I agree that GE is a potentially useful technology, but like all things can be used for evil- use of GE is simply a question of whether the risks outweigh the benifits.

As for the ethical questions being proposed, I do not see much in their arguments- GE is like any other new technology in medicine- one that has the potential to make the human body better than ever before. Why we would want to stifle these new developments in the name of ethics is beyond me.

An argument presented before asks of why it would be right for the rich to be able to be genetically modified while the poor will lag behind even further. It seems that this is another case of the reality of Social Darwinism thrown out into the spotlight...

On the food front, I see no reason not to eat 'Frankenfood'. I doubt 10000 years of eating GE food will change us any more significantly than we would change ourselves through GE by that time. On top of that, 10000 years still isn't likely to make much of a difference, because we still will have some sort of variety to our diets. It's not as though we will be eating genetically modified beef day in and day out. Besides, if we can't tolerate anything else, then who cares?

Genetic modification seems not only to be the next thing to do, but the most logical- the evolution of humankind will move who knows how many millions of years faster. The human species will improve, probably beyond recognition, and anyone who does not want that seems to be 'anti-homo sapian'.

The fact remains: genetic modification is the future.

• FrankenFood - robertgregory - March 3, 2003 - 06:45 UTC
• Genetic food modification has limited value - quiet - March 4, 2003 - 05:14 UTC