lwheelr
Lovin' The Homestead
Want one on your homestead? I'll bet it would be GREAT at providing lots of manure! 
I find this disturbing
- Thread starter rebecca100
- Start date
Shiloh Acres
Lovin' The Homestead
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2010
- Messages
- 970
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 84
lwheelr said:Want one on your homestead? I'll bet it would be GREAT at providing lots of manure!
LOL!!!
patandchickens
Crazy Cat Lady
So, if reconstructing a mammoth-ish thing in the lab is so terribly horrible, have you thought about the implications of what is being held up as a poster-child for what science (apparently as a whole) "should" be doing: curing cancer?
Let's think about that for a minute.
Suppose someone found a way to cure all cancers.
Then what?
Either it is expensive (you think the current US healthcare debate is a quagmire, think about what if) or it is cheap. If it is expensive, the rich get to live on average much longer than the rest of u and do not have to worry about environmental/pollution/food-supply type issues that cause cancer.
OTOH if it is cheap, then the population as a whole (at least in developed countries, and especially in countries like the US where cancer is pretty common as a cause or contributor to death) will live longer on average. And have no reason to care about cancer-causing chemicals in the environment (which affects most critters in nature, not just humans). AND you want to think about the economics of having people live longer and with more-maneageable more-chronic serious diseases *instead of* cancer.
Or maybe it is in-between in cost, and everyone in the developed world can afford it but not those in poorer countries (or poorer areas of some countries)... so those making policies have no practical reason not to use whatever carcinogenic pollutants they want at the expense of those who happen to be unable to afford The Cure.
These are not might-happen concievably-possible what-ifs, like the suggestion that what if there was some awful virus contagious to humans hidden in the mammoth genome. These are quite-likely consequences if any across the board "cure for cancer" were developed.
(Anyhow, it seems to me that one might just as well argue that using sophisticated molecular-biology techniques to cure cancers is not really all fundamentally "natural" either.)
It is all well and fine to say "oh, but bad things have been done in the name of science" but so what? Bad things have been done in the name of pretty much EVERYTHING, at one time or another. So, <shrug>. You have to look at the individual case.
Please understand, mind, that I have zero problem with people who simply disagree with this being done.... it is a free country and I think people *should* make up their own minds.... what I have a problem with is the ranting about stupid greedy egotistical scientists (the word "stupid" keeps getting attached to "scientists", in particular, on this forum) without any obvious attempt being made to FIND OUT what the other side of the story is.
Pat, who btw is not necessarily against cancer research either
but I think people should think about the ramifications of their *pet* things *too*...
Let's think about that for a minute.
Suppose someone found a way to cure all cancers.
Then what?
Either it is expensive (you think the current US healthcare debate is a quagmire, think about what if) or it is cheap. If it is expensive, the rich get to live on average much longer than the rest of u and do not have to worry about environmental/pollution/food-supply type issues that cause cancer.
OTOH if it is cheap, then the population as a whole (at least in developed countries, and especially in countries like the US where cancer is pretty common as a cause or contributor to death) will live longer on average. And have no reason to care about cancer-causing chemicals in the environment (which affects most critters in nature, not just humans). AND you want to think about the economics of having people live longer and with more-maneageable more-chronic serious diseases *instead of* cancer.
Or maybe it is in-between in cost, and everyone in the developed world can afford it but not those in poorer countries (or poorer areas of some countries)... so those making policies have no practical reason not to use whatever carcinogenic pollutants they want at the expense of those who happen to be unable to afford The Cure.
These are not might-happen concievably-possible what-ifs, like the suggestion that what if there was some awful virus contagious to humans hidden in the mammoth genome. These are quite-likely consequences if any across the board "cure for cancer" were developed.
(Anyhow, it seems to me that one might just as well argue that using sophisticated molecular-biology techniques to cure cancers is not really all fundamentally "natural" either.)
It is all well and fine to say "oh, but bad things have been done in the name of science" but so what? Bad things have been done in the name of pretty much EVERYTHING, at one time or another. So, <shrug>. You have to look at the individual case.
Please understand, mind, that I have zero problem with people who simply disagree with this being done.... it is a free country and I think people *should* make up their own minds.... what I have a problem with is the ranting about stupid greedy egotistical scientists (the word "stupid" keeps getting attached to "scientists", in particular, on this forum) without any obvious attempt being made to FIND OUT what the other side of the story is.
Pat, who btw is not necessarily against cancer research either
but I think people should think about the ramifications of their *pet* things *too*...
Buster
Lovin' The Homestead
I think it would be monster cool. To think a beast long extinct could be brought back to be studied...
But it is a two edged sword. On the one hand, it could prove we can bring back extinct species, which would be good if we applied it to some of the species we are wiping out once we have finally figured out we need to stop destroying ecosystems.
On the other, it may give us an attitude of, "Who cares if we drive creatures to extinction? We can just crygenically freeze a couple of specimens and bring them back whenever we want!"
Which could lead us to destroy the planet at an even more rapid pace.
Still, there is something about bringing back a mammoth that appeals to the nerd in me, or maybe the little boy who still secretly loves dinosaurs and all mysteries of our earths past.
But it is a two edged sword. On the one hand, it could prove we can bring back extinct species, which would be good if we applied it to some of the species we are wiping out once we have finally figured out we need to stop destroying ecosystems.
On the other, it may give us an attitude of, "Who cares if we drive creatures to extinction? We can just crygenically freeze a couple of specimens and bring them back whenever we want!"
Which could lead us to destroy the planet at an even more rapid pace.
Still, there is something about bringing back a mammoth that appeals to the nerd in me, or maybe the little boy who still secretly loves dinosaurs and all mysteries of our earths past.
Buster
Lovin' The Homestead
I once saw a guy in Thailand using an elephant to pull his plow.tortoise said:Soo.... what EXACTLY are they going to do with it!
lwheelr
Lovin' The Homestead
Three or four Mammoths, and you could plow Mt. Everest.
Pat, you're right. Most people DON'T think through the equations of what they are asking, (universal health care, elimination of poverty, etc), or they simply are not willing to pay the price to get what they want (world peace, no disease, etc). Often, the proposed solution, and the intended outcome, are simply incompatible, because people supporting the idea have failed to think it through logically. Wanting it doesn't make it so.
I've never prayed for a cure for cancer. My son had leukemia, and I know how modern medicine thinks about a cure for cancer. They figure they'll beat up the cancer more than they beat up the body, and if the body comes out ahead of the cancer, then it is all well and good. Never mind that the stronger the chemo, the greater the chance that it will, itself, cause cancerous mutations that create an independent cancer somewhere else in the body (secondary cancer). That tendency alone guarantees that the conventional approach to cancer cures will never be capable of resulting in a 100% cure - rates of 90% 5 year Event Free Survival are considered extremely good.
Never a thought to WHY cancer rates are so high (preservatives and chemical additives kill a high number of cells in the body, and damage a good many others - and some of that damage is to the DNA of the cells - in fact, they have the same effect as chemo).
So now the genetic theory is that they can insert DNA repair strands into virus cells, so the virus will then go permeate the body and invade the cells of the body, inserting the repaired DNA into the cells. Though this theory is FRAUGHT with inaccuracies, problems, and would only work if they can figure out how to get it to target exactly the right cells, it persists as some sort of holy grail of genetic engineering. Successes have been minimal, never more than a single facet of the complex series of steps that need to occur, any kind of demonstration that the theory is even possible has been elusive. Cells of the body aren't exactly computer programming, they don't cooperate like theory says they should - the parts they want to be controllable just aren't very well behaved, partly because the theory itself ignores a few vital facts - like "cells that have been altered are subject to a higher rate of mutation than cells that have not been altered", and that in order for such a theory to work, the virus would have to multiply itself within the body, and the certainty of mutations means that the risk of the treatment itself becoming cancerous and CAUSING another form of cancer as it tries to cure one, is extremely high.
Anyway, that is one reason I simply dismiss the whole "cancer cure" thing as so much wind and noise. Serious reduction of the number of people who GET cancer is a far more practical, and completely realizable goal, but neither the government, nor the scientific community is interested in that, because there is no profit in it. There is great profit in illness, and treatments. None in health and vitality, and not even very much in a "cure".
Currently the US food system supports a huge matrix of unnecessary expense. Preservatives and chemicals which should never be allowed to pollute the food are sold to food manufacturers at great profit. Food manufacturers increase their profit because their foods can be shelf stable longer (who cares that the nutritional value is now depleted and the food is toxic over long term). The food causes health problems, which the medical community profits from as people are hospitalized, and then the pharmaceutical companies make a killing when they issue meds to treat the problems caused by the chemicals originally sold to food manufacturers. The kicker? Many of the companies making preservatives are the same ones making meds...
And the people pay for it all - the chemicals, the bad food, the medical care, the pills, and then they die early and painfully anyway.
The average person who just blythely accepts all of this does so because they believe what they are told, and never question that some things that researchers are wasting money on are impossibilities, or simply being funded for reasons other than the good of mankind. The things that NEED to be researched better, are being ignored because there isn't any profit in them. Science as a whole is driven by money - out of necessity, I mean, someone has to put food on the table of the scientist. But right now, it means the dollars are flowing from sources that don't necessarily have a motive to improve life in meaningful ways. Government funding of research was supposed to balance that out, but does not - the dollars flow to the same sources, because they have the most money to lobby for the federal dollars.
*Gets off soapbox, goes back to eating breakfast.*
Pat, you're right. Most people DON'T think through the equations of what they are asking, (universal health care, elimination of poverty, etc), or they simply are not willing to pay the price to get what they want (world peace, no disease, etc). Often, the proposed solution, and the intended outcome, are simply incompatible, because people supporting the idea have failed to think it through logically. Wanting it doesn't make it so.
I've never prayed for a cure for cancer. My son had leukemia, and I know how modern medicine thinks about a cure for cancer. They figure they'll beat up the cancer more than they beat up the body, and if the body comes out ahead of the cancer, then it is all well and good. Never mind that the stronger the chemo, the greater the chance that it will, itself, cause cancerous mutations that create an independent cancer somewhere else in the body (secondary cancer). That tendency alone guarantees that the conventional approach to cancer cures will never be capable of resulting in a 100% cure - rates of 90% 5 year Event Free Survival are considered extremely good.
Never a thought to WHY cancer rates are so high (preservatives and chemical additives kill a high number of cells in the body, and damage a good many others - and some of that damage is to the DNA of the cells - in fact, they have the same effect as chemo).
So now the genetic theory is that they can insert DNA repair strands into virus cells, so the virus will then go permeate the body and invade the cells of the body, inserting the repaired DNA into the cells. Though this theory is FRAUGHT with inaccuracies, problems, and would only work if they can figure out how to get it to target exactly the right cells, it persists as some sort of holy grail of genetic engineering. Successes have been minimal, never more than a single facet of the complex series of steps that need to occur, any kind of demonstration that the theory is even possible has been elusive. Cells of the body aren't exactly computer programming, they don't cooperate like theory says they should - the parts they want to be controllable just aren't very well behaved, partly because the theory itself ignores a few vital facts - like "cells that have been altered are subject to a higher rate of mutation than cells that have not been altered", and that in order for such a theory to work, the virus would have to multiply itself within the body, and the certainty of mutations means that the risk of the treatment itself becoming cancerous and CAUSING another form of cancer as it tries to cure one, is extremely high.
Anyway, that is one reason I simply dismiss the whole "cancer cure" thing as so much wind and noise. Serious reduction of the number of people who GET cancer is a far more practical, and completely realizable goal, but neither the government, nor the scientific community is interested in that, because there is no profit in it. There is great profit in illness, and treatments. None in health and vitality, and not even very much in a "cure".
Currently the US food system supports a huge matrix of unnecessary expense. Preservatives and chemicals which should never be allowed to pollute the food are sold to food manufacturers at great profit. Food manufacturers increase their profit because their foods can be shelf stable longer (who cares that the nutritional value is now depleted and the food is toxic over long term). The food causes health problems, which the medical community profits from as people are hospitalized, and then the pharmaceutical companies make a killing when they issue meds to treat the problems caused by the chemicals originally sold to food manufacturers. The kicker? Many of the companies making preservatives are the same ones making meds...
And the people pay for it all - the chemicals, the bad food, the medical care, the pills, and then they die early and painfully anyway.
The average person who just blythely accepts all of this does so because they believe what they are told, and never question that some things that researchers are wasting money on are impossibilities, or simply being funded for reasons other than the good of mankind. The things that NEED to be researched better, are being ignored because there isn't any profit in them. Science as a whole is driven by money - out of necessity, I mean, someone has to put food on the table of the scientist. But right now, it means the dollars are flowing from sources that don't necessarily have a motive to improve life in meaningful ways. Government funding of research was supposed to balance that out, but does not - the dollars flow to the same sources, because they have the most money to lobby for the federal dollars.
*Gets off soapbox, goes back to eating breakfast.*
CrimsonRose
Lovin' The Homestead
ok yeah it's sorta scary to think of it all... Mention of the cure for cancer reminds me of the movie I am Legend... But the inner nerd in me thinks it's cool! Mammoths have always been a favorite of mine! Plus I have a thing for unique farm animals...
Mammoths on the farm! What a thought! they could plow huge fields with ease! Fur for fiber! (They are not fat... It's all the fur it makes them look poofie) Forget having a herd of sheep... one mammoth will give you enough yarn for a lifetime!
Goats are good to clear out weedy roses and such from a pasture.... Mammoths could clear the trees! Plenty of fertilizer... one downfall is I would have to buy about 4-5 more freezers for all the mammoth burgers... you could eat 10lbs steaks like the flintstones! 
and what if you could milk them! mammoth cheese... hahahaha
Mammoths on the farm! What a thought! they could plow huge fields with ease! Fur for fiber! (They are not fat... It's all the fur it makes them look poofie) Forget having a herd of sheep... one mammoth will give you enough yarn for a lifetime!
Goats are good to clear out weedy roses and such from a pasture.... Mammoths could clear the trees! Plenty of fertilizer... one downfall is I would have to buy about 4-5 more freezers for all the mammoth burgers... you could eat 10lbs steaks like the flintstones!
and what if you could milk them! mammoth cheese... hahahaha
lwheelr
Lovin' The Homestead
Yeah, but those Mammoth splats... Dungheaps the size of a compost pile... Woops, there goes the doghouse...
CrimsonRose
Lovin' The Homestead
dragonlaurel
Improvising a more SS life
If they were trying to bring back something that was recently made extinct from over hunting or a natural disaster-I might be for it. But the ecological conditions they were part of just don't really exist anymore. Their time has passed.
