"Genetically engineered" in the same way he was genetically engineered to be an idiot.... by selective breeding, which is not artificial genetic modification as he intends to imply.
Having just come home from visiting Iceland, and after visiting farms there, and also farms in New Zealand, I can say unequivocally that most farms in those countries are what you think of, peaceful sheep in large bucolic fields enjoying their lives and not being injured during once a year sheering of wool that's otherwise a problem for them to shed naturally. I won't speak to Australia, since I've never been there...maybe all sheerers are dicks there.
No farmer would accept the behavior shown, you can't sell wool from a dead or bloody sheep. He needs to get his theory straight...are they only interested in maximum profit, or do they abuse their animals without concern, because it can't be both.
If he really wants to do good for the animals of the world, he should refrain from breeding himself. His kids will probably wear nothing but fur when they leave home just to spite him.

Kahn is a genetically modified human, a leftover from Earth's Eugenics Wars. Played by Montalban and ruled over Asia and the Middle East before being deposed, some books place him as North Indian and a Sikh, but then who knows what genetic modification might do to someone's racial appearance.
So while Montalban is still not white, he's not Indian either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

btw. You guys should all watch UTOPIA

(joke)

(but seriously it's a cool sci-fi series on channel 4 right now and hypothesizes on scenarios like Genetic Modification, Agribusiness, etc.)

http://videosift.com/video/Utopia-series-1
http://videosift.com/video/Utopia-series-two

I'm not worried about a loss of humanity or w/e - Are amputees somehow less human because they use a prosthesis? I don't think so.

I'd be more worried about a divide forming between those that can afford to enhance themselves, be it through implants or some sort of genetic modification, and those can't. One would hope that this technology would improve the lives of all humanity and not create a society with a rigid hierarchy with almost no social mobility.

I'm actually wrapping up a game project right now that's a satirical protest of Monsanto. I'm eager to share it on the sift, especially with all the Monsanto news lately.

Also, I discovered this app the other day which seems like a great play-field-leveler:
http://www.buycott.com/

Didn't care for this documentary though! Way, way too slanted. I get sick of documentaries I agree with always stooping to the same bullshit propaganda, with their overly dramatic music, and the way they phrase things to make them sound more "evil" than they are.
("Genetic Modification is where you take genes from one animal and force it into another")... Puh-leeze. You immediately lose my support when you play the same manipulation games as the people you're fighting against. It's pathetic.

That was som superb and *quality software engineering in there. If this one opens up just like Crysis 1 (the one truly meant for computers, and it's older but smaller brother Far Cry REALLY showed you what this engine has to offer in open-ended gameplay), if you pull down walls, open all the buildings, and truly force you to think outside the box again (back when your gun was usually the LAST thing you would resort too as everything else--every other option was FAR more fun. You felt like a demi-God that was dropped off in a hot zone to deal with insects, until you meet the aliens and the ante is brought up. All that fun you had, NOW it really gets tested.

But, with consoles some of the scope has been killed, like in Cnrysis 2. I hate to say that, but it pisses a lot of PC Gamers off. But, luckily they are still developing basically everything on the PC. But, some changesg I'D like to see are: huge, unlimited outdoor areas (like Crysis UNO), up to and over 100 objects--that is aliens and people plus moving vehicles and things like this that are active in the frame--are supported (with the computing power we have I'm sure they could max out your field of vision), drastically increased object A.I. From enemies to super-graphic-froggies, further increases and even more (as I do know they've added some, like the "smart crumpling" of cars--making crashes FAR more realistic and neat) to the overall Physics system--inevitably I hope it would be the core component to every program element in the game before ANYTHING else happens (basically, it is the tried and true foundational component for the whole show, I would hope with some programmers that know Physics and Engineering--being able to reproduce in-game MACHINES and inventions of their own...--well AND enjoy it, and more programmers that like Physics too, but they are fans of very well done science fiction and comics--that way you have an aggressive "baseline" controlling everything except for a small section which the science fiction and comics crew can come up--I mean if they really get ambitious, eventually, they could add Biology; The sky is the limit!--and they'd add in elements for all the nano-technology, possibly genetic modification (which is just a few lines of code right now), everything the aliens need ( which means there would. Have to be a "theoretical Physics add-on to the full Physics component...

In the future if they just kept developing this Engine to say Cry Engine ver 15.0, just imagine the literal mind-blowing capabilities this thing could do and produce. You might have scientists from every field, even the military, involved in it's development--people from jobs and different walks of life (like a cancer survivor)--across the world inputting their most-valuable lifetime of experiences.

The game may not be Crysis anymore, but maybe a lot of people will finally realize that not only does your game get better with more infomation... But, if you have an accurate enough simulator to life, AMAZING things can be done. We can, all day create craft to fly in, see what fails IMMEDIATLY and the others that produce Hypersonic flight with LOW fuel usage. The possibilities would be endless, and the frog could become a virtual pet.

So I really hope they come full throttle to the PC and create a secondary division dealing with the consoles from the barebones PC Realese. Thus allowing them to push the technology to it's boundaries!

None-the-less I love the CryEngine out of any other for playing a game--a modern game.

/headdesk
Even without the fearmongering angle, this is stupid. You know what else hasn't gone expensive genetic modification? 50 cent seed packets at your local supermarket.

Okay... So who's for crossing Numbats with people when they get the whole genetic modification thing working properly?

That would be one way to impress the ladies!

>> ^spoco2:
OK, I just watched the first 20 seconds and my bullshit meter blew up.
There is no science in this, not with that technobabble that started the video.
Holy crap, I just went to their website and read "It will be the degree to which we are able to translate and utilize this light code that will allow us to break the barriers of illusion set by this dualistic paradigm and the genetic modifications that are in resonance with it. It is because of this light influx that we are now able to answer the three most fundamental questions that define us as conscious Human entities: “Who am I? Where am I from? Why am I here?”"


FAKE! No way you watched 20 seconds of this.

OK, I just watched the first 20 seconds and my bullshit meter blew up.

There is no science in this, not with that technobabble that started the video.

Holy crap, I just went to their website and read "It will be the degree to which we are able to translate and utilize this light code that will allow us to break the barriers of illusion set by this dualistic paradigm and the genetic modifications that are in resonance with it. It is because of this light influx that we are now able to answer the three most fundamental questions that define us as conscious Human entities: “Who am I? Where am I from? Why am I here?”"

The obviously subscribe to the school of thought of 'Use lots of big, impressive sounding words that actually mean nothing in an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes'.

If this isn't just utter, utter, utter dribble, I don't know what is. SO does not belong in the science channel AT ALL.

I completely agree with volumptuous's channels.

Man, I have to not read any more of their website. They are a CULT plain and simple. Next group of people to commit mass suicide anyone? Either that, or just trying to be the next Scientology and scam as much money out of people as possible.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ I agree - that's why we need to meet the stellar community as worthy partners. - To do this we need to embrace Transhumanism. We're not evolving anymore - so we have to pull our species up on our own. Eugenics, genetic modification or computer augmentation.

Human beings need to be the boot loader for a much, much larger intelligence. We're barely sentient.

dgandhi, I don't think he's a troll. Just someone who has listened a lot to one side and little to the other, he doesn't understand the issue as well as he thinks he does. I run into the same problem all the time in the drug war debates, people with strong opinions who have never even looked at the statistics and results of what they so strongly support.

FLIBOI, you say "If you want to be fair, you should allow the teaching of ALL theories rather than just one and let people make up their own minds."

Test that theory for a moment and see if you really believe it. Visit the following page and look at the arguments and letters from people in the scientific community who see roughly equal validity between intelligent design and the alternate theory they propose.

http://www.venganza.org/

Start with the open letter to the school board, then read the section called Evidence, academic endorsements.

Yes, it's all pretty silly and most who support the group recognize that. BUT, and this is the key part, it is every bit as scientific as claiming we don't know so magic man must have done it. Intelligent design or creationism is NOT science, that's the problem. In philosophy, fine. Comparative religion classes, fine. In science, no. Nobody is even trying to deny you or anyone else your beliefs. We're just telling you that it isn't science. It's personal philosophy. For every expert you can toss up to support ID or creationism there's got to be three that'll support the FSM as equally valid. Interesting ideas, but not science.

When you people wanted to have the right to your own beliefs we all defended and supported you in that, but when it started being pushed into our schools and our national policy it was no longer a question of your rights but of our nations survival. Modern medicine is based in large part on genetics, everything from how that pill you take works to genetic modification to fight inherited conditions is based on it, and more. Start inserting personal belief in one part of science and none is safe, we're seeing it in the global warming debate too now, and in stem cells. We can't be crippled as a people just to satisfy the confusion of some about the difference between science and personal belief. When you guys pushed that hard you left no choice but for others to push back.

You and your beliefs aren't under attack, just the urge to insert those beliefs into our schools and public policy is. Given the last few years we've got reason for concern.

Arvana (today is one of my "self-awareness/reflection" days so please, do not hesitate to tell me if I'm being improper or disrespecting)
I think we're both showing our associations here - I'm uncomfortably familiar with pharma-corp and formerly associated in many more ways than I care to remember. So perhaps my grudge is coloring my potential view of agribusiness. Funny because I was raised by granola types and was volunteering at the local food co-op at age 12. I do understand that agribusiness (like any mega conglomerate of corporations) has a vested interest in profit-before-people and as to Monsanto - totally in agreement with you and Dag. However, let us not forget that here in America and other "first world" countries we have a huge assortment of selection when it comes to food and foodstuffs. Much like a recent vid whereby a lady espoused the evils of canned soup and potato chips, I take issue (as I usually do no matter what teh subject) with blanketting terms and lumping all choices into one - canned soup is available in low sodium varieties just as food can easily be gotten from local businesses rather than agribusinesses like Monsanto. I know because I've worked food industry for nearly two decades (restaurants and such) Every place I've been, there's ALWAYS a farmer's market somewhere. In some small towns, all you HAVE is local farming unless you want something exotic. Many resaurants are now trying to purchase local-only.
Okay enough blathering.
As to the testing; I wasn't sayign teh FDA helps any... I don't doubt they are waving anything Monsanto through. Regardless of Monsanto's evil business practices though (and yes, Dag, that is pretty evil) the results of genetically modifying a plant so that it will be resistant to a poison is a bad thing? ...wha? You can't believe that ANY genetic modification to a plant is a bad thing... honestly guys, plants have been modified way past their natural state already... the sheer number of selection among tomatoes, day lilies (my birthmother bred those and you wouldn't BELIEVE how many hundreds there are) and APPLES should tell you how prevelant genetic mucking is. So farmers do it by selecting breeding, and corporations do it by hiring a scientist and working it out in theory first. What's the difference? Well the scientist does it scientifically and doesn't have to waste time breeding something over and over HOPING things breed true.
Why is science okay when we debate the origins of the universe but suddenly become evil when we are talking about food?
Science is safe enough for yall to trust your health to when it comes to miracle drugs but not when it comes to figuring out how to breed better plants?

"Eugenics isn't inherently wrong in the same sense that dictatorships aren't inherently bad governments (i.e., an omniscient, omnibenevolent dictator would be the best possible government)."

I understand the word "Eugenics" to mean the activity of genetic modification by way of an organized and centrally planned program which involves--by its very nature--coercion, forced sterilization, infanticide, and the like. There's good reason to think that such programs are inherently wrong even if they produce good consequences (like the elimination of certain diseases). You might be invoking a different definition of the word, but the one I've used is the most common one, and the one most in line with the common connotations.

Also, I disagree with you about the best form of government. Why wouldn't a system in which rational and perfectly moral individuals freely associate be far superior to one in which there was any sort of dictator?