Is it 'Soup' yet?

Ken Collins KPaulC at
Sat Sep 4 22:47:06 EST 1999


i've realized that one possible interpretation of what i've posted is that i
'sanction' genetic-engineering.

i do not.

it's just that i'm aware that all questions must be explored, and my
comments were strictly with respect to charging folks who'll do such
exploring with the Responsibilities inherent. it's necessary to do so
because it's already =late=... genetically-engineered stuff has already been
dispersed in the environment, with almost complete disregard for the
consequences inherent.

such constitutes a shame-filled circumstance that must be at an end.

because genetic stuff varies widely within populations, the way things have
happened thus far is akin to spraying a crowd with a machine gun, 'hoping'
that all the bullets will pass through the crowd without hitting anyone...

doesn't compute.

yet, folks, crazed by 'profits', go ahead and do it anyway.

i'm not 'sanctioning' genetic-engineering.

i'm just acting on behalf of Humanity to say what needs to be said.

Science must be done.

questions must be explored.

but gambling with the gene pool is totally Unacceptable.

for instance, i realized that even in the secure habitats i proposed in my
earlier msg (quoted below), since the engineered stuff is reproduced, the
experimental millieu takes on a genetic course of its own... engineered mice
will breed with 'normal' mice, and their offspring will be something that's
had zero evolutionary testing... susceptibility to disease, for instance,
could result, but be undetected because the experimental environment is free
of disease agents.

then, when the mice are 'judged' 'successful, and set free, they reproduce
within the 'normal' population... wham! the day comes when this or that
disease agent that has a newly-genetically-engineered 'back-door' spreads
through the population unstopably... and the population's wiped out.

of course, i'm not talking about 'mice'.

because the 'profits' are not with respect to 'mice', i'm looking forward to
the Same-Stuff within Human genetic-dynamics... it's a True Horror.

=nothing= that's being done in genetic-'engineering' is being tested in an
evolutionarily-viable fashion.

this means that all of the g'zillions of years of evolutionary testing and
refinement, in which everything within the gene pool has been rigorously
tested with respect to all other possibilities within the gene pool, are
being fool-heartedly discarded.

when i think about it, my jaw 'just' hangs-down at the awesome Ignorance

it goes on-and-on, like this.

wake up!

K. P. Collins

[p. s. i am aware that the NMDA stuff might have been just another sick
'joke' with respect to my vile nicotine-addiction, but i've chosen to take
advantage of the opening in the way that i have. (i long to quit smoking,
but cannot do so until my work is communicated... it seems, increasingly,
that it's 'too-late'... just one more murder?) KPC]

Ken Collins <KPaulC at> wrote in message
news:#cqLDSd9#GA.231 at cpmsnbbsa02...
> i hope it's, at least, simerin' :-)
> other matters:
> there were two Neuroscience reports in the news recently (more, of course,
> but i'm pressed for 'time', and am unable to keep up with what's goin'
> 1. i caught the end of a report on ABC Evening News that discussed some
> research (in tadpoles) that showed extraordinarily-dynamic branching of
> neural processes. the stuff that was reported took my breath away, and if
> it's sustained, it's one of the most-significant experimental results that
> Neuroscience has ever produced... unfortunately, i missed all the names
> associated with this research, and could find nothing on it at the ABC web
> site.
> 2.
> this was in the news more-recently, and is also very exciting, but there's
> one thing i'd like to see done before anything of this is allowed to go
> forward out of the lab.
> it'd be hard to do, because the test animals would have to be 100%
> retained (it'd require setups like "Biosphere"... and the seriousness of
> repercussions, plainly, not only warrant, but require-absolutely, the
> expense inherent), but i'd like to see several 'natural' habitats, with
> various groups of genetically altered, and non-genetically-altered mice,
> their predators, set up... let the experiment run, and see how the
> performances of altered and non-altered mice compare.
> you see, it's one thing to exist under laboratory controls, but it's quite
> another thing to survive in natural habitats... things must be studied in
> way that evaluates =all= aspects of behavior against controls, and all of
> the questions inherent =must= be resolved =before= anything is allowed to
> forward. and the experiments must run long-term... for thousands of years,
> although i know no one, wanting to make 'profits', will agree with that.
> still it's what i say. it's what Humanity deserves. (if it weren't so
> serious, it'd be hilarious to experience folks invoking 'genetics' so
> completely ignoring the genetic millieu that is evolution.)
> it'd leave me with my jaw hanging-down if evolutionary dynamics didn't do
> the same experiment a g'zillion years ago, 'choosing' the mice-genetics
> we have in the world today, because they correlate with the
> most-well-rounded mouse-surviability... kapich?
> at any rate, these huge, securely-contained experiental habitats =need= to
> be funded =immediately=... failure to do so is to recklessly gamble with
> future of Humanity, and more... it's an outright invitation to the demise
> Humanity.
> "What profits a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his life"...
> all other lives that would've entered the world over the course of
> posterity?
> my jaw is already hanging-down at the crazed lack of forsight in which
> things 'genetic' are, presently, immersed... wake up!
> where are the =complete=, evolutionary-'time'-scale, tests?
> there are =none=.
> this's Madness, akin to that with which Shelly enetertained us.
> wake up!
> K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list