Welcome to the Lounge

Nelek2-Apr-20 6:05

2-Apr-20 6:05

That's why I didn't want to entry in the "conspirational" point of view and tried to keep it in the "ethical-technological"

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

Mark_Wallace2-Apr-20 2:37

Mark_Wallace

2-Apr-20 2:37

racketeer wrote:
It cited several reasons why the virus was not man-made

Oh, don't be silly!

Why on Earth should you believe world-class experts in the field, when you have indisputable evidence like this:

Slacker007 wrote:
this strand of it COVID-19 is human manipulated, nature had nothing to do with it.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

racketeer2-Apr-20 2:52

racketeer

2-Apr-20 2:52

Convincing though the arguments might seem, I personally haven't had enough of experts Big Grin | :-D

I think I'll wait until a scientist tells me of a cure rather than listen to a politician, a pastor or some bloke on the web

Mark_Wallace2-Apr-20 3:30

Mark_Wallace

2-Apr-20 3:30

racketeer wrote:
Convincing though the arguments might seem, I personally haven't had enough of experts

As long as you remember that x is the unknown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

W∴ Balboos, GHB2-Apr-20 2:09

2-Apr-20 2:09

The modern day poster child for this argument is arguably "GMO" .

Whilst some point out that some terrible Frankenstein vegetables will come out of it (cool movie, like Day-of-the-Triffids) others watch their crops die in the field from any number of natural disasters. The old way of modifying plants, by selective breeding, is really too slow with about 7 billion humans eating everything they can get.

GMO foods allow for substantially higher productivity - sterile seeds or not, farmers choose them when planting because they can grow more and/or spend less growing it. This is a positive outcome even in very poor areas. It can fix unnecessary malnutrition (e.g., Golden Rice, containing Vitamin A). Prevent (or eliminating the need for) spraying of pesticides (like certain GMO corn (maize) ) means more food for people, less for bugs.

On the other hand, there can be down-sides just as easily (akin to overuse of antibiotics). The corn that's kills corn-borers (internal pesticide same as used by organic farmers) will eventually kill off all of the susceptible borers and now we have a Frankenbug. If it doesn't produce sterile seed then further mutations, in the wild, can be a problem - whilst if it does produce sterile seed, it makes subsistence farmers dependent upon big-agriculture for each years seed.

Those against? It's easier to argue against against productivity enhancements when your belly is full. A kind of snobbery. Those for it? Aside from those like myself, who consider it a necessity for survival (finally answering your question), there's money to be made.

Summary - risk/reward is the answer. As the urgency for solutions increases, risk/reward gets skewed towards risk. Preparing for future events will entail some risk. Not preparing for them is also a risk. Basically, "those in charge" just have to not be stupid. Arguably, too much to ask.

Ravings en masse^
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

Nelek2-Apr-20 5:59

2-Apr-20 5:59

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
Whilst some point out that some terrible Frankenstein vegetables will come out of it

I am not.

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
The old way of modifying plants, by selective breeding, is really too slow with about 7 billion humans eating everything they can get.

Is obvious.

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
On the other hand, there can be down-sides just as easily

There are, not only can... Bananas are having tought times because they got modified to loose the seeds, like some kind of grapes. They get multiplied by cutting. There now is a new thing attacking the banana trees, if we loose the trees there will be no more bananas, because there are no more old seeds.

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
Those against? It's easier to argue against against productivity enhancements when your belly is full. A kind of snobbery.

I am not arguing against the enhancements. I am arguing against the methods of the people.

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
Aside from those like myself, who consider it a necessity for survival (finally answering your question), there's money to be made.

I know and have told about it in other messages too. And as long there is a business there will be hurry to be first and make the big bucks. And that's part of the problem.

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
Summary - risk/reward is the answer. As the urgency for solutions increases, risk/reward gets skewed towards risk.

And I really hope that they never prove me right.

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
Basically, "those in charge" just have to not be stupid. Arguably, too much to ask.

Already confirmed in several times... they do are (most of them, no matter which side) Sigh | :sigh:

Or even worst... they are not stupid, but they don't give a crap on the rest of the world as long as they get their benefit (and I think that might be more dangerous)

M.D.V.

W∴ Balboos, GHB2-Apr-20 6:25

2-Apr-20 6:25

Just one point - true for grapes, potatoes and a huge number of plants that are produced in commercially viable scales: Seedless or not, they are almost always clones.

Nothing new - been around for centuries - many centuries.

An interesting genuine example of where your idea about seedless propagation is proven all too true: the Irish Potato Famine - a blight. But every damn potato in the country was grown the way potatoes are always grown - started from little pieces of other potatoes. All had the same genetic makeup. There are a few types of bananas - and one of them is being massacred. All of it happened without GM'ing anything (in a lab) and might be stoppable by the lab work. Learning how to do that should be well perfected before it's urgent. Like sprinklers to help reduce the danger of fires.

Science needs to reach into the unknown to learn and discover new things. The only guarantee of safety is to sit back in your cave and hope you can find some fire to keep the carnivores out.

Ravings en masse^
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

Nelek2-Apr-20 6:35

2-Apr-20 6:35

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
Nothing new - been around for centuries - many centuries.

I disagree in this. As a kid, in the fields surrounding the town where my mother was born, there were at least 5 different kind of grapes. Different colors, sizes and time slots for seeding, flowering and recollecting.
Now... only one kind with 4 different types (colour and sweetnees).

The canary islands had a local banana unique in the world. Not sure if they still have it, but if yes... then it is going to be very few units. The other kind had a bigger relation of productivity per m², the choice done by the people is obvious.

M.D.V.

W∴ Balboos, GHB2-Apr-20 6:45

2-Apr-20 6:45

Nelek wrote:
Different colors, sizes and time slots for seeding, flowering and recollecting.
Now... only one kind with 4 different types (colour and sweetnees).

Nonetheless, before or after, all clones. That's the point.

Complaining about seedless varieties is not a valid argument in the world of commercial farming. Not unless you don't mind someone, somewhere, starving. It's only useful in a "natural world" and a natural world wouldn't have seven or eight billion of us two-legged creatures eating and breeding.

Worrying about what-if? There's always a "what if?" - but there's also a "What if we don't?" that could be worse . . . just a little bit later on.

Ravings en masse^
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

Nelek2-Apr-20 7:26

2-Apr-20 7:26

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
and a natural world wouldn't have seven or eight billion of us two-legged creatures eating and breeding.

We will take care of that ourselves sooner or later.
The big questions are "when?" and "will be only us? Or will we crash the world defintivelly in the process?"

M.D.V.

Eddy Vluggen2-Apr-20 6:02

Eddy Vluggen

2-Apr-20 6:02

I don't like the idea of killing "pests" on a large scale; China killed sparrows because they were a pest. As a result, insect populations exploded and a famine followed.

Still, you're right, we need more food than traditional farming can supply. A good way to minimize the risc is to have both, until GMO is proven to provide more benefit than problems.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

W∴ Balboos, GHB2-Apr-20 6:31

2-Apr-20 6:31

Actually, there's a "right way" to use GM versions that, for example, have a built-in pesticide. It's called a sacrificial field. It's a non-resistant small field (or fields) mixed in with the resistant ones in order to keep the pest's gene-pool non-resistant (or at least for a much longer time).

Along with your bird thing: when you kill the snakes, you get the rodents.

There was/is a computer game that simulated an ecosystem with three interdependent species: lions, wilddebeast, and grass.

Kill off the lions and the wildebeast population explodes, they eat too much grass - and starve. Lots of grass means more wildebeest which can feed more lions that eat more of them. Always pushing back to a balance. Except if someone goes extinct.

Ravings en masse^
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

Eddy Vluggen2-Apr-20 6:34

Eddy Vluggen

2-Apr-20 6:34

W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
Actually, there's a "right way" to use GM versions that

The "right" way is to never bet on a single horse. You divide your chips.

I wouldn't mind a GMO-ban in Europe; our food would become to expensive to export, but pretty certain that supermarkets would offer the choice - and I doubt there'd be a taste-difference.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

W∴ Balboos, GHB2-Apr-20 6:38

2-Apr-20 6:38

Tell me - could you resist a tomato with capsicum genes built in? I call it "The Salsato" - salsa vine ripened and freshly picked.

Ravings en masse^
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

Eddy Vluggen2-Apr-20 6:44

Eddy Vluggen

2-Apr-20 6:44

I'm making pizza today. Would be awesome on it, no?

If it can prove its value, it will sell, simple as that. Until that moment, I'd prefer for the world to not switch en masse.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

Jörgen Andersson2-Apr-20 2:48

Jörgen Andersson

2-Apr-20 2:48

Science is a tool, any tool can be used both for good or for bad.

The study of viruses is the base for genetic manipulation. Like it or not.

The use of manipulated viruses will probably be a (if not the) solution to cancer treatment.

Using viruses as weapons has been pondered, but it's quite stupid, because it hit's friends as well as foes, and it can't be controlled.
That is exactly the reason anthrax has been developed for use as a biological weapon. It can be treated with antibiotics, and it is not contagious between humans.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

Nelek2-Apr-20 5:41

2-Apr-20 5:41

Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Science is a tool, any tool can be used both for good or for bad.

Already proven many times in history

Jörgen Andersson wrote:

The study of viruses is the base for genetic manipulation. Like it or not.
The use of manipulated viruses will probably be a (if not the) solution to cancer treatment.

I know, and I already said, that I am conscious about the potential good it can do.

Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Using viruses as weapons has been pondered, but it's quite stupid, because it hit's friends as well as foes, and it can't be controlled.

You know what Einstein postulated, don't you?

My only problem is that because of the money, power, fame, ego food, getting into the history books... whatever reason that moves such studies. There is hurry to be the first (kind of logical), and that's exactly my worry. We might think we have everything under control and that we are the most intelligent and can do whatever we want, but fact is... there is always a way to screw it up, and some of them are not that good secured / hidden.

M.D.V.

Jörgen Andersson2-Apr-20 5:47

Jörgen Andersson

2-Apr-20 5:47

You kind of described a large part of the IT-industry here: Move fast and break things. Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

Then again, Always keep Hanlon's razor in mind

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

Nelek2-Apr-20 6:04

2-Apr-20 6:04

Jörgen Andersson wrote:
Then again, Always keep Hanlon's razor in mind

That's the point... exactly because of that.
We can think those kind of labs are that super secure, but then a day someone don't pay attention in a repetitive task, because didn't sleep well, felt a bit sick but "I am fine, thanks", drunk a bit during lunch because there was something to celebrate...
When one is always in contact with danger, routine is a bad companion. And what it doesn't happen in many years, can happen in a second.

M.D.V.

DRHuff2-Apr-20 4:33

DRHuff

2-Apr-20 4:33

If it was released by Xi and the CCP can we call it “Winnie the Flu”?

If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.

jlongo2-Apr-20 5:29

jlongo

2-Apr-20 5:29

A Chinese research paper written by Chinese scientists in China, attempting to determine the source concluded the virus originated in a "Horseshoe Bat". The closest known colony to Wuhan is 800 miles away. The researchers could not locate anyone familiar with the Wuhan "wet market" who had seen "Horseshoe Bat" for sale.

There are TWO virology labs in Wuhan and they were studying those bats. The researchers concluded the virus most likely escaped from one of the two labs (it would not be the first time).
They are not saying that this was a) intentional or b) some kind of escaped bio-weapon, the suggestion is that the virus may have made its way to the market from someone who had initially been exposed to blood and tissue of the bats in one of those labs.

The Chinese scientists recommended those labs and others in China located in major population centers be moved to less populated areas as well as more stringent protocols put in place.

Nelek2-Apr-20 5:34