TWC - Week 7 discussion - Revisited

This post is to make up for the missed week 7 discussion topic on Agricultural Biotechnology.

The greatest fear that humans have about this Genetically Modified Food is definitely its potential to harm mankind on the genetic level. That is the reason why EU have been trying to ban the crops from being sold in the region.

But, let's ask ourselves a question: Is GM crops the way to go? Is it basically the same as the cross-breeding that humans have done for the past few centuries, except that now it is done on the genetic level and a whole new world of "cross-species" genes can now be inserted into crops.If the answer is yes, then I see no benefit in banning the crops.

Let us just do a simple cost and benefit analysis for GM crops:

+:

1. Increase resilience in crops, allowing them to grow in harsher climates (especially with Global Warming now)
2. Increase food stock level in the world due to its more abundant harvest. 
3. Increase the nutrition level in crops, allowing people to get more nutrition from the eating the same food.
4. Lowering the price level of food (due to its abundant harvest)

-:

1. Unknown effects on human body
2. Unknown possibility of polluting the crop's natural gene pool and the consequences of it.
3. Destruction of normal farmer's livelihood
4. Dependence on certain firms to produce the crops (seeds)

Therefore, the way to go is to maximize the benefit and reduce the cost, how are we going to do it?

First, address the first two negative points. Those two are the main factors against the adoption of GM crops. Extensive research would be required, and might not be enough, given humans' limited knowledge on ecosystem and ecology. I am surprised that humans really have such a limited knowledge on the consequences of their actions on nature (e.g. oil spill). If the "visible" actions are not even fully addressed, how would the "invisible" actions be taken into account?

Yeah, I am skeptical about the researches in this area. But, let us be constructive. How would a research on consequences of GM crops be done in an ethical and effective manner?

I personally do not learn anything about research methodology, so I would not clearly know the answer, but certain criteria and measurements that I think should be the focus of the research would be these:

1. Likelihood of genetic mutations in living being when ingesting GM food.
2. Likelihood of genetic mutations in living being when reproducing from a gamete from GM organism.
3. There should be no violations in ethics while doing all these researches (meaning, no testing on humans)

Yeap, once this is known, we would be able to assess the situation  more objectively, and not just scream "NO!" at GM crops without fully understanding the potential and dangers.

The social aspect of the problem would be more easily addressed once the first two negative points are made clear. When the benefits of GM crops far outweigh the cost of it, then there is no reason why government would not use it to increase the productivity of their farmers. GM crops would be the new normal, and everybody should be standing on more or less equal ground, of course, assuming that all governments put in enough money into the research of better crops, or a standard institutions to ensure that a new normal can be established for the farmers all around the world.

Biotechnology will certainly be our future. Let's face up to it and fully know whether this would be our foe or friend in the future.


Rating 9/10
Very interesting and thought provoking class.

TWC - Week 13 Discussion

Group presentation Week 13.

Let us discuss about the drug war, something that one of the presentation groups talked about.

Drug wars have been a big problem plaguing Mexico.
What are the factors leading up to this particular problem in Mexico?

1) Money, money, money
Drug trafficking is a big business. The verb "trafficking" increases the price of the drugs by a few times. It is almost as obscene as the word "branding", in my opinion, but this one is worse because it costs lives.

There is a conspiracy theory on how US has waged this war for their own profit. I am extra careful when dealing with conspiracy theories, but sometimes I think it makes more sense than the reason given by officials nowadays.

Trafficking makes the drugs much more valuable, mainly due to its scarcity, while demand is always high.
By making military posts, checkpoints and increasing security at the border, trafficking becomes a lucrative business for the rowdy youth in Mexico.

There is merit in the group's presentation, despite the fact that legalizing such a drug would lead to slippery slope.

But, I plead that people do an official research on this "conspiracy theory".
This question must be asked: How much of the military profit made in US actually came from Mexico (the cartels) purchase of weaponry?

Are the weapon suppliers getting their "cargo" from US or other countries?

Efficiency of checkpoints in preventing the influx of drugs.
If it is not efficient, then I see no reason why you should keep doing it. There must be a change and reassessment of what the real problem is.

2) Lack of government power
Why is it that the government not deal with this problem with their military and intelligence might? I don't the cartels' operations are that clandestine. It should be easy to identify them and identify the root of the problem.
However, this might have an adverse effect as explained in 1). Therefore, government should at least try the soft approach.

3) Lack of choice
The poor people in Mexico rely on growing the "drugs" as their main income. This is the part which technology can help, by empowering this people with information and other expertise to deal with problems.


It is a topic which deserve more attentions nowadays.

TWC - Week 12 Discussion

Group Presentation Week 1

I will be discussing on an extension of one of the group presentations on week 12, the one about biological warfare. Related to this particular topic would be the topic of transhumanism: a way that modern humans can transcend themselves through genetic manipulations.

Transhumanism, it can be argued, is a way human can destroy humanity without any kind of "warfare", which means that it is much subtler and more people are not aware about this.

The follower of transhumanism believed in the usage of genetic engineering to create a better "breed" or "race" for humanity. They argue that it is  possible to insert all the "good" genes and remove all the "bad" genes in human and create a superhuman race which will be benevolent to both nature and mankind.

So, if there is a chance that this really happen, will I offer myself to be "transhuman"?

I might not want to be.

A lot of people might disagree, but this is what I really feel should not happen.

Technology do improve our lives, and productivity. But, it can be argued that it makes human even more detached than ever. Why?

The advent of internet, Skype, facebook, live video streaming and others seems to provide a platform for communications. A lot of critics have stated that there is a positive correlation between narcissism and the number of tweets on the internet. Their point of view might be biased, but I personally agree with them. There is no reason why you should broadcast your activity and feeling to the whole world. Well, not like anybody care that much, either...

Many people think that by liking a comment or posting a happy birthday post or by adding a friend in Facebook, then you are a friend already. But, how much of a friend are you if you can't even remember your friends' birthdays without looking at their facebook? How much of a friend are you if you comment on an issue on a problem and you think it counts as a consolation?

Of course, coming from a guy like me, those questions do not sound very credible indeed. But, if you are brought up thinking that saying happy birthday to a friend on his wall is sufficient a message, then you are already "detached" from your friend.There is just no replacement of meeting your friend and saying happy birthday and celebrating with him/her.

The point is: people stop asking what makes them "human". This definition of "human", I believe, should not be relative or subjective in any way. It is an objective truth that everyone ought to understand and commit to. Technology is a huge Red Herring for the pursuit of the answer to this question.

So is transhumanism.

 Before I proceed, I must confess that I am heavily influenced by my religious values.
My definition of "human" as a creation created by a sovereign Being in His image is enough to deter me from transhumanism, which would "change" this creation into something else.

So, what is the objective definition of "human"? I do not the answer to that question, but I'll surely keep looking for the answer. This is a question everybody must ask themselves and seek the answer themselves.

So, start pondering, people.

Regards,

Ronny