Conservatives(sp?) and Regulations

[NATI BENGALS]

I am trying to figure out what the other major political party in the current broke-ass two party system I am living in stands for when it comes to regulations?

This is for the anti-regulation party (not really, anybody can answer) who has managed to fearmonger masks and make them a political issue during a global pandemic that involves spread through the human respiratory system of a virus.

Where do you stand on regulations of gene editing? Hands off right? Let the people decide?

[BmorePat87]

I feel like this is something that in 99% of applications it is really beneficial and noncontroversial, but there's always the scary sci-fi scenario. I guess it depends on the context.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-07-2021, 01:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I feel like this is something that in 99% of applications it is really beneficial and noncontroversial, but there's always the scary sci-fi scenario. I guess it depends on the context.

It should be the next stage of human evolution.

We figured it out. We use it to our advantage. It's what we do.

[Dill]

(03-07-2021, 12:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I am trying to figure out what the other major political party in the current broke-ass two party system I am living in stands for when it comes to regulations?

This is for the anti-regulation party (not really, anybody can answer) who has managed to fearmonger masks and make them a political issue during a global pandemic that involves spread through the human respiratory system of a virus.

Where do you stand on regulations of gene editing? Hands off right? Let the people decide?

I'd say Constitutional populism has not served as a useful guide to science/medical policy.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-07-2021, 04:00 PM)Dill Wrote: I'd say Constitutional populism has not served as a useful guide to science/medical policy.

I saw a story about where that pic was taken. How sad.

Neither has religion. Which worries me. You already know China is working on super soldiers.

I feel like we will get passed by pretty quick if we don’t get a clear legal groundwork set for this stuff.

Hopefully China shares how it turns out with these kids.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50944461
But I doubt they will be transparent.

[Belsnickel]

(03-07-2021, 02:03 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It should be the next stage of human evolution.

We figured it out. We use it to our advantage. It's what we do.

This sort of thing drills down to the heart of a longstanding debate: what is natural? I look a lot at environmental policy, specifically wildlife conservation but other stuff as well. When we get into the philosophy of it all we have to ask what "natural" means as well as "wild." Lots of people would look at gene editing as unnatural. It's a human invention and intervention in the natural processes. However, there is also a way of thinking where we say "humans are a part of nature, so just because humans did it doesn't make it unnatural."

This debate plays an important role in thinking about gene editing as an evolutionary process. Evolution occurs through natural selection, so if humans are a part of nature then gene editing is natural selection. At least my stance on it would be this, anyway.

[CJD]

The idea that one party is for regulations and one is against regulations is typical all or nothing nonsense. Both parties are for certain regulations and against other regulations.

For example, most conservatives are against regulations on how a corporation operates. This includes environmental regulations, bank/stock market regulations and minimum wage increases (regulating how much companies must pay their employees). They are also against the regulation of firearms in most circumstances. They, generally, think that a person should be able to buy a gun even if they have a violent history, criminal record, on terrorist/white supremacy watch lists etc. They are generally against any attempt to curb gun ownership in any circumstance.

However, they are for regulations when it comes to things like who is allowed to use a woman's bathroom, what tech companies can do with their Terms of Service (who they can ban, who they cannot ban and why), whether a woman can get birth control or abortions, how many immigrants can enter the country per year (if any), who is allowed to get married, who is allowed to vote and, generally, wanting to ban several drugs and force harsh punishments for any drug offenders (The war on drugs).

Now, you may argue that some of those policies in the latter paragraph are less about regulations and more about what laws we should have, but I think that's splitting hairs via denotation. If you believe that polluting water or air should be considered a crime, then an environmental regulation would be exactly the same as a drug related regulation. A distinction without a difference, if you will. A "regulation" is often more associated with corporations and a "law" is often more associated with the individual. This denotative difference is only meant to protect corporations from the consequences of their destructive actions.

[*michaelsean*]

I can’t really give an answer. Some regulations are good and some are overreaching. A lot of times it comes down to the amount of regulation in a specific area one group wants as compared to another.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-08-2021, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This sort of thing drills down to the heart of a longstanding debate: what is natural? I look a lot at environmental policy, specifically wildlife conservation but other stuff as well. When we get into the philosophy of it all we have to ask what "natural" means as well as "wild." Lots of people would look at gene editing as unnatural. It's a human invention and intervention in the natural processes. However, there is also a way of thinking where we say "humans are a part of nature, so just because humans did it doesn't make it unnatural."

This debate plays an important role in thinking about gene editing as an evolutionary process. Evolution occurs through natural selection, so if humans are a part of nature then gene editing is natural selection. At least my stance on it would be this, anyway.

It definitely could get super sketchy. I could see it leading to some scary stuff where the ultra wealthy basically become immortal. With lab grown organs and Neuralink type technology. If we figure out a way to regenerate telomeres or not have them degrade at all sheww stuff will get crazy.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2021, 02:26 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It definitely could get super sketchy. I could see it leading to some scary stuff where the ultra wealthy basically become immortal. With lab grown organs and Neuralink type technology. If we figure out a way to regenerate telomeres or not have them degrade at all sheww stuff will get crazy.

I am more concerned about "mistakes" that could destroy our environment. Or even intentional environmental terrorism.

[GMDino]

(03-09-2021, 02:26 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It definitely could get super sketchy. I could see it leading to some scary stuff where the ultra wealthy basically become immortal. With lab grown organs and Neuralink type technology. If we figure out a way to regenerate telomeres or not have them degrade at all sheww stuff will get crazy.

Almost exactly one year ago I watched this segment on 60 minutes about a new kind of therapy to treat diseases. 

I believe I shared the story at that time too.   In this case it was sickle cell anemia but I just heard a story this morning that it is being used in trials in China and in PA for certain kinds of cancers.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-gene-therapy-cure-sickle-cell-anemia-60-minutes/?fbclid=IwAR2OoTYHzd67FgYEhnS6S9lUe35aTYP0tSBFktwuBawiw16kdPyyRaYO8zc

Certainly there are risks...there always are.

And there is a very worthwhile debate about "pre-programming" fetuses as was done in China with a set of twins.  They were changed to not have the receptors for HIV.  They simply cannot get  it.  But "designer babies" is something we need to tread VERY carefully with, IMHO.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-09-2021, 01:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am more concerned about "mistakes" that could destroy our environment. Or even intentional environmental terrorism.

What like a genetically engineered plant or animal turning invasive and taking over?

I think I saw Florida finally gave the green light to releasing millions of mosquitos that were designed to not be able to reproduce.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-09-2021, 01:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Almost exactly one year ago I watched this segment on 60 minutes about a new kind of therapy to treat diseases. 

I believe I shared the story at that time too.   In this case it was sickle cell anemia but I just heard a story this morning that it is being used in trials in China and in PA for certain kinds of cancers.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-gene-therapy-cure-sickle-cell-anemia-60-minutes/?fbclid=IwAR2OoTYHzd67FgYEhnS6S9lUe35aTYP0tSBFktwuBawiw16kdPyyRaYO8zc

Certainly there are risks...there always are.

And there is a very worthwhile debate about "pre-programming" fetuses as was done in China with a set of twins.  They were changed to not have the receptors for HIV.  They simply cannot get  it.  But "designer babies" is something we need to tread VERY carefully with, IMHO.

I was watching CNBC a couple weeks ago and Jim Kramer said his sources are telling him Moderna thinks they may have the can’t remember if he said cure or vaccine for cancer. Same way the mRNA stuff worked for the covid vaccine. Moderna stock has since taken a big fall. But they do have trials going on. He was either full of shit and said that to make money or actually believed it.

That sickle cell one is a pretty big deal. I feel like the big breakthroughs are going to start to accelerate the more we get into this stuff.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2021, 11:21 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What like a genetically engineered plant or animal turning invasive and taking over?

I think I saw Florida finally gave the green light to releasing millions of mosquitos that were designed to not be able to reproduce.

Check out "Unnatural Selection" on Netflix.  People are making glow in the dark mice in their garages with the help of a do-it-at-home gene splicing kit from Odin.

The ODIN (the-odin.com)

[GMDino]

(03-10-2021, 01:30 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I was watching CNBC a couple weeks ago and Jim Kramer said his sources are telling him Moderna thinks they may have the can’t remember if he said cure or vaccine for cancer. Same way the mRNA stuff worked for the covid vaccine. Moderna stock has since taken a big fall. But they do have trials going on. He was either full of shit and said that to make money or actually believed it.

That sickle cell one is a pretty big deal. I feel like the big breakthroughs are going to start to accelerate the more we get into this stuff.

I agree that we will see that acceleration and that's why I agree we need to be very careful, but yeah the medical miracles ahead may just be awesome for those who are sick and dying.