Would you want to eat a chicken that was so fat, it couldn’t walk? If you were a vegetarian, would you want to eat a pear that had some of the DNA of a fish? These are issues we’re facing today and will be facing in the future. Like it or not, this is the direction science is going.
In Britain, boiler chickens have been bred o gain 3kg in 6 weeks, whereas before selective breeding, they weighed only 1 kg in that same time. The chickens are so fat they cannot walk, and a lot of them die from heart failure. To really get the picture, imagine a 6-year-old weighing 286 pounds- for any child and animal to be that fat for that small of a body would be ‘hideous and cruel.’
Meanwhile, genetic modification is coming into the light as the newest, easiest way to pant cops without having to spray them- the pesticide is in the DNA of the crop. Likewise, with animals, traits from other plants and animals can be put into the KNA of an animal so they take on whatever trait was implanted in their DNA- some real-life examples of this have resulted in featherless chickens and glow-in-the-dark rabbits. Yes, glowing rabbits. Look it up if you don’t believe me!
The difference between selective breeding and genetic modification is that selective breeding has been done for thousands of years and requires no science labs or anything it is the ‘more natural’ way, if you will, of getting what you want out of the animal or plant. Genetic modification, however, is a technology that alters the genetic makeup of an organism, actually combining genes from different organisms. With selective breeding, this is only possible cow to cow, pea plant to pea plant, but with GM, you can put a DNA trait of a jellyfish into a rabbit. Crazy, huh?
The benefits of selective breeding is that you get the animal or crop you want with the right trait you want, too, without having to pay or get lab equipment. For example, you can get a chicken with more meat on it.
The benefits of genetic modification is that you can get any trait you want, (the abilit to glow in the dark, strength, the ability to grow and mature quickly, etc.) from any organism you want, and you can put that ability into any organism you want.
Concerns of selective breeding include the animal's wellfare- for example, there are broiler chickens who have so much wight on thier bodies because they have been selectively bred to gain a lot of weight that they are unable to walk or die of heart failure.
There are many concerns for genetic modification, as well: Potential human health impacts include unintended transfers of trangsgenes through cross-pollination, and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity. In addition, many people would have problems with its ethics- for example, what if you are a vegetarian and you have some DNA of a pig in your broccoli? Are you still eating 100% vegetable? Other people would consider genetic modification as 'tampering with nature'. This is mainly an ethics problem. I''m sure many others would object, as it could be argued it is a "violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values, tampering with nature by mixing genes among species and stress for the animal." Not to mention it could 'increase dependence on industrial nations by developing countriesdomination of world food production by a few companies,' (globalization,) and many potential, unknwon environmental impacts. This doesn't happen in selective breeding.
I think genetic modification should be more of a concern, because this is actually putting off one organism and putting it in a totally different one. All for food and consumerism. In my opinion, food should be food- it should be organic, comletely from natre, and should only be itself. A sunflower, duck, and microbe's DNA has no business being in a carrot.
I think Gregor Mendel, 91822-1884, the man who first discovered heredity using pea plants, would be really interested in what we have done with the info. he discovered- bigger, fatter livestock and fruits and vegetables. I think he'd be excited about it and would want to see what other cool things scientists can do using genetic modification. After all, he once crossed peas and mice of different varieties "for the fun of the thing," so I'm getting the feeling he'd be into whatever new modern science genetic modification would provide.
All I have to say is this: Although selective breeding and genetic modification could possibley help world hunger, I am worried about the unseen impacts it could have on the people who eat it and the planet. I think food should be left as food- pure and organic. We needn't harm animals, nor create bigger problems than the problems we are trying to solve with the crops.
The benefits of selective breeding is that you get the animal or crop you want with the right trait you want, too, without having to pay or get lab equipment. For example, you can get a chicken with more meat on it.
The benefits of genetic modification is that you can get any trait you want, (the abilit to glow in the dark, strength, the ability to grow and mature quickly, etc.) from any organism you want, and you can put that ability into any organism you want.
Concerns of selective breeding include the animal's wellfare- for example, there are broiler chickens who have so much wight on thier bodies because they have been selectively bred to gain a lot of weight that they are unable to walk or die of heart failure.
There are many concerns for genetic modification, as well: Potential human health impacts include unintended transfers of trangsgenes through cross-pollination, and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity. In addition, many people would have problems with its ethics- for example, what if you are a vegetarian and you have some DNA of a pig in your broccoli? Are you still eating 100% vegetable? Other people would consider genetic modification as 'tampering with nature'. This is mainly an ethics problem. I''m sure many others would object, as it could be argued it is a "violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values, tampering with nature by mixing genes among species and stress for the animal." Not to mention it could 'increase dependence on industrial nations by developing countriesdomination of world food production by a few companies,' (globalization,) and many potential, unknwon environmental impacts. This doesn't happen in selective breeding.
I think genetic modification should be more of a concern, because this is actually putting off one organism and putting it in a totally different one. All for food and consumerism. In my opinion, food should be food- it should be organic, comletely from natre, and should only be itself. A sunflower, duck, and microbe's DNA has no business being in a carrot.
I think Gregor Mendel, 91822-1884, the man who first discovered heredity using pea plants, would be really interested in what we have done with the info. he discovered- bigger, fatter livestock and fruits and vegetables. I think he'd be excited about it and would want to see what other cool things scientists can do using genetic modification. After all, he once crossed peas and mice of different varieties "for the fun of the thing," so I'm getting the feeling he'd be into whatever new modern science genetic modification would provide.
All I have to say is this: Although selective breeding and genetic modification could possibley help world hunger, I am worried about the unseen impacts it could have on the people who eat it and the planet. I think food should be left as food- pure and organic. We needn't harm animals, nor create bigger problems than the problems we are trying to solve with the crops.
