Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Krowbar who wrote (38686)	5/31/1999 4:27:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Would you allow your genes changed so that you would age very slowly and live a healthy life to, say, 300? To put the issue a little more bluntly: I've surmised that a good deal of genetic engineering research is aimed at finding a way to produce human insulin at a lower cost, making it available to more diabetics. How would a poor diabetic feel about the proposition that genetic engineering is too risky to allow?

To: Krowbar who wrote (38686)	5/31/1999 11:29:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Would you allow your genes changed so that you would age very slowly and live a healthy life to, say, 300?>> No!!! I see myself as part of a natural, organic WHOLE, and believe after some study of the matter that genetic engineering poses too great a risk to that whole for it to continue. This is what all those Europeans who are engaged in civil unrest, actually destroying crops, are saying as well, incidentally. There are already WAY too many humans for the earth to support happily. Why on earth shoule we stay around for 300 years? You can pretty much bet that only the rich and powerful and those lucky enough to live in very rich nations would be living that long, anyway. It seems dangerous to the public good, and very unfair and inequitable.