Re[4]: 08.08.2016-13:45:23 :: Remember, remember, the velvet November


node:	Re[4]: 08.08.2016-13:45:23
template:	4
parent:	Re[3]: 08.08.2016-13:45:23
owner:	dust bunny
viewed by:
created:	09.08.2016 - 15:36:19

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63529
63883
8196023
8196624
8196743
8196748
8196761

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

presne tak, preto to treba testovat a zistit, ci pozorovatelne prinosy vyvazuju pozorovatelne nedostatky. presne tak, ako sa to robi s liekmi a roznymi inymi vydobytkami vedy aplikovanymi do kazdodenneho zivota. obcas sa pride na to, ze nejaky liek ma z dlhodobeho hladiska negativne ucinky, o ktorych sa nevedelo, ale to nieje dostatocnym dovodom, aby si prestali vyvijat, testovat a zavadzat do praxe vsetky nove technologie.

000001010006352900063883081960230819662408196743081967480819676108197253

no, lenže tu je velký rozdiel oproti liekom, liek ak sa zistí že má nejaké závažné vedlajšie účinky, tak sa stiahne z obehu, prípadne odškodnia sa nejakí poškodení pacienti a to je všetko.

lenže keď sa vypustí do prostredia nejaký GMO ktorý (ako bolo viac krát preukázané) sa môže krížiť s bežnými plodinami, prípadne môže mať vplyv na ostatné živočíchy, s ktorými sa nepočítalo a môže to spustiť reťazovú reakciu v potravinom reťazci, to je dosť rozdiel.
toto keď sa pokašle, tak sa to nedá tak lahko do poriadku. o to tu ide.

000001010006352900063883081960230819662408196743081967480819676108196765

00000101000635290006388308196023081966240819674308196748081967610819676508196770

a z coho usudzujes, ze je ten impakt nekonecnejsi ako u inych technologii?

0000010100063529000638830819602308196624081967430819674808196761081967650819677008196772

Lieky nevypustas do prirody ale davas konkretnym ludom. Nedokazu sa same rozmnozovat, transferovat svoj geneticky material inym organizmom, evolvovat.
Ked si zoberies ako dokazali invazivne druhy zmenit charakter niektorych biotopov, tak si predstav co by dokazali spravit specialne nadizajnovane organizmy :)

000001010006352900063883081960230819662408196743081967480819676108196765081967700819677208196782

dakujem za smajlika, made my day.

preco myslis, ze je geneticky modifikovany organizmus nebezpecnejsi ako neriadene geneticke zmeny?

00000101000635290006388308196023081966240819674308196748081967610819676508196770081967720819678208197256

no pretože nevieme presne predvídať čo to spraví s tou danou rastlinou, keď sa nakombinujú gény z úplne nepríbuzných a prirodzene neskrížitelných druhov

00000101000635290006388308196023081966240819674308196748081967610819676508196770081967720819678208196801

Neviem co su neriadene geneticke zmeny. Ak myslis rekombinaciu, tak ide o geny ktore su uz 'odskusane'; ak myslis nahodnu mutaciu, tak tam sa moze stat vsetko, ale pravdepodobnost uspesnej mutacie je miziva. Zvysok zacitujem z Talebovho paperu (oplati sa cely):

One argument in favor of GMOs is that they are no more "unnatural" than the selective farming our ancestors have been doing for generations. In fact, the ideas developed in this paper show that this is not the case. Selective breeding over human history is a process in which change still happens in a bottom-up way, and can be expected to result in a thin-tailed distribution. If there is a mistake, some harmful variation, it will not spread throughout the whole system but end up dying out due to local experience over time. Human experience over generations has chosen the biological organisms that are relatively safe for consumption. There are many that are not, including parts of and varieties of the crops we do cultivate. Introducing rapid changes in organisms is inconsistent with this process. There is a limited rate at which variations can be introduced and selection will be effective.
There is no comparison between tinkering with the selective breeding of genetic components of organisms that have previously undergone extensive histories of selection and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from a fish and putting it into a tomato. Saying that such a product is natural misses the process of natural selection by which things become “natural." While there are claims that all organisms include transgenic materials, those genetic transfers that are currently present were subject to selection over long times and survived. The success rate is tiny. Unlike GMOs, in nature there is no immediate replication of mutated organisms to become a large fraction of the organisms of a species. Indeed, any one genetic variation is unlikely to become part of the long term genetic pool of the population. Instead, just like any other genetic variation or mutation, transgenic transfers are subject to competition and selection over many generations before becoming a significant part of the population. A new genetic transfer engineered today is not the same as one that has survived this process of selection.
More generally, engineered modifications to ecological systems (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom up ones. Bottom-up modifications do not remove the crops from their long term evolutionary context, enabling the push and pull of the ecosystem to locally extinguish harmful mutations.
Top-down modifications that bypass this evolutionary pathway unintentionally manipulate large sets of interdependent factors at the same time, with dramatic risks of unintended consequences. They thus result in fattailed distributions and place a huge risk on the food system as a whole.