild intolerance (akin, e.g., to milk intolerance) to these kinds of meat. A potentially safe and practical way of delivering such intolerance may be to produce 'meat' patches - akin to nicotine patches. We can produce patches for those animals that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions and encourage people to use such patches."
Engineer humans to be 25% smaller
There's no particular reason that humans need to be especially tall, and the taller (and more massive) we are, the more we need to consume (in terms of food, material, and energy) to live. Shrinking humans by about six inches would mean a 25% mass reduction and a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates of nearly 20%. We could do this through hormone therapy, by inhibiting natural human growth hormones in childhood.
Control birthrates with education
The root of the problem with humans is that there's a lot of us, and we just keep on making more of us without slowing down. Some countries (like China) are mandating limits on children in the interest of preserving limited resources, but there might be a different way to go about it: "there is strong evidence that birth-rates are negatively correlated with adequate access to education for women. While the primary reason for promoting education is to improve human rights and well-being, fertility reduction may be a positive side-effect from the point of view of tackling climate change."
Use drugs to make us better people
Humans, in general, are selfish. We want what's best for us as individuals, and if that comes at the expense of the world as a whole, well, that's someone else's problem, even if it's in everyone's long term best interests to cooperate towards an overall common good. Like the meat problem, this may be fixable with drugs: "there is evidence that higher empathy levels correlate with stronger environmental behaviors and attitudes. While altruism and empathy have large cultural components, there is evidence that they also have biological underpinnings. This suggests that modifying them by human engineering could be promising. Indeed, test subjects given the prosocial hormone oxytocin were more willing to share money with strangers and to behave in a more trustworthy way."
Engineer humans to have cat eyes
This one's a little bit farther out there, but if we were able to give humans eyes like cats, we'd be able to see just fine in the dark, and we could drastically cut down the use of lighting at night. We may also be able to do similar tweaks to (say) increase tolerance to heat and cold by a couple degrees to save energy used for heating and air conditioning.
We should be very clear that there are obviously lots of ethical implications to all this, and Liao devotes much of his paper to discussing whether such things as genetic modification of children is morally acceptable (it very well may not be). But if we can accept that our current efforts to mitigate climate change (solar power, public transportation, recycling, emissions regulation, etc) is really not going to cut it long-term at the current pace of adoption, it seems like we can all agree that something else has to be done. Massive geoengineering projects should be on the table for discussion, and it seems like human engineering should be too.
The Atlantic has an interview with Liao, and you can read the entire paper at the link below.Human Engineering and Climate Change
, via The Atlantic
|Minority of One|
Posts : 1044
Join date : 2010-08-16
|Subject: Re: Psychotic Scientists Want To Re-Engineer Our Species To "Save The Planet" Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:18 am|| |
Man-Caused Changes To Our DNA Threaten Our Present Health and Future Survival
(NaturalNews) Thanks to toxins, radiation, poor diet, genetically modified food and unhealthy lifestyles, human DNA and gene expression are being changed in unnatural and unhealthy ways. Besides threatening our present health, the changes are also threatening our future viability as a species.
Scientists are increasingly discovering how our DNA is being changed by outside agents and how the changes are being passed sideways to other humans as well as downwards to future generations. In one example of the dangers of DNA changes, a European study found that DNA from GMO corn was incorporated into those who consumed it and was subsequently passed down for several generations.
Much of the evidence of changes in DNA and DNA gene expression is coming from scientists in the booming field of epigenetics. Epigenetics is the study of horizontal gene transfer, also known as lateral gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer describes an organism transferring its genetic material to an organism other than one of its own offspring - including transfers from one species to another.
In just the past year, scientists have conclusively found that a blood sucking insect can pass DNA off to the mammals it bites and also take the mammal's DNA from them through their blood - not just exchanging it, but integrating it. Epigenetic scientists and others are postulating that this horizontal gene transfer drives larger life form adaptations and evolution. In other words, what was once described as a vertical evolutionary "tree" is now being more accurately described as a "web". Indications are that the web we are weaving for ourselves is a wicked one indeed.
The evidence of how our health is being affected and how our species is becoming less viable is abundant. Despite spending more per capita on drugs and medical care than any other country, the US continues to plummet in the two important measurements of health: longevity and infant mortality. Alarmingly, we have plummeted to almost 50th in the world for longevity while we have seen increases in chronic illness across all age groups. Even worse, studies are beginning to indicate that our lifespan is actually decreasing.
Two other alarming indications of decreased viability are declines in sperm count and natural immune markers. Average sperm count measurements in the U.S. have dropped over 50% in only a handful of decades. In less than a century, markers which measure immune system response have dropped even further. Decreasing sperm counts combined with decreasing immunity means that we are capable of producing fewer offspring and the ones we do produce are less viable. Though some might welcome declining births, beyond a certain point continued declines in birth rates will inevitably lead to unsustainable populations.
Evidence of our declining health and future viability should be a huge wake-up call for all humanity. Don't look to mainstream medicine to save the day though. In many instances, their toxic drugs and treatments are major culprits. Vaccines are a stark example. Most vaccines contain known mutagens, yet there have been virtually no studies on their long term effects either singly or in combination. Mainstream medicine's role is compounded by ignorance of the roles toxins, diet, nutrition and nature all play in our health.
Better solutions for addressing these DNA changes should include taking steps to build a strong immune system and health foundation, such as:
*avoiding and eliminating toxins and other causes of DNA changes
*eating an organic diet of nutrient dense whole-foods
*living a healthy, active lifestyle
For more suggestions, see:
"Build a Good Natural Foundation for the Best Health and Longevity"http://www.naturalnews.com/028093_longevity_health.html
|Minority of One|
Posts : 1044
Join date : 2010-08-16
|Subject: Re: Psychotic Scientists Want To Re-Engineer Our Species To "Save The Planet" Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:28 am|| |
65 Health Risks of GM FoodsSection 2: Gene insertion disrupts the DNA and can create unpredictable health problems2.1 Foreign genes disrupt the DNA at the insertion site
1. When genes are inserted at random in the DNA, their location can influence their function, as well as the function of natural genes.
2. "Insertion mutations" can scramble, delete or relocate the genetic code near the insertion site.
3. Evaluation of insertion sites have shown relocations of up to 40,000 DNA base pairs, mixing together of foreign and host DNA, large scale deletions of more than a dozen genes and multiple random insertions of foreign DNA fragments.2.2 Growing GM crops using tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations
1. The process of growing plant cells into GM plants may create hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome.
2. While a change in a single base pair may have serious consequences, widespread changes in the genome can have multiple, interacting effects.
3. Most scientists working in the field are unaware of the extent of these mutations, and no studies have examined genome-wide changes in commercialized GM plants.2.3 Gene insertion creates genome-wide changes in gene expression
1. One study using a micro-array gene chip found that 5% of the host's genes changed their levels of expression after a single gene was inserted.
2. The changes, which are in addition to the deletions and mutations already discussed, are not predictable and have not been fully investigated in the GM crops on the market.
3. These massive changes may have multiple health-related effects.2.4 The promoter may accidentally switch on harmful genes
1. Promoters are switches that turn on genes.
2. The promoter used in nearly all GM crops is designed to permanently turn on the foreign gene at high output.
3. Although scientists had claimed that the promoter would only turn on the foreign gene, it can accidentally turn on other natural plant genes—permanently.
4. These genes may overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen or antinutrient, or regulators that block other genes.2.5 The promoter might switch on a dormant virus in plants
1. When certain viruses infect an organism, they splice themselves into the host's DNA.
2. These embedded viral sequences can be passed on to future generations and even inherited by future species.
3. Most ancient embedded viral sequences become mutated over time, but some may be intact, just not switched on.
4. If the GM promoter is inserted in the vicinity of a dormant virus, it might switch it on, resulting in virus production and a potential catastrophe.2.6 The promoter might create genetic instability and mutations
1. Evidence suggests that the CaMV promoter, used in most GM foods, containsa recombination hotspot.
2. If confirmed, this might result in breakup and recombination of the gene sequence.
3. This instability of the inserted gene material might create unpredicted effects.2.7 Genetic engineering activates mobile DNA, called transposons, which generate mutations
1. In plant DNA, mobile elements called transposons move from place to place, and can lead to mutations.
2. The tissue culture process used in genetic engineering activates transposons, and is a major factor for the resulting genome-wide mutations.
3. Transgenes in commercial GM crops tend to be inserted near transposons.
4. This insertion might alter the transgene expression.2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring
1. Small RNA sequences can regulate gene expression, most commonly by silencing genes.
2. RNA is stable, survives digestion and can impact gene expression in mammals that ingest it.
3. The impact can be passed on to future generations.
4. Genetic modification introduces new DNA combinations and mutations, which increase the likelihood that harmful regulatory RNA will be accidentally produced.2.9 Roundup Ready soybeans produce unintentional RNA variations
1. A "stop signal" is placed after the transgene, telling the cell, "STOP TRANSCRIBING AT THIS POINT."
2. The stop is ignored in GM soy, resulting in longer than intended RNA.
3. It is transcribed from a combination of the transgene, an adjacent transgene fragment and a mutated sequence of DNA.
4. The RNA is further rearranged into four variations, any of which may be harmful.
5. The faulty "stop" signal may have triggered the rearrangements.
6. The same "stop" signal is used in other crops, and might lead to similar "read-throughs" and RNA processing.2.10 Changes in proteins can alter thousands of natural chemicals in plants, increasing toxins or reducing phytonutrients
1. Plants produce thousands of chemicals which, if ingested, may fight disease, influence behavior or be toxic.
2. The genome changes described in this section can alter the composition and
concentration of these chemicals.
3. GM soybeans, for example, produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones.
4. Most GM-induced changes in these natural products go undetected.2.11 GM crops have altered levels of nutrients and toxins
1. Numerous studies on GMOs reveal unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and small molecule products of metabolism.
2. These demonstrate the risks associated with unintended changes that occur due to genetic engineering.
3. Safety assessments are not adequate to guard against potential health risks associated with these changes.Part 1: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered FoodsSection 3: The protein produced by the inserted gene may create problems
3.1 A gene from a Brazil nut carried allergies into soybeans
3.2 GM proteins in soy, corn and papaya may be allergens
3.3 Bt crops may create allergies and illness
3.4 The Bt in crops is more toxic than the Bt spray
3.5 StarLink corn's built-in pesticide has a "medium likelihood" of being an allergen
3.6 Pollen-sterilizing barnase in GM crops may cause kidney damage
3.7 High lysine corn contains increased toxins and may retard growth
3.8 Cooking high lysine corn may create disease-promoting toxins
3.9 Disease-resistant crops may promote human viruses and other diseasesSection 4: The foreign protein may be different than what is intended
4.1 GM proteins may be misfolded or have added molecules
4.2 Transgenes may be altered during insertion
4.3 Transgenes may be unstable, and rearrange over time
4.4 Transgenes may create more than one protein
4.5 Weather, environmental stress and genetic disposition can significantly change gene expression
4.6 Genetic engineering can disrupt the complex relationships governing gene expressionSection 5: Transfer of genes to gut bacteria, internal organs, or viruses
5.1 In spite of industry claims, transgenes survive the digestion system and can wander
5.2 Transgene design facilitates transfer into gut bacteria
5.3 Transgenes may proliferate in gut bacteria over the long-term
5.4 Transgene transfer to human gut bacteria is confirmed
5.5 GM foods might create antibiotic-resistant diseases
5.6 The promoter can also transfer, and may switch on random genes or viruses
5.7 If Bt genes transfer, they could turn our gut bacteria into living pesticide factories
5.8 Genes may transfer to bacteria in the mouth or throat
5.9 Transfer of viral genes into gut microorganisms may create toxins and weaken peoples' viral defensesSection 6: GM crops may increase environmental toxins and bioaccumulate toxins in the food chain
6.1 Glufosinate-tolerant crops may produce herbicide "inside" our intestines
6.2 Herbicide-tolerant crops increase herbicide use and residues in food
6.3 Tiny amounts of herbicide may act as endocrine disruptors
6.4 GM crops may accumulate environmental toxins or concentrate toxins in milk and meat of GM-fed animals
6.5 Disease-resistant crops may promote new plant viruses, which carry risks for humansSection 7: Other types of GM foods carry risks
7.1 Milk from rbGH treated cows may increase risk of cancer and other diseases
7.2 Milk from rbGH-treated cows likely increases the rate of twin births
7.3 Food additives created from GM microorganisms pose health risksSection 8: Risks are greater for children and newborns
8.1 Pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger offspring
8.2 GM foods are more dangerous for children than adultsSection 1: Evidence of reactions in animals and humans
1.1 GM Potatoes Damages Rats
(see full content PDF)
1.2 Rats Fed GMO Tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died
1.3 Rats Fed Bt Corn had multiple health problems
1.4 Mice Fed GM Bt Potatoes had intestinal damage
1.5 Workers exposed to Bt cotton developed allergies
1.6 Sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields
1.7 Inhaled Bt corn pollen may have triggered disease in humans
1.8 Farmers report pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn
1.9 Twelve cows in Germany died mysteriously when fed Bt corn
1.10 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had liver cell problems
1.11 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had problems with the pancreas
1.12 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells
1.13 Roundup Ready Soy Changed Cell Metabolism in Rabbit Organs
1.14 Most offspring of rats fed Roundup Ready soy died within three weeks
(see full content PDF
1.15 Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
1.16 Rats fed Roundup Ready canola had heavier livers
1.17 Twice the number of chickens died when fed Liberty Link corn
1.18 GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice
1.19 Eyewitness reports: Animals avoid GMOs
1.20 A GM food supplement killed about 100 peopleFrom M.o.1 -- For the record, this list goes on and on much to my shock. I think you get the picture though. They are KILLING US!!!! Worst of all, they KNOW they are killing us!
|Subject: Re: Psychotic Scientists Want To Re-Engineer Our Species To "Save The Planet" || |
Psychotic Scientists Want To Re-Engineer Our Species To "Save The Planet"