PDA

View Full Version : Playing God!


SilentScope001
03-21-2007, 12:42 AM
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/health/56395.html

We have just played God! We managed to create mosquitos that are resistant to a formto a mouse strain of malaria, and once we duplicate it to handle the human form of malaria, we will release it to the wild, and let nature takes its course. These harmless mosquitos will breed and be more effienct than regural mosquitos, driving them exictn, and with it, malaria! If this is not playing God, I do not know what is.

I have to say, Horray! We have crossed the line, and we will one day march towards the day when we can call ourselves dieties! I personally believe that God wants us to 'play God', to go and intimidate him, and manlipuate the world as we see fit. The 'main' God would watch over us, and monitor what we are doing, and if this God hates us for "oversteeping the boundaries of being demi-Gods", he'll smites us. Other than that, we're allowed to contorl the Earth as we see fit.

...yet, I have a bad feeling that position will be quite unpopular, amongst religious and non-religious folks. So, let us hear your view on us finally crossing that line. Good? Bad? No comment?

Jae Onasi
03-21-2007, 01:34 AM
Uh, we've been 'playing God' for quite some time, then, with antibiotics, IVs, surgery, respirators, anesthesia, immunizations, etc., etc., etc.

SilentScope001
03-21-2007, 01:43 AM
Uh, we've been 'playing God' for quite some time, then, with antibiotics, IVs, surgery, respirators, anesthesia, immunizations, etc., etc., etc.

I know that. What I meant is that we were playing God, as in, we were modifiying God's creation of the enviorment, by creating new animals to help modify the enviroment. We got GM cows and GM crops, but they were done for profit and effiency...Never have one thought of modifying the enviroment on such a large scale using mosquitios to elimante Malraia.

The other cases, you can say, are medical technologies that help us adapat to the enviroment. This technology helps us contorl the enviroment.

Darth InSidious
03-21-2007, 05:27 AM
I dispute your definition of 'playing God'.

EnIgmA_XX
03-21-2007, 07:42 AM
Well, I don't happen to find this "playing God" bad. What these scientists are trying to do is eliminate malaria, and hopefully make the world a better place for it. The only possible problem would be that these new mosquitos affect the very fine balance in nature somehow, but otherwise I'm all for this.

JediMaster12
03-21-2007, 12:11 PM
I agree with Jae that we have been playing God from the get go with the development of our medical technology like the immunizations ecetera. I think what makes people tend to classify this differently is ethics. Yes ethics plays a big part in how we justify our actions. I think what really has people going into a funk is when scientists cross the line involving humans like cloning and embryonic stem cell research. There are also some of the religious reasons coming from Christian conservatives but that is a different topic.
The production of these mosquitoes throughly puts into perspection our ethics. We know we have the technology to create these new and wonderful things and heck we can even create life in the form of a new species like these mosquitoes. The real question is to stop and think if we should. Nature has its own way of doing things and maybe we should step back and let it take its course.

Jae Onasi
03-21-2007, 12:44 PM
I do think we need to be extraordinarily careful about what we do--we're playing on a new field, now, and there have been times we've royally screwed up because we didn't anticipate potential bad outcomes adequately or just because the experiment failed catastrophically.

HK-42
03-21-2007, 04:20 PM
So if mosquitos go extict, drangon flies and other bugs that eat them will go extinct. And things that eat those bugs could go extinct, and so on.

SilentScope001
03-21-2007, 05:23 PM
I dispute your definition of 'playing God'.

Playing God: the act of impersonanting a diety (in this case God) by ursuping or legimtenatnly taking up the roles that is traditonally assigned to that diety. For example, creating mosqituos with the expressed purpose of changing the enviroment and removing malaria would count as playing God, as you are impersonating a diety and his role of changing the enviroment.

I do think we need to be extraordinarily careful about what we do--we're playing on a new field, now, and there have been times we've royally screwed up because we didn't anticipate potential bad outcomes adequately or just because the experiment failed catastrophically.

Like the Indurstial Revolution accidently created CO2 that starts up the whole global warming crisis?

Don't worry. We'll invent new technologies to deal with the bad outcomes. :)

Darth InSidious
03-21-2007, 05:49 PM
Actually, the industrial revolution did not 'create' CO2. It simply generated a hell of a lot more than there already was.

Trex
03-21-2007, 07:16 PM
Actually, the industrial revolution did not 'create' CO2. It simply generated a hell of a lot more than there already was.

Well said. I would even go so far as to comment that it is an integral part of our atmosphere. It's just having too much of it that causes the problems.

As for interference with nature's/God's design of what we should be doing, I've always regarded it as something of a grey area. Does a beaver building a damn cross this line, diverting the natural course for a river? Where is the limit?
By comparison, where do we draw the line at interference with the natural order? Where is the limit? Is our true affinity with the natural way only when living in caves?

Personally, when we start raising the dead a la Frankenstein's monster, then I'll start worrying.

Samuel Dravis
03-21-2007, 08:00 PM
I don't consider that which is 'natural' necessarily good. If elimination of the scourge of malaria means we use measures unknown thousands of years ago, then I really could care less. We do that all the time. Sure, I am afraid of what nano- and biotech could possibly do, but that simply means we need to be very careful. "With great power comes great responsibility." - Spider-man. :p

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

It may be indistinguishable from a God's handiwork to some, but it's still just science. Nothing more-- and nothing less.

SilentScope001
03-22-2007, 12:24 AM
Actually, the industrial revolution did not 'create' CO2. It simply generated a hell of a lot more than there already was.

My bad, but it did help produce a lot of CO2, which is pretty bad for the enviroment, what with global warming and smog and pollution and allegeries and such.

I don't consider that which is 'natural' necessarily good. If elimination of the scourge of malaria means we use measures unknown thousands of years ago, then I really could care less.

Well, I think one could be quite worried of "overpopulation", altough this issue can be brought about with all forms of health care. "Why bother treating these people, making them live longer, using up more resources and food, destroying the enviroment, letting more wars be fought?"

I also dislike this feeling thinking that fixing nature is going to make us 'better'. It merely transfers responsiblity of our ecosystem from Nature to Human Beings. If we takes contorl of our ecosystem, and in extension, our evolution, then any mistake that happens...is OUR fault. Before, if a malaria outbreak occurs, it's all Nature's fault and we can curse it end on end. But now, if there is a diease outbreak, or if animals go excinit, or if something terrible happens, it's now our fault, and we have to curse ourselves.

Yeah, nature may not be "good". But, it at least works. Remember, nature was responsible for evolution, who did select traits that is suited for us. If we are willing to take contorl of our own destinty, let us at least do more research and get prepared for more responsiblity.

Another thing I fear: Suppose we create a perfect world, with perfect everything. No malraia, no diease, no nothing. So, basically, nobody has the gene that protects it against malraia, or any drugs to protect against Malraia. And then, somehow, terrorists, aliens, or a freak occurance...brings malraia back. The result: Everyone dies. We have gotten rid of the natural selection process, so we all are living perfectly in an enviroment that we have created...but what if we lose the ability to create the enviroment? What if some external forces come in, disrupt our process, and ends up destroying all of humanity. Prehaps, had we NOT tried to get rid of malraia, we would have lived, but since we did, we ironically written our own death certificate.

But: I am a big, big fan of Playing God, but I do realize that there are bad side-effects with any new technologies. There can be something that will be bad...and technology can't solve everything, like say, that overpopulation problem that will result, with more people living.

lukeiamyourdad
03-22-2007, 02:51 AM
Personally, when we start raising the dead a la Frankenstein's monster, then I'll start worrying.

You should start to worry. I'm perfecting a method to create zombies and mind control them to do my bidding. The world shall soon know my wrath!


Another thing I fear: Suppose we create a perfect world, with perfect everything. No malraia, no diease, no nothing. So, basically, nobody has the gene that protects it against malraia, or any drugs to protect against Malraia. And then, somehow, terrorists, aliens, or a freak occurance...brings malraia back. The result: Everyone dies. We have gotten rid of the natural selection process, so we all are living perfectly in an enviroment that we have created...but what if we lose the ability to create the enviroment? What if some external forces come in, disrupt our process, and ends up destroying all of humanity. Prehaps, had we NOT tried to get rid of malraia, we would have lived, but since we did, we ironically written our own death certificate.

I assume that you mean that evolution eventually gets rid of our bodies' ability to defend itself against bacterial and virus threats because there is no such thing. If aliens are capable of reintroducing an inexistent virus or bacteria, they can destroy us through other means. I also assume that since there is no disease and that it's a perfect world, there's no conflict among humans either, so no terrorists, only aliens. The thing is, if we consider that everything we do can have a bad result (which we should), there would be no scientific progress. I understand that we must be mindful of our actions, as it sends echoes (ahem) into the future and that our actions have consequences but there's no way to predict the future, especially as far as that. If the world is destroyed because I squashed a bug that contains a secret that could save us in 300 years, then the world is destroyed. That's it.

Vaelastraz
03-22-2007, 12:24 PM
If our genes had no resistance against Malaria and someone releases Malaria in that perfect world, yes, most people would probably die.

Most people. There would most likely be people who still have a natural resistance. Those few people would not die, and humans survive...

I don't mind if we cross some imaginary border with gene bio and nano technology. It is obvious that we have to take great care, but just because something is dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

JediMaster12
03-22-2007, 12:28 PM
There still would have to be some sort of set of rules and regulations that would keep things from getting out of hand. Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should. You have to consider all the possibilities before coming to the decision to mess around with stuff like that. I'm all for scientific achievements but I do believe that there should be some limits to it. We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things.We do have to have some limitations.

Achilles
03-22-2007, 02:04 PM
We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things. Could you please clarify what that means?

If our genes had no resistance against Malaria and someone releases Malaria in that perfect world, yes, most people would probably die. I haven't seen much of it in the news lately, but a few years ago, there was a great deal of concern surrounding small pox. After we erradicated it, we stopped immunizing for it. Apparently someone realized that there was a potential terrorist threat for small pox and the U.S. gov't was on the fence re: immunizing emergency workers, the military, etc. Immunizing for small pox could potentially reintroduce it while not immunizing for it left everyone susceptable.

The more diseases we erradicate, the more potential for this form of warfare exists. This is not an argument for not erradicating malaria, but rather for caution.

jonathan7
03-22-2007, 02:12 PM
I'm back!!!! Had loads of Uni work hence you not seeing me around here much! (I promise Achilles I will eventually post that reply to you in the ethics and religion thread... I haven't forgotten bro!)

I don't think getting rid of mosquito's is really playing God. From a Christian point of view God to give us control of the world as its head, so I would argue the above if succesful will be great and will save the lives of millions of under 5's in Africa! On stem cell's I personally think stem cell research is very important for curing diseases in the future. My Dad who is a Doctor and Christian thinks stem cell research is extremley important (he is however completely against abortion) and is delighted that in the USA the extremist Christians there have currently got it outlawed as it means us Brits can do the research there and then sell the Americans what we've done, helping our NHS :p

I haven't seen much of it in the news lately, but a few years ago, there was a great deal of concern surrounding small pox. After we erradicated it, we stopped immunizing for it. Apparently someone realized that there was a potential terrorist threat for small pox and the U.S. gov't was on the fence re: immunizing emergency workers, the military, etc. Immunizing for small pox could potentially reintroduce it while not immunizing for it left everyone susceptable.

The more diseases we erradicate, the more potential for this form of warfare exists. This is not an argument for not erradicating malaria, but rather for caution.

Malaria is the biggest killer of under 5's in Africa. So although I understand your concern, I think we have got to try to do something to stop it.

Achilles
03-22-2007, 02:19 PM
I'm back!!!! Had loads of Uni work hence you not seeing me around here much! (I promise Achilles I will eventually post that reply to you in the ethics and religion thread... I haven't forgotten bro!) No worries. Studies come first (now if I could only practice what I preach in that regard :xp: )

My Dad who is a Doctor and Christian thinks stem cell research is extremley important (he is however completely against abortion) and is delighted that in the USA the extremist Christians there have currently got it outlawed as it means us Brits can do the research there and then sell the Americans what we've done, helping our NHS :p Yep.
Some argue that allowing adult stem cell research has kept us in the game, however these people don't seem to recognize that we've forced ourselves into the rear position in the world medical community. Look forward to Americans having to buy medicine from Singapore for the rest of their lives. :D

JediMaster12
03-22-2007, 02:34 PM
Could you please clarify what that means?
I was referring to the attacks made by the religious conservatives and those that aren't even for religious purposes.

Achilles
03-22-2007, 03:33 PM
I'm having a hard time associating your response with the question:

We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things.
<snip>
I was referring to the attacks made by the religious conservatives and those that aren't even for religious purposes.
You original statement invoked the general public, while your follow-up specified conservatives. I'm still a little lost.

ALIEN_JL
03-23-2007, 05:10 PM
We have just played God! We managed to create mosquitos that are resistant to a formto a mouse strain of malaria...

I don't think we made those damn blood suckers appear from thin air in
any miraculous and godly fashion or anything like that...

I am sure we did that creating within and according to all the laws and
boundaries of this "god's creation" by modifying some existing creatures.
Nothing miraculous and or divine there...

So how is that "playing god" ? (And what god ? Is there such thing ?)

JediMaster12
03-26-2007, 02:50 PM
Achilles, you have a good mind. I thought it would be easy to see that while I generally specified a general public, the ones that stand out the most are the religious conservatives. There are even people who are atheist that do think that there should be limits on what we do in science like gentics and the like. I have no specific names of people but I have come across comments and people who voice similar opinions.

Achilles
03-26-2007, 09:08 PM
Hi,

I think we may have missed each other at some point. Let me go back for a second and reframe the question:

You said, "We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things."

What does this mean? Where has the general public "gone" with stem cells and cloning things? You were discussing limits and then said the above, so my question is: What limits (real or implied) have been surpassed (encroached upon, threatened, etc) by the general public?

My apologies for not being clearer earlier.

Emperor Devon
03-26-2007, 09:46 PM
Personally I don't see what's wrong with man acting like or defying God in the first place. If he is worthy of such recognition I fail to see the problem.

Achilles
03-26-2007, 10:06 PM
I think there are some philosophical and psychological implications that must be considered in such an argument:

If God does not exist and humankind is the master of its own destiny, then I think it's only responsible of us to carry out our stewardship soberly and with great consideration. Someone with this mind set probably isn't much of a threat.

On the other hand, belief in God would put such a person in direct competition with The Divine. Such a view would smack of delusion and hubris and such a person isn't likely to be responsible, sober, considerate, or slightly interested in good stewardship.

Suffice it to say, I think it matters a great deal :D

Dagobahn Eagle
04-11-2007, 10:15 PM
I know that. What I meant is that we were playing God, as in, we were modifiying God's creation of the enviorment, by creating new animals to help modify the enviroment.SilentScope, meet the dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog);). Dog, meet SilentScope. We've been creating species for an eternity. Nothing new there.

We've also been controlling our environment for an eternity.

Playing God: the act of impersonanting a diety (in this case God) by ursuping or legimtenatnly taking up the roles that is traditonally assigned to that diety. For example, creating mosqituos with the expressed purpose of changing the enviroment and removing malaria would count as playing God, as you are impersonating a diety and his role of changing the enviroment.I see this as nothing but mythological belief standing in the way of progress (although SC did not mean it as criticism). What if I believe in Thor, and thus actively oppose the building and maintaining of power plants because I believe only Thor and his hammer should have the ability to create electricity (lightning bolts)?

I don't consider that which is 'natural' necessarily good.Of course it isn't. Empathy is natural and is all good. Rape is natural, and is horrific.

Yeah, nature may not be "good". But, it at least works.It 'works' at the cost of millions of rapes, killings, neglections and other evils. The wild, to many, is not a very cozy place to be.

OK, my opinion: To be frank, I think that the only reason people are opposed to this is that genetic engineering is new and controversial. If these new mosquitoes were bred the old-fashioned way it'd be perfectly OK, but when we do it by means of genetic technology, then suddenly it's not only wrong to alter species, but also to cure the disease in the first place.

Several diseases have been eradicated already, with no one complaining. Should we re-introduce smallpox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox) into society, because there's an odd chance it might be used as a biological weapon if the samples kept in laboratories are released into the public? Should we stop our efforts to cure AIDS and cancer? Should we seize our efforts to spread proper nfluenza treatments to the third world? Of course not.

It's not 'playing God' to create new species and curing diseases. Both have been happening for just about an eternity, although our methods have been changing many a time, often for the better.

Achilles
04-11-2007, 10:28 PM
I see this as nothing but mythological belief standing in the way of progress (although SC did not mean it as criticism). What if I believe in Thor, and thus actively oppose the building and maintaining of power plants because I believe only Thor and his hammer should have the ability to create electricity (lightning bolts)? Maybe I'll convert to Greek paganism, join a Zeus mystery cult, and engage you in holy war :D

OK, my opinion: To be frank, I think that the only reason people are opposed to this is that genetic engineering is new and controversial. If these new mosquitoes were bred the old-fashioned way it'd be perfectly OK, but when we do it by means of genetic technology, then suddenly it's not only wrong to alter species, but also to cure the disease in the first place. I think it's wise to be cautious about new technology. However, arbitrarily standing in the way of progress is not the same thing as being cautious. I think you would agree, yes?

lukeiamyourdad
04-11-2007, 11:36 PM
Maybe I'll convert to Greek paganism, join a Zeus mystery cult, and engage you in holy war :D


Do I smell a Black & White 2 confrontation? :D

AJL
04-12-2007, 01:00 AM
If God does not exist and humankind is the master of its own destiny, then I think it's only responsible of us to carry out our stewardship soberly and with great consideration. Someone with this mind set probably isn't much of a threat.

On the other hand, belief in God would put such a person in direct competition with The Divine. Such a view would smack of delusion and hubris and such a person isn't likely to be responsible, sober, considerate, or slightly interested in good stewardship.

Everything that happens, happens and can't happen any other way...

IF God do exist and he is omnipotent and creator of all things then of
course everything that happens is his will... Everything WE DO is his
will... (good and bad) One can't do against god...

Achilles
04-12-2007, 01:26 AM
Everything that happens, happens and can't happen any other way... What is your opinion based on? What evidence supports it? Do a Google search for "quantum mechanics" (specifically relating to the Uncertainty principle) before you respond :D

IF God do exist and he is omnipotent and creator of all things then of course everything that happens is his will... Everything WE DO is his
will... (good and bad) One can't do against god... So god wills some of us to be sinful? If he knows ahead of time which of us are wicked, then what's the point of having us here? The whole idea of god breaks down without free will.

I do agree though that this poses a problem for the case of god's omnipotence and omniscience. So choose your poison: Either god is all knowing and all powerful and cruelly damns some of us arbitrarily (making him not much of a god), or he is notall knowing and all powerful (and therefore isn't much of a god) which means we better start looking for some other explanation for the origin of the universe.

@lukeiamyourdad: Can't let the abrahamic religions have all the fun :)

JediMaster12
04-12-2007, 10:34 PM
Hi,

I think we may have missed each other at some point. Let me go back for a second and reframe the question:

You said, "We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things."

What does this mean? Where has the general public "gone" with stem cells and cloning things? You were discussing limits and then said the above, so my question is: What limits (real or implied) have been surpassed (encroached upon, threatened, etc) by the general public?

My apologies for not being clearer earlier.
What I was brushing upon was more or less the moral issue which is something that should probably be discussed elsewhere. With the stem cells and research, there are people who are for it but with limitations to it. With cloning, my mother thinks why not clone a whole organ for use rather than a whole human being? I admit it didn't make sense to me at first but I think she was getting at the idea of cloning individual organs for transplants without having to go through the whole process of cloning a human. She is for science but she thinks there should be limitations. The limits I speak of could be considered the moral limits. Even people without faith have them and I won't get into a discussion about that. I hope this clears it up some.

Achilles
04-12-2007, 10:56 PM
I'm still not sure that my question has been answered.

The tone of your post (#16) very clearly came across as though you felt society had already crossed some line with stem cells and cloning.

As far as I know, no human has been cloned and the federal government has taken the appropriate steps to stymie ESC research (I'm assuming that you meant embryonic stem cells in your earlier post. Please correct me if I am wrong). So, again, I'm not sure what line has been crossed.

Jae Onasi
04-17-2007, 10:02 PM
Couldn't resist posting this Dave Barry article (http://www.miamiherald.com/283/story/39189.html) since it talks about playing God....

Night of the living roach
By DAVE BARRY

(This classic Dave Barry column was originally published July 9, 1995.)

Today I wish to present further evidence that the scientific community has completely lost its mind.

Exhibit A is an article that appeared recently on the front page of The New York Times (motto: ``Even We Don't Read The Whole Thing''). The article concerns a scientist named Dr. Raul J. Cano, who got hold of a bee that died 30 million years ago and was preserved in amber. Now here is the difference between a scientist and a sane lay person such as yourself: If YOU came across a bee that had been dead for 30 million years, your natural, common-sense reaction would be to stomp on it, just in case, then maybe use it as part of a prank involving a salad bar. But that was not Dr. Cano's scientific reaction. His reaction-and remember, this story comes from The New York Times, which never makes anything up-was to extract some really old dead germs from the bee's stomach AND BRING THEM BACK TO LIFE.

Yes. Does this make ANY sense to you? I mean, don't we already have ENOUGH live germs in this world, causing disease, B.O. and really implausible movies starring Dustin Hoffman? Do we lay persons not spend billions of dollars per year on antibiotics, Listerine, Right Guard and Ty-D-Bol for the specific purpose of KILLING germs?

According to The Times, the scientific community is all excited about Dr. Cano's revived bee-stomach germs. Apparently the scientific community has never seen ''The Mummy,'' ''Frankenstein,'' ''Night of the Living Dead Bacteria'' or any of the numerous other reputable motion pictures depicting the bad things that inevitably happen when some fool brings a dead organism back to life. You wait. One of these nights, Dr. Cano's germs are going to escape from their petri dishes and start creeping forward, zombie-like, with their little bacterial arms sticking straight out in front of them, and heaven help the laboratory security guard who stands in their way. (''What's wrong, Bob?'' ``I don't know! I have the weirdest feeling something's trying to eat my toe!'')

At this point you are saying, ``OK, so this one scientist is perhaps a few ice cubes short of a tray. But he's probably just an isolated example.''

You wish. I have here another New York Times story, sent in by many alert readers, concerning scientists who have figured out how to -- get ready -- GROW EXTRA EYES ON FLIES. Yes. The story states that, by messing around with genes, the scientists have produced flies with ''as many as 14 eyes apiece'' in various locations -- ``on their wings, on their legs, on the tips of their antennae.''

On behalf of normal humans everywhere, let me just say: Great! Just what we need! Flies that can see EVEN BETTER! As I write these words, I am unwillingly sharing my lunch with a regular, non-improved fly, which is having no trouble whatsoever seeing well enough to keep an eye on me while it walks around on my peanut-butter sandwich. Whenever I try to whap it, the fly instantly zooms out of reach, buzzing its wings to communicate, in fly language, the concept of ``neener neener.''

Not that it would do me any good to kill it; Dr. Raul J. Cano would probably just bring it back to life.

Speaking of insects, I have here a column from the spring issue of American Entomologist magazine, sent in by alert reader Jackie Simons and written by May Berenbaum, who discusses a University of Illinois entomology professor who has -- you are not going to believe this, but I'm going to tell you anyway -- ``pioneered the design and use of artificial limbs for cockroaches.''

Naturally, I had to call this professor, whose name is Fred Delcomyn. He freely admitted to me that he has, indeed, fitted cockroaches with tiny artificial limbs made from toothpicks. He's trying to figure out exactly how cockroaches move -- in stark contrast to us normal, non-scientist, sane people, who would like to figure out exactly how to make cockroaches STOP moving, so we could hit them with hammers.

But here's the truly alarming thing: Delcomyn, as part of his research, wants to BUILD A ROBOT COCKROACH. In fact, he has already built one that's a foot-and-a-half long (''not too big, compared to your Florida roaches,'' he noted, correctly). But his plan is to build a bigger one, a robot cockroach that will be FOUR FEET LONG.

When will these scientists ever learn? We know what's going to happen! We've seen this movie! Everything will be fine at first, with the robot roach doing exactly what the scientists want it to. But then one night, after the scientists have left the laboratory, there will be a lightning storm, and extra electricity will flow into the roach, and it will COME TO LIFE ON ITS OWN -- FrankenRoach! -- and escape and terrorize the community, smashing its way into supermarkets, skittering past terrified, screaming shoppers, seizing entire display racks of Hostess Twinkies.

Oh sure, eventually the Army will come up with a way to stop it, possibly by constructing a 50-foot-tall can of Raid. But do we really want to put ourselves through this? Why must scientists continue to mess with the natural order of things? Why do we need to create giant cockroaches? We already have the O.J. Simpson defense team! If you are as concerned about these issues as I am, I urge you to take action TODAY in the form of doubling your medication dosage. Also you are welcome to this sandwich.