FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Human Embryos

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

It seems that scientists are looking at creating human embryos from three separate DNA sources. The scientific reason is that genitic conditions could be engineerd out. I know a couple who had a successful IVF treatment and are the proud parents of a beautiful baby boy. Is this latest proposal a step too far or scientific advancement?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think its forcing evolution in a direction it doesn't want to go.

The money would be better spent on curing cancer and other diseases.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think its forcing evolution in a direction it doesn't want to go.

The money would be better spent on curing cancer and other diseases."

All people deserve life no matter the disabilty, each bring thier oen rewards and teach us, so I think its a step too far, agree with cure for cancer etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think its forcing evolution in a direction it doesn't want to go.

The money would be better spent on curing cancer and other diseases.

All people deserve life no matter the disabilty, each bring thier oen rewards and teach us, so I think its a step too far, agree with cure for cancer etc"

I wasn't knocking disabilities at all with my post (i work in mental health).

I was just pointing out that we shouldn't be messing with natural selection and human evolution on a cellular level, as doing so invariably causes more harm than good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I believe that scientists should continue with experimentation for the advancement of medical science.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *edangel_2013Woman
over a year ago

southend

People are already living longer with the advances in medical and social care. As an economy, we are struggling to support our aging population.

If we eradicate disease through genetic mutation and engineering, then it is highly possible that society as we know it will collapse. I believe natural selection is there for a reason, and if we mess with that, it will have catastrophic results on future generations.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

we can try to understand

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I was just pointing out that we shouldn't be messing with natural selection and human evolution on a cellular level, as doing so invariably causes more harm than good."

Er.. you weren't pointing it out at all as your OP stated a scenario and asked a question. It was impossible from your post to gauge how you felt about it personally.

For me, any advance in human genetics is for the greater good of mankind as sooner or later we are going to out grow this planet and will need to know how to survive in Space as we search for new planets to colonise. With the distances involved humans will have to live and breed on route and to do that we need to be sure that every child born is as perfect as it can be due to extremely limited resources that will be available. That all sounds like science fiction but in thousands of years it will be science fact and the process has to start somewhere.

And yes, I'm not a god-fearing person so religion doesn't even figure into it for me. We need to know how the human body works at a cellular level if we are to survive as a species.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kywatcherMan
over a year ago

Southwick

[Removed by poster at 17/09/12 10:07:57]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I was just pointing out that we shouldn't be messing with natural selection and human evolution on a cellular level, as doing so invariably causes more harm than good.

Er.. you weren't pointing it out at all as your OP stated a scenario and asked a question. It was impossible from your post to gauge how you felt about it personally.

"

My appologies for not being clearer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

you know its alright ,its ok

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The money should be better spent at the moment by finding a way of stopping people breeding full stop.

With 7 billion and rising, all our current global major problems are down to too many people. Climate change, food, water, power, health, social welfare, transport, jobs. All would benefit from a bit less breeding. Sadly I think we're past that tipping point to do anything about it though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The money should be better spent at the moment by finding a way of stopping people breeding full stop.

With 7 billion and rising, all our current global major problems are down to too many people. Climate change, food, water, power, health, social welfare, transport, jobs. All would benefit from a bit less breeding. Sadly I think we're past that tipping point to do anything about it though."

I disagree. The planet can support a few billion more before the tipping point is reached. I feel the problem lies in not using the resources we need more effectively. For example, farmers paid to produce food that is then left in silos to rot, but it keeps their land from becoming fallow. All the surplus produce made should distributed to third world countries free of charge but monetary aid should be capped allowing those countries donating cash to spend it improving the lives of their own citizens, ergo increasing the effective yeild per capita in developed countries and benefitting the planet as a whole. Sort of.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Life and therefore evolution don't have a plan, life is simply about the struggle to survive in a hostile universe. Whether an ant a tiger or a man, we are all just struggling to survive, evolution and medical advancements are just some of the weapons we use in that fight.

The current research could represent a paradigm shift in how we treat all disease in the future, it could help mankind win some battles in our struggle to survive. That said we will always be fighting the war.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Distributing any surplus food we might have might make a small dint in the problem but certainly not resolve it. We havent enough arable land available for all the people who want feeding, or enough resources for all the people who want the stuff they feel they want. And we shouldn't have the attiude that the planet can survive til we reach 10 billion as by then it'll be far too late.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have no doubt that the planet can survive with a few more billion, much of it is still empty with regard to human population.

The issue is we are badly organised.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I have no doubt that the planet can survive with a few more billion, much of it is still empty with regard to human population.

The issue is we are badly organised. "

Are you actually saying that we should destroy more rainforests/uninhabited land etc so the population can expand?

you do see the gaping hole in your argument don't you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire


"People are already living longer with the advances in medical and social care. As an economy, we are struggling to support our aging population.

If we eradicate disease through genetic mutation and engineering, then it is highly possible that society as we know it will collapse. I believe natural selection is there for a reason, and if we mess with that, it will have catastrophic results on future generations. "

This is nearer to what i believe, but you put it far better than i would have

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I have no doubt that the planet can survive with a few more billion, much of it is still empty with regard to human population.

The issue is we are badly organised.

Are you actually saying that we should destroy more rainforests/uninhabited land etc so the population can expand?

you do see the gaping hole in your argument don't you."

No I don't see a gaping hole in my argument. Please enlighten me. I have not remotely suggested destroying any rainforests.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

you stated that much of the land is empty with regard to human population, the way I took it, you were suggesting that we, the human race, expand into those regions. Much of it is vital for the planet's ability to sustain itself.

The area required to house people isn't massive but the area required for food production is vast and massively destructive.

If we continue to expand at our current rate we'll run out of land to produce food.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *histler21Man
over a year ago

Ipswich


"It seems that scientists are looking at creating human embryos from three separate DNA sources. The scientific reason is that genitic conditions could be engineerd out. I know a couple who had a successful IVF treatment and are the proud parents of a beautiful baby boy. Is this latest proposal a step too far or scientific advancement?"

It's madness! Why only 3 sources? Surely, you want to take the 'best' genes from a wide pool of 'host beings'.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"you stated that much of the land is empty with regard to human population, the way I took it, you were suggesting that we, the human race, expand into those regions. Much of it is vital for the planet's ability to sustain itself.

The area required to house people isn't massive but the area required for food production is vast and massively destructive.

If we continue to expand at our current rate we'll run out of land to produce food."

And most of the uninhabited areas of the planet are that way for a reason. We are running out of space and time. Anyone who has a child at the moment is putting another tiny nail in our coffin and condemning that child to an early death.

Just as we had a baby boom after ww2 we should have a baby bust. 10 years with limited procreation.

But why bother arguing, no-one wants to hear that. It won't be until the whole place is like The Road that people will realise.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think its forcing evolution in a direction it doesn't want to go.

The money would be better spent on curing cancer and other diseases."

I kind of have to agree. Yes the technology is amazing, Yes it's dreadfully sad when people find that they can't conceive. But natural selection and all that ... evolution's plan ... overpopulation etc etc etc . People having children they can't afford. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"you stated that much of the land is empty with regard to human population, the way I took it, you were suggesting that we, the human race, expand into those regions. Much of it is vital for the planet's ability to sustain itself.

The area required to house people isn't massive but the area required for food production is vast and massively destructive.

If we continue to expand at our current rate we'll run out of land to produce food."

This guy has his finger on the pulse of mother nature and he's found her to be flatlining!!! He makes sense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london


"you stated that much of the land is empty with regard to human population, the way I took it, you were suggesting that we, the human race, expand into those regions. Much of it is vital for the planet's ability to sustain itself.

The area required to house people isn't massive but the area required for food production is vast and massively destructive.

If we continue to expand at our current rate we'll run out of land to produce food.

And most of the uninhabited areas of the planet are that way for a reason. We are running out of space and time. Anyone who has a child at the moment is putting another tiny nail in our coffin and condemning that child to an early death.

Just as we had a baby boom after ww2 we should have a baby bust. 10 years with limited procreation.

But why bother arguing, no-one wants to hear that. It won't be until the whole place is like The Road that people will realise."

How would a baby bust be enforced?,we are not running out of places to 'grow' food.

we live in a world full of food,and full of starving people.And to accuse people currently having babies of 'putting another nail'in our coffins,what a load of tosh.Maybe we should kill all the working class people.Our world is a world of people,no-one has the right to say 'ok i think the worlds a bit full now can we please stop everyone else coming in' who amongst us has the right to say that? I suppose its the same people that lay claim to areas of land that were here long before the current claimant and will be here long after they have fucked off,this world belongs to no-one,it was meant for us all

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just remember you said that when thw lights start going out at peak demand hours. And the price of your weekly food

shop has tripled. And you're living through your 4th hurricane of the year. Or when people are thinking of killing you for your last can of spam.

Or it could all be a caring sharing utopia just like the world of star trek, where people are motivated by compassion and the desire to be better for all mankind. Of course this means we have to be unselfish, and that just aint human.

You're right, there is no way to police a baby bust short of putting contraceptives in the water or doing what the chinese allegedly used to do. However, only giving child benefit/tax credit/nhs healthcare for the first child would be a start in this country.

Off topic a bit now i know. Soz OP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london


"Just remember you said that when thw lights start going out at peak demand hours. And the price of your weekly food

shop has tripled. And you're living through your 4th hurricane of the year. Or when people are thinking of killing you for your last can of spam.

Or it could all be a caring sharing utopia just like the world of star trek, where people are motivated by compassion and the desire to be better for all mankind. Of course this means we have to be unselfish, and that just aint human.

You're right, there is no way to police a baby bust short of putting contraceptives in the water or doing what the chinese allegedly used to do. However, only giving child benefit/tax credit/nhs healthcare for the first child would be a start in this country.

Off topic a bit now i know. Soz OP."

The price of food will always rise,its called capitalism,its to do with greedy people producing goods for five pence and selling them for 5 pounds.There are also people around now who will kill you for your last tin of spam,Plus the chinese didnt 'alledgedly' used to do anything they still do,last week a female was forced to have an abortion at 8 months because of the two child rule it was splashed over every paper.It always astonishes me that within this society people like you are quick to critisise poor people for claiming dole money labelling them scroungers yet you fawn over the real first-class scroungers who have never done a days work in there lives but who are sub-sidised by the 'civil' list,dukes duchesses,royalty,thats where 99% of our taxes go,the extra 1% then goes to public services,and then that gets cut every year, instead of the 99% list to the rich,and to suggest that being un-selfish isn't human is about as fucked up as you can get

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It seems that scientists are looking at creating human embryos from three separate DNA sources. The scientific reason is that genitic conditions could be engineerd out. I know a couple who had a successful IVF treatment and are the proud parents of a beautiful baby boy. Is this latest proposal a step too far or scientific advancement?

It's madness! Why only 3 sources? Surely, you want to take the 'best' genes from a wide pool of 'host beings'."
This a good point. Boys from Brazil issues come into play but if I had a child with an illness that could be cured or treated due to such advances I doubt if the population explosion or "selection" issues would come into my thinking?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think that we are already messing to far with genetics.

As to children being a nail in a coffin. Well rubbish. Although I would say that having 6 kids.

I think that there are better things to research. Natural selection has been the way and mother nature has a way of forcing that from time to time.

When the next super volcano erupts( bare in mind two are over due now) that will sort population issues out. And it does happen every so often.

Cali

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just remember you said that when thw lights start going out at peak demand hours. And the price of your weekly food

shop has tripled. And you're living through your 4th hurricane of the year. Or when people are thinking of killing you for your last can of spam.

Or it could all be a caring sharing utopia just like the world of star trek, where people are motivated by compassion and the desire to be better for all mankind. Of course this means we have to be unselfish, and that just aint human.

You're right, there is no way to police a baby bust short of putting contraceptives in the water or doing what the chinese allegedly used to do. However, only giving child benefit/tax credit/nhs healthcare for the first child would be a start in this country.

Off topic a bit now i know. Soz OP.

The price of food will always rise,its called capitalism,its to do with greedy people producing goods for five pence and selling them for 5 pounds.There are also people around now who will kill you for your last tin of spam,Plus the chinese didnt 'alledgedly' used to do anything they still do,last week a female was forced to have an abortion at 8 months because of the two child rule it was splashed over every paper.It always astonishes me that within this society people like you are quick to critisise poor people for claiming dole money labelling them scroungers yet you fawn over the real first-class scroungers who have never done a days work in there lives but who are sub-sidised by the 'civil' list,dukes duchesses,royalty,thats where 99% of our taxes go,the extra 1% then goes to public services,and then that gets cut every year, instead of the 99% list to the rich,and to suggest that being un-selfish isn't human is about as fucked up as you can get"

So you're telling me that human beings are mainly unselfish? You're the one living in a dream. Humans when pushed

will always protect themselves and their

own, like any other animal. I won't argue

that we have the power to be very selfless, but thats so rare.

And whats wrong with the state saying "we'll pay for your first child but after that you're on your own. We'll provide you with free contraception instead"? And its not just the poor who get benefits is it. Isn't the tax credit earning limit 42 grand or something?

And the royal comments are irrelevant to what I was saying.

But the breakdown of society is a very real possibility if things keep on. And then things get ugly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London


"

I think that there are better things to research. Natural selection has been the way and mother nature has a way of forcing that from time to time.

"

This point about what's 'natural' has been brought up a few times. But we've been fighting against natural selection ever since we invented medicine. This is just another kind of treatment. No more reason to be against this then there is aspirin.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london


"Just remember you said that when thw lights start going out at peak demand hours. And the price of your weekly food

shop has tripled. And you're living through your 4th hurricane of the year. Or when people are thinking of killing you for your last can of spam.

Or it could all be a caring sharing utopia just like the world of star trek, where people are motivated by compassion and the desire to be better for all mankind. Of course this means we have to be unselfish, and that just aint human.

You're right, there is no way to police a baby bust short of putting contraceptives in the water or doing what the chinese allegedly used to do. However, only giving child benefit/tax credit/nhs healthcare for the first child would be a start in this country.

Off topic a bit now i know. Soz OP.

The price of food will always rise,its called capitalism,its to do with greedy people producing goods for five pence and selling them for 5 pounds.There are also people around now who will kill you for your last tin of spam,Plus the chinese didnt 'alledgedly' used to do anything they still do,last week a female was forced to have an abortion at 8 months because of the two child rule it was splashed over every paper.It always astonishes me that within this society people like you are quick to critisise poor people for claiming dole money labelling them scroungers yet you fawn over the real first-class scroungers who have never done a days work in there lives but who are sub-sidised by the 'civil' list,dukes duchesses,royalty,thats where 99% of our taxes go,the extra 1% then goes to public services,and then that gets cut every year, instead of the 99% list to the rich,and to suggest that being un-selfish isn't human is about as fucked up as you can get

So you're telling me that human beings are mainly unselfish? You're the one living in a dream. Humans when pushed

will always protect themselves and their

own, like any other animal. I won't argue

that we have the power to be very selfless, but thats so rare.

And whats wrong with the state saying "we'll pay for your first child but after that you're on your own. We'll provide you with free contraception instead"? And its not just the poor who get benefits is it. Isn't the tax credit earning limit 42 grand or something?

And the royal comments are irrelevant to what I was saying.

But the breakdown of society is a very real possibility if things keep on. And then things get ugly."

I can't be bothered to argue with your anymore none of your points ever make any sense,you bring points up but always fail to address them before bringing more up.Society has already broken down,and yes the rich are on benefits they will happily claim 17 pound a week for there first child even if earning 1 million a year,thats the real selfish.Protecting ones offspring does not come under the heading selfish or not, but you suggested being un-selfish isn't human,which decribes your mindset perfectly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london

I did not state humans are mostly un-selfish,i stated that you had said being unselfish 'aint human' your excact words,not mine

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Being selfless isn't our first instinct no. People demonstrate that on a daily basis. Have you never driven on the roads these days?

And our desire to protect our own is always to the detriment of others and therefore selfish.

Surely the aliens that created us can come back and save us though, eh Terry?

So to sum up, i'm against anything that enables the easier creation of more spawn. We're all going to die real soon, and Terry has chucked his teddy.

If you dont like arguing with me the answer is simple. Dont do it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

if you had asked me 6 weeks ago, i would have been against it. Now, after finding out my kid has a genetic disorder, i'd do anything to change it and make her better

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I personally think its wrong. As a woman unable to have the only thing in the world she wants thus being a child I feel being able to choose a child's hair colour, eye colour, carictoristics is wrong. A child for those lucky enough to have them is a 'blessing from god' and not a 'god given' right.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london


"Being selfless isn't our first instinct no. People demonstrate that on a daily basis. Have you never driven on the roads these days?

And our desire to protect our own is always to the detriment of others and therefore selfish.

Surely the aliens that created us can come back and save us though, eh Terry?

So to sum up, i'm against anything that enables the easier creation of more spawn. We're all going to die real soon, and Terry has chucked his teddy.

If you dont like arguing with me the answer is simple. Dont do it. "

Well jodie let me explain something,my name isn't terry its becky,you are a person that makes assumptions and gets them wrong,this being a perfect example

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Distributing any surplus food we might have might make a small dint in the problem but certainly not resolve it. We havent enough arable land available for all the people who want feeding, or enough resources for all the people who want the stuff they feel they want. And we shouldn't have the attiude that the planet can survive til we reach 10 billion as by then it'll be far too late. "

Before you answer, think about this:

Coca cola sell 5m cans PER DAY globally.

Just to produce enough bread to fill every Sainsburys store (the bakery dept obv) in the UK requires less than .1% of the arable land available in the UK (and then there's Tesco, ASDA, et al and all the small corner shops).

The oil required to propel our cars is only 5% of the amount of oil produced globally - the other 95% is used to produce plastic consumables (well, 10% of it utilised in production of other materials & transportation).

And here's the real brain cruncher:

DAILY.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Well jodie let me explain something,my name isn't terry its becky,you are a person that makes assumptions and gets them wrong,this being a perfect example"

No assumption really Terry/Becky. Without looking at your profile to find your names, if they're even there and I had no desire to do so, then I had to refer to you by your username.

Its that simple and no gender offence was intended. But kudos on trying to win your daft argument with that.

So which one of you was it that believed

we're created by aliens? As think about that alot, particularly when I need a laugh.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london


"

Well jodie let me explain something,my name isn't terry its becky,you are a person that makes assumptions and gets them wrong,this being a perfect example

No assumption really Terry/Becky. Without looking at your profile to find your names, if they're even there and I had no desire to do so, then I had to refer to you by your username.

Its that simple and no gender offence was intended. But kudos on trying to win your daft argument with that.

So which one of you was it that believed

we're created by aliens? As think about that alot, particularly when I need a laugh. "

well jodie let me try to explain and see if you can actually follow something for the first time.Terry does not and never has believed any such thing,he merely pointed out, that that was one of the theories,going through the thread he was correct in saying that it was a theory and not neccessarily his theory,but as you seem unable to follow an argument or any real trains of thought apparently you seemed unwilling or unable to work out the difference.You describe yourself as a 'geek' on your profile,as geeks are associated with intelligence we suspect you felt the need to do this simply because it doesnt take long to work out you are severely lacking in any.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I think that there are better things to research. Natural selection has been the way and mother nature has a way of forcing that from time to time.

This point about what's 'natural' has been brought up a few times. But we've been fighting against natural selection ever since we invented medicine. This is just another kind of treatment. No more reason to be against this then there is aspirin."

There is, of course, the argument that since humans are of nature, everything they do is natural, and all human advancements are evolutionary.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london


"

I think that there are better things to research. Natural selection has been the way and mother nature has a way of forcing that from time to time.

This point about what's 'natural' has been brought up a few times. But we've been fighting against natural selection ever since we invented medicine. This is just another kind of treatment. No more reason to be against this then there is aspirin.

There is, of course, the argument that since humans are of nature, everything they do is natural, and all human advancements are evolutionary."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london


"

Well jodie let me explain something,my name isn't terry its becky,you are a person that makes assumptions and gets them wrong,this being a perfect example

No assumption really Terry/Becky. Without looking at your profile to find your names, if they're even there and I had no desire to do so, then I had to refer to you by your username.

Its that simple and no gender offence was intended. But kudos on trying to win your daft argument with that.

So which one of you was it that believed

we're created by aliens? As think about that alot, particularly when I need a laugh. "

Oh and when we need a laugh we simply look at your profile pics,the sight of a grown man in a dress trying to look like a lady and failing badly,ohhhh emily but im a lady ha ha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Once you start throwing personal insults you loose the battle. Bloody grow up its a valid debate which has turned into a pathetic attempt to score points off each other by throwing pathetic childish personal insults grow up your all adults not children!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It seems that scientists are looking at creating human embryos from three separate DNA sources. The scientific reason is that genitic conditions could be engineerd out........"

Natural selection and therefore evolution is lifes way of trying to survive. Medical advancement is humankinds way of trying to survive.

Yes population explosions bring with them challenges, but it is my view that the cause of many of those challenges is rooted in the tribal and selfish nature of humankind. Our civilisations reflect that nature.

For some people protecting life and the Earth are their priority, for others protecting their way of life is the priority.

I stand by my belief that this planet can comfortably produce food for all it's inhabitants and more.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uggers nemesisCouple
over a year ago

london


"It seems that scientists are looking at creating human embryos from three separate DNA sources. The scientific reason is that genitic conditions could be engineerd out........

Natural selection and therefore evolution is lifes way of trying to survive. Medical advancement is humankinds way of trying to survive.

Yes population explosions bring with them challenges, but it is my view that the cause of many of those challenges is rooted in the tribal and selfish nature of humankind. Our civilisations reflect that nature.

For some people protecting life and the Earth are their priority, for others protecting their way of life is the priority.

I stand by my belief that this planet can comfortably produce food for all it's inhabitants and more. "
javascript:doSmilie(' ')

Very well put and very true

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a tranny I'm very thick skinned so it just washes off as you have to be. Nice way to loose it though Becky, bet you're great in the debating society.

No it can't feed everyone. Not while we are short of arable land and the population is rapidly expanding requiring more land to live on. A big problem is people like eating meat. Most of the grain grown worldwide goes on feeding the animals we rear for meat and milk. Thats a fact. Google it.

Before we go creating the perfect genetic specimens to order we should work on keeping the people already here alive. Every child is a drain on resources

from the very moment it is conceived. The mother eats more food, NHS time and resources, plastics and fabric in all the baby stuff needed. Then its born. More food, power, healthcare, consumer goods, education. Eventually it'll need a job, but there aren't any as the economy is unable to expand indefinitely or in line with the number of people in it and employ all the people who want a job.

I'm not plucking this stuff out of the air. This is happening now. It is on the news

every single day. No-one in power has the guts to say "perhaps if we slowed our breeding down" because no-one would elect them ever again, they never say anything that'll make them unelectable. You are not allowed to question peoples right to breed. It's actually enshrined in the human rights act. Becky lost her fucking mind when I suggested we stopped breeding for a while. Imagine that reaction multiplied by millions.

We are running out of the resources needed to cope with the growing population. Thats a fact and somebody in power needs to say it.

So if you want a kid, instead of genetically designing one how about adopting one thats here and needs some parents, helping the planet at the same time?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top