Genetics doomsday

[sproggy]

I couldn't disagree more. It will result in many failed experiments, but that's the nature of experiment. Science is the highest form of the educated guess at times. However it does get it right in the long run.

The atom and nuclear fission?

Your argument about Nature's way is pseudo-hippy gibberish however. Nature doesn't make any assessment or provide 'positive feedback'. There is no "nature's way". There is a system, and within that system biological entities either suceed or fail on the merits of their capability to survive (by sustaining their existance and reproducing) within the current state of that system. Romanticising nature is no better than believeing in God.

Well, you have successfully achieved a monumental contradiction within a single sentence. Positive feedback is evident through humanity's increased ability to provide immunity against disease, negative feedback is shown through in-breeding, of which genetic engineering is a modern and extreme example.

P.S. What's God got to do with the price of eggs?

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

The atom and nuclear fission?

Sorry, how has science got that "wrong"? I'm utterly lost on what your point is.

Well, you have successfully achieved a monumental contradiction within a single sentence. Positive feedback is evident through humanity's increased ability to provide immunity against disease, negative feedback is shown through in-breeding, of which genetic engineering is a modern and extreme example.

That's not strictly 'feedback' in the sense of an input to the system, or in the context you particularly were quoting which implied nature was an entity providing that feedback, which is what my real bone of contention is. (Otherwise I think we are simply arguing our definition of the term feedback).

P.S. What's God got to do with the price of eggs?

Everything, if the eggs are human and you're a religious type against cloning stem cells. ;)

I do enjoy debating science, it's great.

[sproggy]

The atom and nuclear fission?

Sorry, how has science got that "wrong"? I'm utterly lost on what your point is.

We've hardly begun to understand what the atom is, yet scientists have decided to rip it apart (and mutate it) as a potential source on energy.  It would appear we (humans) have jumped in blindly without truly understanding the implications of our actions.  This is easily transposed to genetic manipulation.

That's not strictly 'feedback' in the sense of an input to the system, or in the context you particularly were quoting which implied nature was an entity providing that feedback, which is what my real bone of contention is. (Otherwise I think we are simply arguing our definition of the term feedback).

I was quoting 'feedback' in it's purest sense.  If humans are dying of Malaria, Aids, Cancer, starvation and TB then it is nature's way of controlling the population.  To select a foetus on the grounds of it's susceptibility to these diseases, without knowing how it may 'perform' in the real world, is pre-empting the natural course of action.

I have no qualms with applying science to the treatment of these diseases, it gives everyone a chance to overcome them, it's the fact that some people feel the need to cleanse society of imperfections I have a problem with.

Everything, if the eggs are human and you're a religious type against cloning stem cells. ;)

Eggs is Eggs.  This is a grey area.  At which point does a human egg become a living entity?  If they have been donated freely, to be used for stem cell research or development, I don't see the problem.  The fact that stem cells can evolve into any type of human cell would suggest the foetus has not become a person yet.

[Rats]

On balance, most depressives are just very unhappy people for no better reason than a chemical imbalance. I think we can live without it. Art can and will come from other drives.

You don't seem to be grasping what I'm saying here. Depression was just an example. I'm talking about ironing out all the flaws. I don't like this cold "chemical imbalance" drivel, you can say a flowers just a stick with a wobbly bit on the end but it doesn't change anything.

Romanticising nature is no better than believeing in God.

Having blind faith in science alone and rejecting all other possibilities is "no better than believing in god". I don't like people like you (sticks out tongue)

Anyway I'm off to drink beer.

[Bogey]

It annoys me a bit when people talk about the error of having blind faith in science, and I'm not entirely sure what they mean.  Indeed, it could be taken as an oxymoron.
If they take it to mean that because science has told us something is possible then that gives us carte blanche to do with it as we wish (such as making nuclear bombs), then that's a great mistake.
Science is, by nature, amoral. So it's up to us to make the best use of it, but you must never speak ill of it simply because of the recklessness of individuals.
This isn't to say that scientists should think of themselves as "morally immune" of course.

I think the trouble is, people are still wont to think of science as some sort of an "optional" way of viewing the world, something to which you can choose to subscribe if you so wish, or indeed as a rival to art and religion and such and that is simply not the case.

And let's not get all Keatsian about destroying the mysteries and magic of nature. That's awfully silly.

But here's another one that'll displease the romantics. (Or, possibly interest them; it is actually a fascinating article.)

[Rats]

That's not news, mr spock was saying it years ago.
Science is just a way for us to understand and manipulate our reality. Reality as we see it. Science doesn't have all the answers. So falling in love is just a chemical reaction in the brain. It's like saying a poem is just a row of lines of text.

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

Don't worry once we  become identically super beautiful there will be fads for ugliness and of course always attempts to create some form of individuality. I'm well ahead of the game, I've got a disfiguring scar across my face. next season they say it's the bulbous nose.

Really naysayers are probably thinking of rather extreme examples. If we allow pretty obviously universally applicable Genetic modification - like no disfigurement or disability, I don't see how we can go wrong (apart from some mysterious weird long term effect or whatever) I don't see what could be wrong with that.

[european son]

I think the trouble is, people are still wont to think of science as some sort of an "optional" way of viewing the world, something to which you can choose to subscribe if you so wish, or indeed as a rival to art and religion and such and that is simply not the case.

you're making it sound like the view outlined there is that of the fundamentalist or stupid, but its not. lots of very intelligent and influential philosophers have discussed the various merits of how one sees science. Kuhn would say that the way science is today is an optional and arbitrary way of seeing the world, open to paragdimatic change due to non-empirical factors.

a belief in antirealism in any form doesn't mean you're stupid.

science is some sort of an "optional" way of viewing the world, something to which you can choose to subscribe if you so wish. i'm not saying that that's simply the case, but there is an ongoing debate about this, and the way you've presented the argument is as dogmatic as your detractors claim.

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

I tihnk you're focusing on a point that's slightly to the side of the one being made. It's hard to deny the existence of scientific phenomena. I'm not sure anyone does. Anyway I believe it's generally an argument about domains of science and oother view points rather than whether you want to subscribe to tehm or not.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

We've hardly begun to understand what the atom is, yet scientists have decided to rip it apart (and mutate it) as a potential source on energy.  It would appear we (humans) have jumped in blindly without truly understanding the implications of our actions.  This is easily transposed to genetic manipulation.

Sorry, this is just more Hippy Bullshit. Two hundred years ago we barely knew of the existence of bacteria & viruses, and now we wipe them out wholesale with pills and vaccines, but you seem quite happy with that. Likewise a thousand years ago we thought space was a lit up curtain and the earth was flat. Now we have sattellites and deep space probes. The atom or genetics are just two new unknowns which we are exploring.

To select a foetus on the grounds of it's susceptibility to these diseases, without knowing how it may 'perform' in the real world, is pre-empting the natural course of action.

It depends on your perception of the "natural" course of action. You seem to think 'natures way' (koff koff) is to weed out the weaklings. I would suggest the organism capable of seeing stuff like this coming and stopping it before it happens is the more likely to survive in the system. Therefore by your definition, nature has acted.

The example you quoted (disease immunity) is however misplaced. Such things are not strongly genetic, an immune system is based on the body's immune system 'learning' by contact with foreign entities. Genetic alteration would prevent fundamental defects, such as Down's syndrome, congenital blindness etc. It will be, I suspect, very hard to specify a pretty nose. Eye colour maybe, sex certainly - but some of the more abstract attributes are going to take a lot of work.

Eggs is Eggs.  This is a grey area.

Whoah yeah, and that's a different tread, I feel.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

You don't seem to be grasping what I'm saying here. Depression was just an example. I'm talking about ironing out all the flaws. I don't like this cold "chemical imbalance" drivel, you can say a flowers just a stick with a wobbly bit on the end but it doesn't change anything.

Depression and art is a side issue. I'm sure most depressives, when faced with achoice between no more bad poetry and no more depression, would choose no more depression. The human being shies away from suffering.

Having blind faith in science alone and rejecting all other possibilities is "no better than believing in god". I don't like people like you (sticks out tongue)

Stop trolling, Rats.

[Rats]

Well David Lynch was told to see a therapist for paranoia and so on and the first thing he asked was "Could any of this therapy have an effect on my work?"
and the therapist said yes it could so David Lynch said he'd rather not and walked out and never came back. What a guy, if I was him, I would do exactly the same thing so I think you're wrong to suppose that everyone thinks like you and has the same priorities as you do. I don't think this is a side issue at all, this is the issue that I brought up in the first place, this is what I think is important and it's you lot who have been going off the rails talking about religion and good looking kids you perverts. You didn't hear me complaining did you? I'm happy to go wherever the conversation leads us. Even if I am just sitting in the corner looking confused.

[sproggy]

The example you quoted (disease immunity) is however misplaced. Such things are not strongly genetic, an immune system is based on the body's immune system 'learning' by contact with foreign entities.

How then do you explain why some people are 'immune' to HIV and Aids?  I doubt it is due to acquiring immunity through exposure to the virus.  Their bodies are built in such a way as to not react to it.

Sorry, this is just more Hippy Bullshit. Two hundred years ago we barely knew of the existence of bacteria & viruses, and now we wipe them out wholesale with pills and vaccines, but you seem quite happy with that. Likewise a thousand years ago we thought space was a lit up curtain and the earth was flat. Now we have sattellites and deep space probes. The atom or genetics are just two new unknowns which we are exploring.

Yes but it is widely appreciated we are losing the battle.  New super bugs are given the chance to evolve when standard bugs are being killed through widespread use of antibiotics.  Our reliance on these new super drugs is in itself weakening the body's ability to defend itself against infection, which in turn effects the health of offspring.  The only people to benefit are the pharmaceutical companies making the drugs.

It depends on your perception of the "natural" course of action. You seem to think 'natures way' (koff koff) is to weed out the weaklings. I would suggest the organism capable of seeing stuff like this coming and stopping it before it happens is the more likely to survive in the system. Therefore by your definition, nature has acted.

Yes it has acted, but probably in a detrimental way.  If a foetus has been genetically altered to survive an otherwise fatal or debilitating medical condition, how are we to know the unforeseen effects this may have on future generations of this child?  Genetic manipulation may only be masking a much deeper problem,

When push come to shove, I believe reproduction is a privilege not a right.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

How then do you explain why some people are 'immune' to HIV and Aids?  I doubt it is due to acquiring immunity through exposure to the virus.  Their bodies are built in such a way as to not react to it.

I did add the caveat that the immune system is 'strongly' influenced by experience, not wholly. If I could answer the above question, I would - but nobody, as yet, has that answer. However you cannot rule out the possibility that their immunity is not inherited, but their immune systems 'experience' has encountered something similar to HIV which has allowed their immune system to defend against it.

Genes don't control everything in human development - humanity on the whole is now taller simply because of nutrition, for example. It is a mistake to think genetic manipulation is a panacea. It will result in a stronger human body, but not an invincible one.

Yes but it is widely appreciated we are losing the battle.  New super bugs are given the chance to evolve when standard bugs are being killed through widespread use of antibiotics.  Our reliance on these new super drugs is in itself weakening the body's ability to defend itself against infection, which in turn effects the health of offspring.  The only people to benefit are the pharmaceutical companies making the drugs.

That's a nice bit of sentiment there, but a bit dubious logically. I think that many people have had their life saved by antibiotics and the fact that we no longer have to fear smallpox, polio and tuberculosis is not solely for the benefit of big Pharma.

The (arguable) weaking of immune systems is more to do with an obsessive level of hygeine meaning that the 'learning' process is not having enough experience. Children need to live in filth and eat some dirt once in a hile, it's good for them in a roundabout way. Superbugs are an overplayed media phenomenon and poor diet is a bigger threat to health than MRSA. It's just MRSA when it gets nasty is more headline-worthy than being fat.

Overuse of drugs is a menace, and makes things difficult, I agree. BUt it's not as bad as it's made out.

Yes it has acted, but probably in a detrimental way.  If a foetus has been genetically altered to survive an otherwise fatal or debilitating medical condition, how are we to know the unforeseen effects this may have on future generations of this child?  Genetic manipulation may only be masking a much deeper problem.

Or more likely, it's just a duff gene that needs clearing out the system. You may want to argue this one out with Cerys.

When push come to shove, I believe reproduction is a privilege not a right.

Right, so after all your railing against genetic manipulation you are now invoking eugenics (i.e. selctive breeding) as a legitimate course of action?

[Mr Flunchy]

Aren't we as much a part of nature as any plant or animal?  It seems somewhat ridiculous to say the progression of human knowledge is against nature when it in fact it IS our nature as humans to develop technologies.  

Is it unnatural when a chimp uses a stick to get termites out of a mound?

[Rats]

but isn't it natural to have a conscience? Jiminy Cricket is a part of nature too and he knows what he's on about.

[sproggy]

When push come to shove, I believe reproduction is a privilege not a right.

Right, so after all your railing against genetic manipulation you are now invoking eugenics (i.e. selctive breeding) as a legitimate course of action?

I wasn't inferring anything of the sort.  To turn your reply on its head, it is more probable that genetic manipulation will encourage eugenics and selective breeding.  People with money and no conscience will elect to have a baby at any cost, preferably one that fits their own preferences.

This does node bode well for the long term genetic diversity of the human race.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

I wasn't inferring anything of the sort.

Loathe that I am to get my pedant hat on (winky), but if reproduction is a privilege, someone must control reproductive rights. By exercising choice in who does - or does not - get to breed,  you are ergo advocating some form of eugenics.

To turn your reply on its head, it is more probable that genetic manipulation will encourage eugenics and selective breeding.  People with money and no conscience will elect to have a baby at any cost, preferably one that fits their own preferences.

This does node bode well for the long term genetic diversity of the human race.

I would agree, in part. However the whims of fashion are sufficient that most people would be reluctant at conception to make a choice that may be unfashionable in 9 months - 18 years - time. I suspect parents (and particularly mothers) would be against selective breeding of this form.

However the long tern diversity may well eb enhanced - consider perhaps when we get offworld - there will be advantages to geneering so that the human body can adapt better to truly alien environments - such as being able to cope with lower oxygen levels, weaker gravity etc.

The beast that is raised is that genetic engineering will lead to a uniform society of clones - but can you honestly see the entire world agreeing on what the best form of human is? Most people can't even make their minds up on which god to believe in, if any - let alone what their children should look like.

[sproggy]

I wasn't inferring anything of the sort.

Loathe that I am to get my pedant hat on (winky), but if reproduction is a privilege, someone must control reproductive rights. By exercising choice in who does - or does not - get to breed,  you are ergo advocating some form of eugenics.

I'm rubbing my temples very hard and trying to see your perspective, I truly am.  But why do people seek someone to blame when it turns out they cannot bear children?  If their respective bodies were not designed to reproduce 'naturally' then why bust a gut and attempt it artificially, surely it takes away the whole purpose of reproduction.  The aspect of human genetic engineering I truly loath is the potential for people to select or reject foetuses on the basis of sex or genetic defect.  Deny it all you want but this will be the case, just as we all crave the nicest car or the best school for our children.


P.S. Your references to God have no bearing on my argument, I am not religious and wear the banner of agnostic proudly (until I am convinced otherwise of course)

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

I'm rubbing my temples very hard and trying to see your perspective, I truly am.

A Priviledge is a permission to do something that some entity grants you; a Right is something that you have because you exist. This is the definition i'm working from.

But why do people seek someone to blame when it turns out they cannot bear children?  If their respective bodies were not designed to reproduce 'naturally' then why bust a gut and attempt it artificially, surely it takes away the whole purpose of reproduction.  The aspect of human genetic engineering I truly loath is the potential for people to select or reject foetuses on the basis of sex or genetic defect.  Deny it all you want but this will be the case, just as we all crave the nicest car or the best school for our children.

Your argument baffles me. You argue against rejecting a foetus on the grounds of genetic defect, when by definition a defect is a flaw. Would you buy a car with a wheel missing? No. Why would you therefore opt to have a child with congenital blindess?

Selection on sex will balance out simply because if everyone starts choosing males, females will be in short supply and enter into demand, and vice versa. The 1:1 ratio has been struck over a long time with good reason; i.e. it is the best balance for our species to survive.

Why you brought up infertility I have no idea, but essentially, if people can't reproduce normally because of inherited fertility problems, no, they shouldn't reproduce because they will only propagate poor fertility, which is not good for the species.

P.S. Your references to God have no bearing on my argument, I am not religious and wear the banner of agnostic proudly (until I am convinced otherwise of course)

I'm only using god as a context to say that humanity is no more likely to agree on an ideal body form that it can what god to worship. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to my input to this (ratehr fun) discussion.

[Mecha Jesus - Mk II]

This is a truly superb debate. Big thumbs up to sproglette, IMD, Rats, and the rest. I can't contribute anything particularly worthy, but some excellent arguements/cross-examinations IMO. Has so far made me use Dictionary.com fer yer fancy words and the such, anyways.

One point though:

can you honestly see the entire world agreeing on what the best form of human is? Most people can't even make their minds up on which god to believe in, if any - let alone what their children should look like.

I do agree with you, but surely there won't be that many variations to the 'best' form of human. Most people'll want high IQ, good looks (i.e. hollywood, film stars), and the like. Obviously the changes will take a long time to affect the human race as a whole, but in the long term the problems will come when  society becomes, I suppose, a 'biological class system' with those with smaller budgets becoming limited on the improvements they can buy from the major corps for their unborn kiddies. A surreal view of this could be of those on Benefits saving up to spend on improving their foetus'. I personally agree with GM of humans, to an as-yet-unconfirmed point, but surely you agree that those with concerns about the societal problems that 'improvements' on the human body could create, have a point?

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

... surely there won't be that many variations to the 'best' form of human. Most people'll want high IQ, good looks (i.e. hollywood, film stars), and the like. Obviously the changes will take a long time to affect the human race as a whole, but in the long term the problems will come when  society becomes, I suppose, a 'biological class system' with those with smaller budgets becoming limited on the improvements they can buy from the major corps for their unborn kiddies. A surreal view of this could be of those on Benefits saving up to spend on improving their foetus'. I personally agree with GM of humans, to an as-yet-unconfirmed point, but surely you agree that those with concerns about the societal problems that 'improvements' on the human body could create, have a point?

Well this is a possibility, and seductive becaue it's a scary one and therefore raises alarms.

However you may well be able to buy the genetic treatment for your child - but there's no guarantee what your offspring will then do with those genes. They might breed some new super baby with a fellow modded person - or maybe just fuck the maid - lust and the heart drives people to do funny things.

As to the societal problems, I doubt they'll be much different to what we face now, with beautiful people having more success in life than those less attractive. If anything it'll be tougher for the beautiful people because there'll be more of them, and I think there's an upper limit to perceived sexual attractiveness.

Where problems will lie is with genetic discrimination - where people are refused access to jobs or life choices by virtue of their genes, a la Gattaca. This I think is the real problem humanity will face - and the problem is, as with eugenics - it does have a seductive logic to it. This scares me a whole lot more as it's an ethical rather than scientific issue, and thus the solution applied will be subjective, depending on the state of society at the time.

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

I magine two hicks who somehow raised enough cash that they were able to pretty much create their perfect child.

On the matter of rejecting foetaiiiiiiiiiiii (plural?) - bear in mind htere are a lot of religious folk who believe that such a thing would be murder.

It seems like people really are trying hard to think of the extremes

[european son]

foetaiiiiiiiiiiii (plural?)

fetuses

[Bogey]

Fetuses if you're yankified;

Fœtuses, if you're not.

[sproggy]

But why do people seek someone to blame when it turns out they cannot bear children?  If their respective bodies were not designed to reproduce 'naturally' then why bust a gut and attempt it artificially, surely it takes away the whole purpose of reproduction.  The aspect of human genetic engineering I truly loath is the potential for people to select or reject foetuses on the basis of sex or genetic defect.  Deny it all you want but this will be the case, just as we all crave the nicest car or the best school for our children.

Your argument baffles me. You argue against rejecting a foetus on the grounds of genetic defect, when by definition a defect is a flaw. Would you buy a car with a wheel missing? No. Why would you therefore opt to have a child with congenital blindess?

Ah Ha!  You fell right into my automobile metaphor trap.

Your assumption that a genetic defect is a 'flaw' is incorrect, Genetic defects are how the human race evolved and became so adaptable.  This reinforces my argument to resist tweaking the gene.

No I wouldn't buy a car with a missing wheel (unless it was a Robin Reliant) but by having a child a binding contract is drawn between two people (the biological parents) the end result of which is a child, for better or worse.  If during the gestation period, it is found the foetus may have the potential to develop a life threatening disability, then the parents have a difficult decision to make.  I am not anti-abortion, but I feel offering potential parents the option of a possible cure by genetic mucking about is dangerous.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

Ah Ha!  You fell right into my automobile metaphor trap.

Your assumption that a genetic defect is a 'flaw' is incorrect, Genetic defects are how the human race evolved and became so adaptable.  This reinforces my argument to resist tweaking the gene.

Th'dunk! Ouch. Did you have to build it so deep?

You're confusing mutations with defects. A mutation is an alteration to the existing gene sequence, and you're right, this is how evolution occurs to a certain extent.

However not all mutations are positive, some are (like blindness) clearly a step back. I don't see the problem with wiping out these mistakes and letting people carry on with a clean slate, so to speak.

[sproggy]

However not all mutations are positive, some are (like blindness) clearly a step back. I don't see the problem with wiping out these mistakes and letting people carry on with a clean slate, so to speak.

What about all the animal life that has managed to thrive in underground caves or deep in the the earth's oceans?  Good eyesight is practically useless where the sun don't shine.  I suspect animals which had a defective eye gene managed to survive better without light and henceforth outlived the other animals who relied on sight and kept bumping into things.

I still think we need to step back and take a look and the bigger picture.  It has taken life on earth hundreds of millions of years of evolution to reach the present state.  Why should we use knowledge that is only several years old to jeopardise all this accumulated goodness that is life on earth?

'Mankind' seems hell bent on fucking this planet up one way or the other, over-population is yet another problem we have to face.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

What about all the animal life that has managed to thrive in underground caves or deep in the the earth's oceans?  Good eyesight is practically useless where the sun don't shine.  I suspect animals which had a defective eye gene managed to survive better without light and henceforth outlived the other animals who relied on sight and kept bumping into things.

There's a world of difference between certain senses decreasing in importance in certain environments and outright failure of a sense.

Almost every creature has eyes, even in the blackest depths of the ocean. As sight is not important there, if their eyesight failed it would not be catastrophic for the organism. If a human's eyesight fails, it becomes difficult to survive - take away the support of society and a blind human will rapidly starve, fall to their death or be eaten.

For example, the appendix - if people had genes which stopped them growing an appendix, it wouldn't matter. Nobody seems to need one. However genes for MS which simply cause a debilitating medical condition are of no evolutionary advantage. To be shot of that set of genes is no big loss.

I still think we need to step back and take a look and the bigger picture.  It has taken life on earth hundreds of millions of years of evolution to reach the present state.  Why should we use knowledge that is only several years old to jeopardise all this accumulated goodness that is life on earth?

It's a big danger, but I think you underestimate the sort of rigorous testing that has to be carried out before stuff like this would get anywhere near people's bodies. Doomsday scenarios are unlikely.

'Mankind' seems hell bent on fucking this planet up one way or the other, over-population is yet another problem we have to face.

Overpopulation is less likely to be a problem now, most serious projections expect global population decline after about 2050. The most serious problem with population growth is feeding it, and that's a distribution rather than supply problem.

It's not all bad, you know. Trust your chap in a white coat, he's human too. Just a bit smarter than you.

[sproggy]

If a human's eyesight fails, it becomes difficult to survive - take away the support of society and a blind human will rapidly starve, fall to their death or be eaten.

I suspect that will be the case anyway if society withdrew support, irrespective of the guy being blind or not.  We seem to have lost our ability to support ourselves, could you imagine life without Tesco's, water on tap or central heating?

It's a big danger, but I think you underestimate the sort of rigorous testing that has to be carried out before stuff like this would get anywhere near people's bodies. Doomsday scenarios are unlikely.

I find it hard to believe there is anyone on this planet qualified to make such an assumption, do you?

Overpopulation is less likely to be a problem now, most serious projections expect global population decline after about 2050. The most serious problem with population growth is feeding it, and that's a distribution rather than supply problem.

Is this prediction based on peak oil reserves?  If so I suspect human population will do more than merely decline.

It's not all bad, you know. Trust your chap in a white coat, he's human too. Just a bit smarter than you.

Well, I count myself as a 'chap in a white coat' and I wouldn't trust half of those goons to predict a real catastrophe if it jumped up and poked them in the eye.