Mae DesTroismaisons
Controversies in Modern Genomics
October 22, 2013
Professor Tamara Williams
In 1920, Pearl and Reed analyzed U.S. census data from 1790-1910, fitting a logistic curve to the data. Their estimate of carrying capacity was 197 million people. The logistic growth pattern matched U.S. census data beautifully through 1950, but by 1960 it was no longer so (Cain, Bowman, and Hacker 215). It is often said that our population is growing “exponentially,” but that is false; if the human population were growing exponentially, there would be less than a billion people on Earth right now. Our growth is “faster than exponential” (Cain et al. 216). Today, the total human population is projected to reach 9 billion people by the year 2045 (National Geographic). So why do we continue to try to put an end to hunger? Why do we insist on making medical advances? People are surviving longer and having more reproductive success now than ever before. Because we live on a finite planet, and there aren’t any other Earths that we currently know of, we need a massive population decline (preferably a humane one, though that is improbable). So why keep saving people?
The field of genetics is becoming ever more controversial. The argument that GMO corn, rice, and soybeans are helping improve health and eradicate hunger in both first world and developing countries is often used to support the technology. For example, Philip R. Reilly states:
“The successful sequencing of the rice genome is a candidate for the title of the most important advance in human health in history [because] about one-third of humanity depends on rice to survive, so the inevitable increases in agricultural productivity that will follow from deeper understanding of the genome may do more to combat famine and malnutrition than any other event” (190).
With increased health and decreased famine will come increased survival and reproductive success. In other words, less people will die.
In 1796, one could expect to live only to about age 24. That number had doubled to about 48 a hundred years later, and today’s average human lifespan is 63 years (fightaging.org). The rapid rise of life expectancy is due to multiple factors, but the biggest contributor to increased lifespan is our medical advancement. With the human genome now mapped, the race is on to identify genes that contribute to “big killer” conditions like cancer (fightaging.org). Emerging genetic technologies promise to further increase health and longevity, and scientists are even conducting tests on fruit flies in an attempt to identify age-related genes (Spencer, Howell, Wright, and Promislow).
Using GMO crops to end world hunger seems ethical, as does using genetics to cure cancer, for the technology is certainly improving the lives of many individuals. When looked at from an ecological perspective, however, saving lives is actually quite unethical. At this point in time, saving lives is not good for the planet. Now, no one in their right mind would argue that things like famine and cancer are good, or that peopledeserve to die from them; however, the threat of overpopulation is very real, and we must try to combat it.
There are simply not enough natural resources (e.g. clean water, energy, building materials) on Earth to support our faster-than-exponential growth. In fact, there is not even enough to support our current population if we do not change our ways. Every year, we are essentially borrowing from future generations with our overconsumption of these resources. The only way humans will be sustainable is if our numbers drop dramatically. Since there is no humane way to go about killing off a big chunk of the population, we at least must stop trying to prevent people from dying.
Works Cited
National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_us_se_w#>.
The Strongest Boy in the World: How Genetic Information is Reshaping our Lives. Updated and Expanded ed. Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2008. Print.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12882325>.
Fight Aging!. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2003/01/this-wonderful-lengthening-of-lifespan.php>.
Controversies in Modern Genomics
October 22, 2013
Professor Tamara Williams
In 1920, Pearl and Reed analyzed U.S. census data from 1790-1910, fitting a logistic curve to the data. Their estimate of carrying capacity was 197 million people. The logistic growth pattern matched U.S. census data beautifully through 1950, but by 1960 it was no longer so (Cain, Bowman, and Hacker 215). It is often said that our population is growing “exponentially,” but that is false; if the human population were growing exponentially, there would be less than a billion people on Earth right now. Our growth is “faster than exponential” (Cain et al. 216). Today, the total human population is projected to reach 9 billion people by the year 2045 (National Geographic). So why do we continue to try to put an end to hunger? Why do we insist on making medical advances? People are surviving longer and having more reproductive success now than ever before. Because we live on a finite planet, and there aren’t any other Earths that we currently know of, we need a massive population decline (preferably a humane one, though that is improbable). So why keep saving people?
The field of genetics is becoming ever more controversial. The argument that GMO corn, rice, and soybeans are helping improve health and eradicate hunger in both first world and developing countries is often used to support the technology. For example, Philip R. Reilly states:
“The successful sequencing of the rice genome is a candidate for the title of the most important advance in human health in history [because] about one-third of humanity depends on rice to survive, so the inevitable increases in agricultural productivity that will follow from deeper understanding of the genome may do more to combat famine and malnutrition than any other event” (190).
With increased health and decreased famine will come increased survival and reproductive success. In other words, less people will die.
In 1796, one could expect to live only to about age 24. That number had doubled to about 48 a hundred years later, and today’s average human lifespan is 63 years (fightaging.org). The rapid rise of life expectancy is due to multiple factors, but the biggest contributor to increased lifespan is our medical advancement. With the human genome now mapped, the race is on to identify genes that contribute to “big killer” conditions like cancer (fightaging.org). Emerging genetic technologies promise to further increase health and longevity, and scientists are even conducting tests on fruit flies in an attempt to identify age-related genes (Spencer, Howell, Wright, and Promislow).
Using GMO crops to end world hunger seems ethical, as does using genetics to cure cancer, for the technology is certainly improving the lives of many individuals. When looked at from an ecological perspective, however, saving lives is actually quite unethical. At this point in time, saving lives is not good for the planet. Now, no one in their right mind would argue that things like famine and cancer are good, or that peopledeserve to die from them; however, the threat of overpopulation is very real, and we must try to combat it.
There are simply not enough natural resources (e.g. clean water, energy, building materials) on Earth to support our faster-than-exponential growth. In fact, there is not even enough to support our current population if we do not change our ways. Every year, we are essentially borrowing from future generations with our overconsumption of these resources. The only way humans will be sustainable is if our numbers drop dramatically. Since there is no humane way to go about killing off a big chunk of the population, we at least must stop trying to prevent people from dying.
Works Cited
National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_us_se_w#>.
The Strongest Boy in the World: How Genetic Information is Reshaping our Lives. Updated and Expanded ed. Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2008. Print.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12882325>.
Fight Aging!. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2013. <https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2003/01/this-wonderful-lengthening-of-lifespan.php>.