<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_02_1457254</id>
	<title>Japanese Creating "Super Tuna"</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246556460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>motherpusbucket writes <i>"The Telegraph reports that Japanese scientists hope to be <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/5720201/Japanese-scientists-to-breed-super-tuna.html">breeding a so-called 'Super Tuna'</a> within the next decade or so.  They have about 60\% of the genome mapped and expect to finish it in the next couple months.  The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>motherpusbucket writes " The Telegraph reports that Japanese scientists hope to be breeding a so-called 'Super Tuna ' within the next decade or so .
They have about 60 \ % of the genome mapped and expect to finish it in the next couple months .
The new breed will grow faster , taste good , have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>motherpusbucket writes "The Telegraph reports that Japanese scientists hope to be breeding a so-called 'Super Tuna' within the next decade or so.
They have about 60\% of the genome mapped and expect to finish it in the next couple months.
The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562061</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>MarkRose</author>
	<datestamp>1246564740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heroes in a half can! Tuna Power!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heroes in a half can !
Tuna Power !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heroes in a half can!
Tuna Power!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561389</id>
	<title>Re:Fish Overlords</title>
	<author>timlyg</author>
	<datestamp>1246562340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened to Gozillas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to Gozillas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to Gozillas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561189</id>
	<title>Re:Fish Overlords</title>
	<author>vishbar</author>
	<datestamp>1246561680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since this is Japan, we would need to be more worried about tentacles. Anything Japanese that has tentacles is bad, bad news for schoolgirls the world over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this is Japan , we would need to be more worried about tentacles .
Anything Japanese that has tentacles is bad , bad news for schoolgirls the world over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this is Japan, we would need to be more worried about tentacles.
Anything Japanese that has tentacles is bad, bad news for schoolgirls the world over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561829</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1246563840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.) True, and they should certainly consider escape into the wild a certainty.<br>
<br>
2.) Factual, but human-modified genes are no more inherently risky then natural mutations - just we do it faster.<br>
<br>
3.) Ah ha!  I've got you here - we'll just overfish this particular kind.  No limits, nothing.  Just give them some obvious mark for ease of sorting, and we'll have no problem hunting them to extinction if we must.<br>
<br>
Your closing paragraph is the worst.  It's wrong to improve our food per acre and food per hour of work?  So we should go back to hunter-gatherer where everyone spends every minute of their life getting food?  Because everything we've done since then from making farms to mechanical harvesters lets us get more food for more people with fewer resources.  I'm afraid your argument just doesn't hold water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) True , and they should certainly consider escape into the wild a certainty .
2. ) Factual , but human-modified genes are no more inherently risky then natural mutations - just we do it faster .
3. ) Ah ha !
I 've got you here - we 'll just overfish this particular kind .
No limits , nothing .
Just give them some obvious mark for ease of sorting , and we 'll have no problem hunting them to extinction if we must .
Your closing paragraph is the worst .
It 's wrong to improve our food per acre and food per hour of work ?
So we should go back to hunter-gatherer where everyone spends every minute of their life getting food ?
Because everything we 've done since then from making farms to mechanical harvesters lets us get more food for more people with fewer resources .
I 'm afraid your argument just does n't hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) True, and they should certainly consider escape into the wild a certainty.
2.) Factual, but human-modified genes are no more inherently risky then natural mutations - just we do it faster.
3.) Ah ha!
I've got you here - we'll just overfish this particular kind.
No limits, nothing.
Just give them some obvious mark for ease of sorting, and we'll have no problem hunting them to extinction if we must.
Your closing paragraph is the worst.
It's wrong to improve our food per acre and food per hour of work?
So we should go back to hunter-gatherer where everyone spends every minute of their life getting food?
Because everything we've done since then from making farms to mechanical harvesters lets us get more food for more people with fewer resources.
I'm afraid your argument just doesn't hold water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579649</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246717920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you really think that we can be better than millions of years of evolution, in just some years of science?</p><p>Come ON!</p><p>The only ones this "product" (I refuse to call it a lifeform) be "better" for, is "owners" that it will be making money for.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...if that is your definition of "better"...<br>Because in the long run, they will be just as fucked from the consequences as we are.</p><p>For a small view on the tip of the iceberg of the consequences, I give you just one sentence:<br>"Imbalance of food chains and the circles of life."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you really think that we can be better than millions of years of evolution , in just some years of science ? Come ON ! The only ones this " product " ( I refuse to call it a lifeform ) be " better " for , is " owners " that it will be making money for .
...if that is your definition of " better " ...Because in the long run , they will be just as fucked from the consequences as we are.For a small view on the tip of the iceberg of the consequences , I give you just one sentence : " Imbalance of food chains and the circles of life .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you really think that we can be better than millions of years of evolution, in just some years of science?Come ON!The only ones this "product" (I refuse to call it a lifeform) be "better" for, is "owners" that it will be making money for.
...if that is your definition of "better"...Because in the long run, they will be just as fucked from the consequences as we are.For a small view on the tip of the iceberg of the consequences, I give you just one sentence:"Imbalance of food chains and the circles of life.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560949</id>
	<title>Sorry Charlie...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a tunami!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a tunami !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a tunami!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564573</id>
	<title>Re:Tuna Porn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246530120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, you wanna see some pervasive examples of genetically modified porn? Try a florist's catalog. Flowers are, after all, just gonads; big fancy colorful gonads. What's more; they're not even meant to attract their own species, they'll attract birds, bugs, spiders, They'll take it from basically anyone; how kinky is that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , you wan na see some pervasive examples of genetically modified porn ?
Try a florist 's catalog .
Flowers are , after all , just gonads ; big fancy colorful gonads .
What 's more ; they 're not even meant to attract their own species , they 'll attract birds , bugs , spiders , They 'll take it from basically anyone ; how kinky is that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, you wanna see some pervasive examples of genetically modified porn?
Try a florist's catalog.
Flowers are, after all, just gonads; big fancy colorful gonads.
What's more; they're not even meant to attract their own species, they'll attract birds, bugs, spiders, They'll take it from basically anyone; how kinky is that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561725</id>
	<title>In Japan...</title>
	<author>thervey</author>
	<datestamp>1246563540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Japan, super tuna eat you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Japan , super tuna eat you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Japan, super tuna eat you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729</id>
	<title>We 3 Tuna</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one, welcome our new tuna overlords. <br> <br>

Lets face it, super food will eat you, besides is obligatory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one , welcome our new tuna overlords .
Lets face it , super food will eat you , besides is obligatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one, welcome our new tuna overlords.
Lets face it, super food will eat you, besides is obligatory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562987</id>
	<title>Jurassic Park</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246567440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jeff Goldblum, is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeff Goldblum , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeff Goldblum, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561131</id>
	<title>mo3 down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246561500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>first avoid going 1t just 0wnz.', ra8som for their</htmltext>
<tokenext>first avoid going 1t just 0wnz .
' , ra8som for their</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first avoid going 1t just 0wnz.
', ra8som for their</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561559</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1246562940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might solve an issue with Tuna being over fished but if these super tuna are extremely efficient, how does it adversely affect other fish populations? I sur ehope they don't plan on releasing this inot the wild. There are plenty of examples of human intervention in nature causing havoc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might solve an issue with Tuna being over fished but if these super tuna are extremely efficient , how does it adversely affect other fish populations ?
I sur ehope they do n't plan on releasing this inot the wild .
There are plenty of examples of human intervention in nature causing havoc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might solve an issue with Tuna being over fished but if these super tuna are extremely efficient, how does it adversely affect other fish populations?
I sur ehope they don't plan on releasing this inot the wild.
There are plenty of examples of human intervention in nature causing havoc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561295</id>
	<title>oblig.</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1246562040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop having a boring tuna. Stop having a boring life.</p><p>-- Vince 'Slap Chop' Offer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop having a boring tuna .
Stop having a boring life.-- Vince 'Slap Chop ' Offer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop having a boring tuna.
Stop having a boring life.-- Vince 'Slap Chop' Offer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561535</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1246562880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources.  This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term.  Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.  </p></div><p>Actually, one thing you overlook is that studies have repeatedly shown that as a population surpasses a certain level of wealth, population growth goes down. This mentality is an attempt to increase the net wealth of human population around the world, so while it will increase food production it will likely, also, reduce population growth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has : make more food for more people with fewer resources .
This is completely backwards , and will fail us in a devastating way long term .
Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth .
Actually , one thing you overlook is that studies have repeatedly shown that as a population surpasses a certain level of wealth , population growth goes down .
This mentality is an attempt to increase the net wealth of human population around the world , so while it will increase food production it will likely , also , reduce population growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources.
This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term.
Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.
Actually, one thing you overlook is that studies have repeatedly shown that as a population surpasses a certain level of wealth, population growth goes down.
This mentality is an attempt to increase the net wealth of human population around the world, so while it will increase food production it will likely, also, reduce population growth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579663</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246718040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, he always can take a bite out of your mom. There's enough for everyone (in the galaxy), and I'm sure he will be impressed by the terrible smell too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , he always can take a bite out of your mom .
There 's enough for everyone ( in the galaxy ) , and I 'm sure he will be impressed by the terrible smell too .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, he always can take a bite out of your mom.
There's enough for everyone (in the galaxy), and I'm sure he will be impressed by the terrible smell too.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561239</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1246561860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Food availability is the single most important factor that <b>keeps people from starving to death</b>.</p></div><p>FTFY.</p><p>If that's how you want to control the population, at least be honest about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Food availability is the single most important factor that keeps people from starving to death.FTFY.If that 's how you want to control the population , at least be honest about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Food availability is the single most important factor that keeps people from starving to death.FTFY.If that's how you want to control the population, at least be honest about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562301</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>uberdilligaff</author>
	<datestamp>1246565580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remarkably insightful and well said.  I marvel at how few people stop to consider that in fact, we are only a part of nature, and are just as likely to change our environment as any of the species who came before us.  Maybe that's as it should be.<br> <br>

I enjoy the many science shows on cable that track the monumental changes that have been documented in the Earth's environment, over and over again.  Recurring ice ages, tropical rain forests, migrating continents, reversing magnetic fields, myriad species evolution and extinction, mountains uplifted, oceans drained or dried up, volcanoes and meteors, oh my!  And yet, after all these massive changes, here we are.  We are the product of these same changes.<br> <br>

It is typical of newcomers to think that the neighborhood has to stay exactly as it was when they arrived even though they themselves changed it by moving in.   Mankind is a relative newcomer to the 'hood, and we have certainly changed it by moving in.  Many seem to think that the neighborhood must now cease changing, and that we have to preserve it exactly as we found it.  I like it the way I found it too, but I recognize that it will change, in part due to the actions of man, but much more due to the inexorable forces of nature.<br> <br>

The biggest single thing we as a sentient species could to to improve the place is to quit reproducing so vigorously.  Since that won't happen, we might as well enjoy the ride!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remarkably insightful and well said .
I marvel at how few people stop to consider that in fact , we are only a part of nature , and are just as likely to change our environment as any of the species who came before us .
Maybe that 's as it should be .
I enjoy the many science shows on cable that track the monumental changes that have been documented in the Earth 's environment , over and over again .
Recurring ice ages , tropical rain forests , migrating continents , reversing magnetic fields , myriad species evolution and extinction , mountains uplifted , oceans drained or dried up , volcanoes and meteors , oh my !
And yet , after all these massive changes , here we are .
We are the product of these same changes .
It is typical of newcomers to think that the neighborhood has to stay exactly as it was when they arrived even though they themselves changed it by moving in .
Mankind is a relative newcomer to the 'hood , and we have certainly changed it by moving in .
Many seem to think that the neighborhood must now cease changing , and that we have to preserve it exactly as we found it .
I like it the way I found it too , but I recognize that it will change , in part due to the actions of man , but much more due to the inexorable forces of nature .
The biggest single thing we as a sentient species could to to improve the place is to quit reproducing so vigorously .
Since that wo n't happen , we might as well enjoy the ride !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remarkably insightful and well said.
I marvel at how few people stop to consider that in fact, we are only a part of nature, and are just as likely to change our environment as any of the species who came before us.
Maybe that's as it should be.
I enjoy the many science shows on cable that track the monumental changes that have been documented in the Earth's environment, over and over again.
Recurring ice ages, tropical rain forests, migrating continents, reversing magnetic fields, myriad species evolution and extinction, mountains uplifted, oceans drained or dried up, volcanoes and meteors, oh my!
And yet, after all these massive changes, here we are.
We are the product of these same changes.
It is typical of newcomers to think that the neighborhood has to stay exactly as it was when they arrived even though they themselves changed it by moving in.
Mankind is a relative newcomer to the 'hood, and we have certainly changed it by moving in.
Many seem to think that the neighborhood must now cease changing, and that we have to preserve it exactly as we found it.
I like it the way I found it too, but I recognize that it will change, in part due to the actions of man, but much more due to the inexorable forces of nature.
The biggest single thing we as a sentient species could to to improve the place is to quit reproducing so vigorously.
Since that won't happen, we might as well enjoy the ride!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561561</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246562940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree.</p><p>Now, having said that, the size of fish (cod definitely, and I would assume tuna as well) has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies entirely and then moving down the chain.</p><p>I can't see any objection to reviving a subspecies that would have existed had sane fishing practices existed - say, by using the same technique as for gene therapy and splicing in genes from extinct varieties - provided it is done with caution.</p><p>It wouldn't matter too much if such a revived subspecies escaped, as the environment has evolved on the basis that it is present. Creatures further up the food chain might start reviving, for example.</p><p>It might also start to deal with "dead zones" (oxygen-free regions in the seas and oceans), which are largely a product of overfishing resulting in excessive algae, the lives, deaths and decaying of which simply eliminates all the oxygen present. Reintroducing a stable, self-sustaining food chain to the oceans would be dangerous but still much safer than the current disaster.</p><p>The problem is, this is NOT what is being done. Instead of recreating a subspecies that should have existed but was obliterated due to the stupidity of the seafood industry, they are creating a whole new subspecies according to market tastes. And when the market shifts (as it routinely does), the old stocks will be worthless and dumped into the wild in an uncontrolled way that has nothing to do with restoring the ecology and everything to do with maximizing profit.</p><p>They are also not going to make any effort to develop anything further up or down the foodchain, which means you'll have something that throws off whatever balance does exist in the current environment.</p><p>Anyone here remember the old ecology computer games, like "foxes and rabbits", where you specify the initial number of each and the available area of grass for the rabbits to feed on? Of those who do, how many of you succeeded in producing stable environments? It turns out that it's damn hard when the number of elements is very small, it's only viable when you've an extremely high level of biodiversity.</p><p>Here we have the three elements of the original game, with the food for the tuna replacing the grass, the tuna being the rabbits and the human consumers being the foxes. If, after all this time, you still can't find good starting numbers, what makes you think the fish markets (who don't give a rat's arse about the environment) are going to do any better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree.Now , having said that , the size of fish ( cod definitely , and I would assume tuna as well ) has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies entirely and then moving down the chain.I ca n't see any objection to reviving a subspecies that would have existed had sane fishing practices existed - say , by using the same technique as for gene therapy and splicing in genes from extinct varieties - provided it is done with caution.It would n't matter too much if such a revived subspecies escaped , as the environment has evolved on the basis that it is present .
Creatures further up the food chain might start reviving , for example.It might also start to deal with " dead zones " ( oxygen-free regions in the seas and oceans ) , which are largely a product of overfishing resulting in excessive algae , the lives , deaths and decaying of which simply eliminates all the oxygen present .
Reintroducing a stable , self-sustaining food chain to the oceans would be dangerous but still much safer than the current disaster.The problem is , this is NOT what is being done .
Instead of recreating a subspecies that should have existed but was obliterated due to the stupidity of the seafood industry , they are creating a whole new subspecies according to market tastes .
And when the market shifts ( as it routinely does ) , the old stocks will be worthless and dumped into the wild in an uncontrolled way that has nothing to do with restoring the ecology and everything to do with maximizing profit.They are also not going to make any effort to develop anything further up or down the foodchain , which means you 'll have something that throws off whatever balance does exist in the current environment.Anyone here remember the old ecology computer games , like " foxes and rabbits " , where you specify the initial number of each and the available area of grass for the rabbits to feed on ?
Of those who do , how many of you succeeded in producing stable environments ?
It turns out that it 's damn hard when the number of elements is very small , it 's only viable when you 've an extremely high level of biodiversity.Here we have the three elements of the original game , with the food for the tuna replacing the grass , the tuna being the rabbits and the human consumers being the foxes .
If , after all this time , you still ca n't find good starting numbers , what makes you think the fish markets ( who do n't give a rat 's arse about the environment ) are going to do any better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.Now, having said that, the size of fish (cod definitely, and I would assume tuna as well) has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies entirely and then moving down the chain.I can't see any objection to reviving a subspecies that would have existed had sane fishing practices existed - say, by using the same technique as for gene therapy and splicing in genes from extinct varieties - provided it is done with caution.It wouldn't matter too much if such a revived subspecies escaped, as the environment has evolved on the basis that it is present.
Creatures further up the food chain might start reviving, for example.It might also start to deal with "dead zones" (oxygen-free regions in the seas and oceans), which are largely a product of overfishing resulting in excessive algae, the lives, deaths and decaying of which simply eliminates all the oxygen present.
Reintroducing a stable, self-sustaining food chain to the oceans would be dangerous but still much safer than the current disaster.The problem is, this is NOT what is being done.
Instead of recreating a subspecies that should have existed but was obliterated due to the stupidity of the seafood industry, they are creating a whole new subspecies according to market tastes.
And when the market shifts (as it routinely does), the old stocks will be worthless and dumped into the wild in an uncontrolled way that has nothing to do with restoring the ecology and everything to do with maximizing profit.They are also not going to make any effort to develop anything further up or down the foodchain, which means you'll have something that throws off whatever balance does exist in the current environment.Anyone here remember the old ecology computer games, like "foxes and rabbits", where you specify the initial number of each and the available area of grass for the rabbits to feed on?
Of those who do, how many of you succeeded in producing stable environments?
It turns out that it's damn hard when the number of elements is very small, it's only viable when you've an extremely high level of biodiversity.Here we have the three elements of the original game, with the food for the tuna replacing the grass, the tuna being the rabbits and the human consumers being the foxes.
If, after all this time, you still can't find good starting numbers, what makes you think the fish markets (who don't give a rat's arse about the environment) are going to do any better?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562897</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1246567140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..</p></div><p>If they made a terminator gene for Super Tuna preventing them from breeding, similar to the one in corn, HELL YES I'd argue against it.
<br> <br>
I'm not against gene manipulation in theory, it's just the practice that worries me. I know you were making a joke by calling it DRM, but that's exactly what it could be; living beings with DRM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that " Natural " tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..If they made a terminator gene for Super Tuna preventing them from breeding , similar to the one in corn , HELL YES I 'd argue against it .
I 'm not against gene manipulation in theory , it 's just the practice that worries me .
I know you were making a joke by calling it DRM , but that 's exactly what it could be ; living beings with DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..If they made a terminator gene for Super Tuna preventing them from breeding, similar to the one in corn, HELL YES I'd argue against it.
I'm not against gene manipulation in theory, it's just the practice that worries me.
I know you were making a joke by calling it DRM, but that's exactly what it could be; living beings with DRM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562359</id>
	<title>Re:Monsanto of the Sea?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246565760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So true.
</p><p>
I have heard of farms already being sued because their neighbor paid for genetically modified wheat and spread over to his wheat farm.  The farmer lost his case.
</p><p>
The local fish farm lost it's entire stock one year when the farm had a massive failure and released all the stock into the lake.  They fishermen where out and you could catch the fish like crazy... but the business did it best to stop it the fishermen.  It was a futile effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So true .
I have heard of farms already being sued because their neighbor paid for genetically modified wheat and spread over to his wheat farm .
The farmer lost his case .
The local fish farm lost it 's entire stock one year when the farm had a massive failure and released all the stock into the lake .
They fishermen where out and you could catch the fish like crazy... but the business did it best to stop it the fishermen .
It was a futile effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So true.
I have heard of farms already being sued because their neighbor paid for genetically modified wheat and spread over to his wheat farm.
The farmer lost his case.
The local fish farm lost it's entire stock one year when the farm had a massive failure and released all the stock into the lake.
They fishermen where out and you could catch the fish like crazy... but the business did it best to stop it the fishermen.
It was a futile effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561873</id>
	<title>Re:super yeast</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1246564020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The closest to "super-yeast" I know of are wine yeasts which go up to somewhere in the 21-24\% region. If you use an ale yeast first, to get the right waste products, errr flavour, then restart with something like this to ramp up the neurotoxins, you should be fine.</p><p>However, if you just want regular ale, I would recommend <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney\_Brewery" title="wikipedia.org">SkullSplitter</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The closest to " super-yeast " I know of are wine yeasts which go up to somewhere in the 21-24 \ % region .
If you use an ale yeast first , to get the right waste products , errr flavour , then restart with something like this to ramp up the neurotoxins , you should be fine.However , if you just want regular ale , I would recommend SkullSplitter [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The closest to "super-yeast" I know of are wine yeasts which go up to somewhere in the 21-24\% region.
If you use an ale yeast first, to get the right waste products, errr flavour, then restart with something like this to ramp up the neurotoxins, you should be fine.However, if you just want regular ale, I would recommend SkullSplitter [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560811</id>
	<title>Chuck Tuna</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1246560540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ones that don't just kick but rather roundhouse kick your ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ones that do n't just kick but rather roundhouse kick your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ones that don't just kick but rather roundhouse kick your ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568641</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Meski</author>
	<datestamp>1246560000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.</p><p>Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..</p></div><p>Breaded tuna?  That's disgusting!  Grill them instead, or better yet, have them rawr!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a good idea , rather then fish Tuna to extinction they 're solving the problem by make better Tuna.Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that " Natural " tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..Breaded tuna ?
That 's disgusting !
Grill them instead , or better yet , have them rawr !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..Breaded tuna?
That's disgusting!
Grill them instead, or better yet, have them rawr!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563111</id>
	<title>Re:We 3 Tuna</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246567860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lets face it, super food will eat you, besides is obligatory.</p></div><p>Shouldn't it be more like:</p><p>In genetically engineered japan, tuna eats you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it , super food will eat you , besides is obligatory.Should n't it be more like : In genetically engineered japan , tuna eats you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it, super food will eat you, besides is obligatory.Shouldn't it be more like:In genetically engineered japan, tuna eats you!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563603</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's your address? I'll send your roommate some quality alternatives such as durian and nato.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's your address ?
I 'll send your roommate some quality alternatives such as durian and nato .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's your address?
I'll send your roommate some quality alternatives such as durian and nato.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561777</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>sandbenders</author>
	<datestamp>1246563720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhh, all breading/battering jokes aside, we don't breed tuna. We catch them wild. I assume that there are probably some tuna farms, but the vast majority of tuna are wild-caught and thus have not been shaped by the genetic engineering via selective breeding that has happened to cows, pigs, sheep, etc.<br><br>-SB</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh , all breading/battering jokes aside , we do n't breed tuna .
We catch them wild .
I assume that there are probably some tuna farms , but the vast majority of tuna are wild-caught and thus have not been shaped by the genetic engineering via selective breeding that has happened to cows , pigs , sheep , etc.-SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh, all breading/battering jokes aside, we don't breed tuna.
We catch them wild.
I assume that there are probably some tuna farms, but the vast majority of tuna are wild-caught and thus have not been shaped by the genetic engineering via selective breeding that has happened to cows, pigs, sheep, etc.-SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1246560300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna</htmltext>
<tokenext>Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568019</id>
	<title>Re:Cross them?!</title>
	<author>Green Salad</author>
	<datestamp>1246552800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Definitely not</i> with Cowboy Neil !</p><p>Could you imaging trying to create a restaurant menu that made it sound attractive?<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...raw, rolled in rice or seared at high tempurature and served swimming in butter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely not with Cowboy Neil ! Could you imaging trying to create a restaurant menu that made it sound attractive ?
...raw , rolled in rice or seared at high tempurature and served swimming in butter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely not with Cowboy Neil !Could you imaging trying to create a restaurant menu that made it sound attractive?
...raw, rolled in rice or seared at high tempurature and served swimming in butter...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567049</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246544040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH, this could be one of those crazy experiments that never go anywhere that the Japanese use as a pretext to continue their commercial whaling operations. A couple years ago they claimed to have successfully bred a cow and a whale. I'd put money on this giant tuna DNA being part whale DNA and part tuna.</p><p>Is it really better to refrain from fishing tuna to extinction if you're still going to hunt whales to extinction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , this could be one of those crazy experiments that never go anywhere that the Japanese use as a pretext to continue their commercial whaling operations .
A couple years ago they claimed to have successfully bred a cow and a whale .
I 'd put money on this giant tuna DNA being part whale DNA and part tuna.Is it really better to refrain from fishing tuna to extinction if you 're still going to hunt whales to extinction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, this could be one of those crazy experiments that never go anywhere that the Japanese use as a pretext to continue their commercial whaling operations.
A couple years ago they claimed to have successfully bred a cow and a whale.
I'd put money on this giant tuna DNA being part whale DNA and part tuna.Is it really better to refrain from fishing tuna to extinction if you're still going to hunt whales to extinction?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569317</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246612560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We should hunt them to near-extinction. Then they'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned. Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat. . . in mass quantities . . . EVERY evening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p></div><p>thats fuckin hilarious bro</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should hunt them to near-extinction .
Then they 'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned .
Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat .
. .
in mass quantities .
. .
EVERY evening ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! thats fuckin hilarious bro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should hunt them to near-extinction.
Then they'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned.
Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat.
. .
in mass quantities .
. .
EVERY evening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!thats fuckin hilarious bro
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1246562640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Longwinded philosophical post.  You've been warned.</p><p>One simple question.  Presuming billions of years to 'create' the world and no higher intelligence overseeing at all (not even getting into religion here, just theism vs. atheism): why is human technology (technology coming from presumably evolved intelligence of humans) any different in the evolutionary process?  And, if that leads to the destruction of the world, is that not simply evolution taking its due course?</p><p>In other words: if we are simply using the intelligence nature "gave" us and we happen to destroy the world with it, why should we use our "intelligence" to "help" nature/evolution/etc?</p><p>It seems to me that there are two competing worldviews, one that includes responsibility (which implies, somehow, an absolute outside of nature) and one that denies responsibility.  On one hand, saying that we <i>are</i> responsible for not destroying the world by abusing it, and on the other hand saying that there is no higher power to answer to and we are just a product of evolution like any other creature for the last X billion years.</p><p>To me, it seems inconsistent.  Either I am a product of evolution and there is no higher power to be responsible to, thus it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with using my evolutionary-process-given intelligence to genetically modify the nature around me (after all, when the cavemen started using tools to start hunting better, were they not simply "being themselves" and acting as any other animal would? Even if it made some species extinct by eating too many... or something...?), or there is a higher power I am responsible to, in which case my worldview will significantly change... and, in fact, there is a right way to use my intelligence and a wrong way to use my intelligence, and it's not based on survival.</p><p>I guess one could argue that how humanity as a whole uses its intelligence/intellect/technology/whatever has direct bearing on survival... <i>however</i>, if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival.  I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it.  There's no inherent value in it, is there?</p><p>This is not supposed to be openly offensive or derogatory of your worldview.  I really do want to know what your thinking is on it and am not simply trying to say "Your worldview is stupid."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Longwinded philosophical post .
You 've been warned.One simple question .
Presuming billions of years to 'create ' the world and no higher intelligence overseeing at all ( not even getting into religion here , just theism vs. atheism ) : why is human technology ( technology coming from presumably evolved intelligence of humans ) any different in the evolutionary process ?
And , if that leads to the destruction of the world , is that not simply evolution taking its due course ? In other words : if we are simply using the intelligence nature " gave " us and we happen to destroy the world with it , why should we use our " intelligence " to " help " nature/evolution/etc ? It seems to me that there are two competing worldviews , one that includes responsibility ( which implies , somehow , an absolute outside of nature ) and one that denies responsibility .
On one hand , saying that we are responsible for not destroying the world by abusing it , and on the other hand saying that there is no higher power to answer to and we are just a product of evolution like any other creature for the last X billion years.To me , it seems inconsistent .
Either I am a product of evolution and there is no higher power to be responsible to , thus it does n't seem like there is anything wrong with using my evolutionary-process-given intelligence to genetically modify the nature around me ( after all , when the cavemen started using tools to start hunting better , were they not simply " being themselves " and acting as any other animal would ?
Even if it made some species extinct by eating too many... or something... ?
) , or there is a higher power I am responsible to , in which case my worldview will significantly change... and , in fact , there is a right way to use my intelligence and a wrong way to use my intelligence , and it 's not based on survival.I guess one could argue that how humanity as a whole uses its intelligence/intellect/technology/whatever has direct bearing on survival... however , if evolution is a completely unintelligent process , then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves ( and whatever else ) off the face of the earth , then it seems to me that would simply mean we were n't " fit " for survival .
I do n't see , from the perspective of that worldview , what loss there would be in losing the world we ca n't recreate if we destroy it .
There 's no inherent value in it , is there ? This is not supposed to be openly offensive or derogatory of your worldview .
I really do want to know what your thinking is on it and am not simply trying to say " Your worldview is stupid .
" : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Longwinded philosophical post.
You've been warned.One simple question.
Presuming billions of years to 'create' the world and no higher intelligence overseeing at all (not even getting into religion here, just theism vs. atheism): why is human technology (technology coming from presumably evolved intelligence of humans) any different in the evolutionary process?
And, if that leads to the destruction of the world, is that not simply evolution taking its due course?In other words: if we are simply using the intelligence nature "gave" us and we happen to destroy the world with it, why should we use our "intelligence" to "help" nature/evolution/etc?It seems to me that there are two competing worldviews, one that includes responsibility (which implies, somehow, an absolute outside of nature) and one that denies responsibility.
On one hand, saying that we are responsible for not destroying the world by abusing it, and on the other hand saying that there is no higher power to answer to and we are just a product of evolution like any other creature for the last X billion years.To me, it seems inconsistent.
Either I am a product of evolution and there is no higher power to be responsible to, thus it doesn't seem like there is anything wrong with using my evolutionary-process-given intelligence to genetically modify the nature around me (after all, when the cavemen started using tools to start hunting better, were they not simply "being themselves" and acting as any other animal would?
Even if it made some species extinct by eating too many... or something...?
), or there is a higher power I am responsible to, in which case my worldview will significantly change... and, in fact, there is a right way to use my intelligence and a wrong way to use my intelligence, and it's not based on survival.I guess one could argue that how humanity as a whole uses its intelligence/intellect/technology/whatever has direct bearing on survival... however, if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival.
I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it.
There's no inherent value in it, is there?This is not supposed to be openly offensive or derogatory of your worldview.
I really do want to know what your thinking is on it and am not simply trying to say "Your worldview is stupid.
" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565987</id>
	<title>Re:Tuna Schmoona</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1246537260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they really wanted to get fancy, they would figure out a way to modify the tuna so that the mercury would collect in a particular organ.  That way, the muscle would have very little, and the mercury enriched organ could be treated as an ocean cleaning apparatus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they really wanted to get fancy , they would figure out a way to modify the tuna so that the mercury would collect in a particular organ .
That way , the muscle would have very little , and the mercury enriched organ could be treated as an ocean cleaning apparatus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they really wanted to get fancy, they would figure out a way to modify the tuna so that the mercury would collect in a particular organ.
That way, the muscle would have very little, and the mercury enriched organ could be treated as an ocean cleaning apparatus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</id>
	<title>Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1246560420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.</p><p>Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a good idea , rather then fish Tuna to extinction they 're solving the problem by make better Tuna.Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that " Natural " tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a good idea, rather then fish Tuna to extinction they're solving the problem by make better Tuna.Now all we have to have to a bigass debate on slashdot about how this is going to make DRM zombie tunas while ignorantly forgetting the fact that "Natural" tuna have had their genes altered through hundreds of years of breading.. Basically like every other time DNA altering comes up in a story..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560717</id>
	<title>Fish Overlords</title>
	<author>Andruil</author>
	<datestamp>1246560240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since this is Japan are we sure that they won't be cybernetic super fish?  All hail the new fish overlords!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this is Japan are we sure that they wo n't be cybernetic super fish ?
All hail the new fish overlords !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this is Japan are we sure that they won't be cybernetic super fish?
All hail the new fish overlords!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899</id>
	<title>Monsanto of the Sea?</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1246560780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers , but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna .
Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds , will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna.
Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561411</id>
	<title>eho8o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246562400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Head spinNing bulk of the FreeBSD beP treated by your shower Don't just Been looking for! and shower. For</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Head spinNing bulk of the FreeBSD beP treated by your shower Do n't just Been looking for !
and shower .
For [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Head spinNing bulk of the FreeBSD beP treated by your shower Don't just Been looking for!
and shower.
For [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564521</id>
	<title>Re: terrible-smelling food</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1246529880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also happens to smell just as bad <b>coming out</b> as it does going in: have you ever been in the bathroom when someone who has eaten a lot of tuna recently is taking a piss?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also happens to smell just as bad coming out as it does going in : have you ever been in the bathroom when someone who has eaten a lot of tuna recently is taking a piss ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also happens to smell just as bad coming out as it does going in: have you ever been in the bathroom when someone who has eaten a lot of tuna recently is taking a piss?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28571549</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>kumanopuusan</author>
	<datestamp>1246635300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, there are tuna farms in Japan, but they don't breed the tuna, they just catch them young and then fatten them inside a big net.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there are tuna farms in Japan , but they do n't breed the tuna , they just catch them young and then fatten them inside a big net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there are tuna farms in Japan, but they don't breed the tuna, they just catch them young and then fatten them inside a big net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562469</id>
	<title>Re:We 3 Tuna</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1246566000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck kind of cardboard do they have where you live?</p><p>Or alternatively, what the fuck kind of store-bought tomatoes do they have where you live?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck kind of cardboard do they have where you live ? Or alternatively , what the fuck kind of store-bought tomatoes do they have where you live ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck kind of cardboard do they have where you live?Or alternatively, what the fuck kind of store-bought tomatoes do they have where you live?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562431</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>WitheringtonSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1246565880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ninja Tuna:

<a href="http://www.mrscruff.com/" title="mrscruff.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mrscruff.com/</a> [mrscruff.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ninja Tuna : http : //www.mrscruff.com/ [ mrscruff.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ninja Tuna:

http://www.mrscruff.com/ [mrscruff.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28571325</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246633980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your roommate is eating tuna every night then he/she won't be around much longer due to mercury poisoning. Presumably, the new super tuna will be mercury resistant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your roommate is eating tuna every night then he/she wo n't be around much longer due to mercury poisoning .
Presumably , the new super tuna will be mercury resistant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your roommate is eating tuna every night then he/she won't be around much longer due to mercury poisoning.
Presumably, the new super tuna will be mercury resistant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579619</id>
	<title>Re:Sashimi</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246717620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just one word: Imbalance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one word : Imbalance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one word: Imbalance!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561687</id>
	<title>Clive Cussler book</title>
	<author>eeek77</author>
	<datestamp>1246563360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clive Cussler gave some reasons NOT to do this in his book "White Death."<br><br>Yes, it's fiction, but still....<br><br>Destroys the marine ecosystem through a fish monopoly, etc.<br><br>Enjoyable book, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clive Cussler gave some reasons NOT to do this in his book " White Death .
" Yes , it 's fiction , but still....Destroys the marine ecosystem through a fish monopoly , etc.Enjoyable book , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clive Cussler gave some reasons NOT to do this in his book "White Death.
"Yes, it's fiction, but still....Destroys the marine ecosystem through a fish monopoly, etc.Enjoyable book, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562217</id>
	<title>Re:You disgust me</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246565280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level, and I haven't heard of any food shortages over there.</p></div><p>Still, it's not quite so simple.  I remember hearing about a study recently that, all around the world, connected lower birthrates strongly with increased consumption of resources.  What they found was basically that, if the amount of resources used per-person was figured to be roughly equivalent to what a 1000-pound animal would consume, than they had roughly the same birthrate as a 1000-pound animal.  If they consumed resources at the rate of a 2000-pound animal, then they had the birthrate of a 2000-pound animal.  The mechanism hadn't yet been found, but researchers suggested that there must be some kind of natural psychological factor whereby people chose to have fewer children based on a perception of an increased need for resources.
</p><p>Interesting stuff, but admittedly not very concrete.  Still, it raises lots of questions about both population growth and industrialization.  If the slower birthrates come at the cost of increased consumption, then it means the solution to scarcity might not be so simple as reallocating our natural resources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level , and I have n't heard of any food shortages over there.Still , it 's not quite so simple .
I remember hearing about a study recently that , all around the world , connected lower birthrates strongly with increased consumption of resources .
What they found was basically that , if the amount of resources used per-person was figured to be roughly equivalent to what a 1000-pound animal would consume , than they had roughly the same birthrate as a 1000-pound animal .
If they consumed resources at the rate of a 2000-pound animal , then they had the birthrate of a 2000-pound animal .
The mechanism had n't yet been found , but researchers suggested that there must be some kind of natural psychological factor whereby people chose to have fewer children based on a perception of an increased need for resources .
Interesting stuff , but admittedly not very concrete .
Still , it raises lots of questions about both population growth and industrialization .
If the slower birthrates come at the cost of increased consumption , then it means the solution to scarcity might not be so simple as reallocating our natural resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level, and I haven't heard of any food shortages over there.Still, it's not quite so simple.
I remember hearing about a study recently that, all around the world, connected lower birthrates strongly with increased consumption of resources.
What they found was basically that, if the amount of resources used per-person was figured to be roughly equivalent to what a 1000-pound animal would consume, than they had roughly the same birthrate as a 1000-pound animal.
If they consumed resources at the rate of a 2000-pound animal, then they had the birthrate of a 2000-pound animal.
The mechanism hadn't yet been found, but researchers suggested that there must be some kind of natural psychological factor whereby people chose to have fewer children based on a perception of an increased need for resources.
Interesting stuff, but admittedly not very concrete.
Still, it raises lots of questions about both population growth and industrialization.
If the slower birthrates come at the cost of increased consumption, then it means the solution to scarcity might not be so simple as reallocating our natural resources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563367</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1246525440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for, that GMO are altered in ways unnatural to breeding, such as using viruses to inject not only cross species but cross kingdom genes into their genes. This is a radical departure from selective breeding and natural selection.</p><p>see:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=94728813969&amp;h=p0i5C&amp;u=Xnrbb" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=94728813969&amp;h=p0i5C&amp;u=Xnrbb</a> [facebook.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for , that GMO are altered in ways unnatural to breeding , such as using viruses to inject not only cross species but cross kingdom genes into their genes .
This is a radical departure from selective breeding and natural selection.see : http : //www.facebook.com/ext/share.php ? sid = 94728813969&amp;h = p0i5C&amp;u = Xnrbb [ facebook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for, that GMO are altered in ways unnatural to breeding, such as using viruses to inject not only cross species but cross kingdom genes into their genes.
This is a radical departure from selective breeding and natural selection.see:http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=94728813969&amp;h=p0i5C&amp;u=Xnrbb [facebook.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563521</id>
	<title>Re:We 3 Tuna</title>
	<author>Lucerne</author>
	<datestamp>1246525920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you meant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ethylene</a> [wikipedia.org], a relatively harmless compound that is emitted by ripening fruit and stimulates nearby cells to ripen more quickly.  This is why it's recommended to ripen certain fruits and vegetables in paper bags (e.g. avocados.)
</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosgene" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Phosgene</a> [wikipedia.org] is a chemical warfare agent from World War I.  As sinister as some processed foods may be, I'm not sure they're to the point of using MWDs on our food yet...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you meant ethylene [ wikipedia.org ] , a relatively harmless compound that is emitted by ripening fruit and stimulates nearby cells to ripen more quickly .
This is why it 's recommended to ripen certain fruits and vegetables in paper bags ( e.g .
avocados. ) Phosgene [ wikipedia.org ] is a chemical warfare agent from World War I. As sinister as some processed foods may be , I 'm not sure they 're to the point of using MWDs on our food yet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you meant ethylene [wikipedia.org], a relatively harmless compound that is emitted by ripening fruit and stimulates nearby cells to ripen more quickly.
This is why it's recommended to ripen certain fruits and vegetables in paper bags (e.g.
avocados.)

Phosgene [wikipedia.org] is a chemical warfare agent from World War I.  As sinister as some processed foods may be, I'm not sure they're to the point of using MWDs on our food yet...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28573839</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory.....</title>
	<author>andersa</author>
	<datestamp>1246649280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are they ill tempered?</htmltext>
<tokenext>are they ill tempered ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are they ill tempered?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561149</id>
	<title>Tuna Schmoona</title>
	<author>Zephiris</author>
	<datestamp>1246561560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if it lowers the cost, it won't especially matter much, will it? You can't entirely remove tuna from the ecosystem as a consumer, and they get a lot of mercury in their diet, pass it along. Eastern little tuna are lower in mercury according to Wikipedia, but they're specifically mapping and going to be modifying bluefin tuna.</p><p>This doesn't terribly seem like the most sensible idea to invest large amounts of time and money in if it's just going to produce more fish that you can't safely consume greater amounts of. You've got mass lead poisonings coming out of China; in 10 or 20 years, will you get mass mercury poisonings thanks to Japan and this project?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if it lowers the cost , it wo n't especially matter much , will it ?
You ca n't entirely remove tuna from the ecosystem as a consumer , and they get a lot of mercury in their diet , pass it along .
Eastern little tuna are lower in mercury according to Wikipedia , but they 're specifically mapping and going to be modifying bluefin tuna.This does n't terribly seem like the most sensible idea to invest large amounts of time and money in if it 's just going to produce more fish that you ca n't safely consume greater amounts of .
You 've got mass lead poisonings coming out of China ; in 10 or 20 years , will you get mass mercury poisonings thanks to Japan and this project ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if it lowers the cost, it won't especially matter much, will it?
You can't entirely remove tuna from the ecosystem as a consumer, and they get a lot of mercury in their diet, pass it along.
Eastern little tuna are lower in mercury according to Wikipedia, but they're specifically mapping and going to be modifying bluefin tuna.This doesn't terribly seem like the most sensible idea to invest large amounts of time and money in if it's just going to produce more fish that you can't safely consume greater amounts of.
You've got mass lead poisonings coming out of China; in 10 or 20 years, will you get mass mercury poisonings thanks to Japan and this project?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562099</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246564860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm yeah, so what you're advocating is basically sterilizing all the poor people on the planet?  That's the alternative to making food more efficiently.  The first-worlders are already under the replacement rate, they know not to breed.  It's the 3rd-worlders that continue to overpopulate the planet and drive demand for more cheap food.  Maybe you should think the consequences through before you open your mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm yeah , so what you 're advocating is basically sterilizing all the poor people on the planet ?
That 's the alternative to making food more efficiently .
The first-worlders are already under the replacement rate , they know not to breed .
It 's the 3rd-worlders that continue to overpopulate the planet and drive demand for more cheap food .
Maybe you should think the consequences through before you open your mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm yeah, so what you're advocating is basically sterilizing all the poor people on the planet?
That's the alternative to making food more efficiently.
The first-worlders are already under the replacement rate, they know not to breed.
It's the 3rd-worlders that continue to overpopulate the planet and drive demand for more cheap food.
Maybe you should think the consequences through before you open your mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Lord Fury</author>
	<datestamp>1246563780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Teenage Kanji Ninja Tuna</p></div><p>Heroes in my sandwich</p><p>Tuna Power!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Teenage Kanji Ninja TunaTeenage Kanji Ninja TunaTeenage Kanji Ninja TunaHeroes in my sandwichTuna Power !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teenage Kanji Ninja TunaTeenage Kanji Ninja TunaTeenage Kanji Ninja TunaHeroes in my sandwichTuna Power!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561581</id>
	<title>Re:tuna doesn't taste good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246563000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't say "taste better."  I think they're just pointing out that this will not only be a matter of bigger and faster; taste-tests will also assure quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't say " taste better .
" I think they 're just pointing out that this will not only be a matter of bigger and faster ; taste-tests will also assure quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't say "taste better.
"  I think they're just pointing out that this will not only be a matter of bigger and faster; taste-tests will also assure quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564419</id>
	<title>Re:Fish Overlords</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246529400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was eaten by Super Tuna apparently...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was eaten by Super Tuna apparently.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was eaten by Super Tuna apparently...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561129</id>
	<title>Sushi</title>
	<author>SlashDev</author>
	<datestamp>1246561500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cheap Super tuna Sashimi. Wohoooooo!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap Super tuna Sashimi .
Wohoooooo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap Super tuna Sashimi.
Wohoooooo!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567943</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246552140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an unfortunately-placed screen smudge caused me to read that as 'herpes in my sandwich'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an unfortunately-placed screen smudge caused me to read that as 'herpes in my sandwich' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an unfortunately-placed screen smudge caused me to read that as 'herpes in my sandwich'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561443</id>
	<title>Godzilluna</title>
	<author>MSTCrow5429</author>
	<datestamp>1246562580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tampering with the genes of the tuna shall only create a monstrous and awesome tuna, and it will writhe and flip all over Tokyo, reducing it to rubble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tampering with the genes of the tuna shall only create a monstrous and awesome tuna , and it will writhe and flip all over Tokyo , reducing it to rubble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tampering with the genes of the tuna shall only create a monstrous and awesome tuna, and it will writhe and flip all over Tokyo, reducing it to rubble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564065</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>JCSoRocks</author>
	<datestamp>1246527960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sandwich!? I want a Spicy SuperTuna Roll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sandwich ! ?
I want a Spicy SuperTuna Roll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sandwich!?
I want a Spicy SuperTuna Roll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564787</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>andydread</author>
	<datestamp>1246531020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Altering genes through breeding is not the same thing as using a gene gun to blast genes from a bacterium into random parts of the soybean and corn genome.  This is what Monsanto does.  How is that the same as altering through breeding?  Can you get a gene from a bacterium into a crop genome initially thru breeding?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Altering genes through breeding is not the same thing as using a gene gun to blast genes from a bacterium into random parts of the soybean and corn genome .
This is what Monsanto does .
How is that the same as altering through breeding ?
Can you get a gene from a bacterium into a crop genome initially thru breeding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Altering genes through breeding is not the same thing as using a gene gun to blast genes from a bacterium into random parts of the soybean and corn genome.
This is what Monsanto does.
How is that the same as altering through breeding?
Can you get a gene from a bacterium into a crop genome initially thru breeding?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560911</id>
	<title>tuna doesn't taste good?</title>
	<author>sandmtyh</author>
	<datestamp>1246560840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are they implying that the current tuna doesn't taste good?

"The new breed will grow faster, taste good,"</htmltext>
<tokenext>are they implying that the current tuna does n't taste good ?
" The new breed will grow faster , taste good , "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are they implying that the current tuna doesn't taste good?
"The new breed will grow faster, taste good,"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567223</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1246545300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than fish salmon to extinction, they figured out a way to farm salmon. It's not going extinct anytime soon. Why not with tuna? Why rely on some genetic monster thing that could have unpredictable effects on the global environment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than fish salmon to extinction , they figured out a way to farm salmon .
It 's not going extinct anytime soon .
Why not with tuna ?
Why rely on some genetic monster thing that could have unpredictable effects on the global environment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than fish salmon to extinction, they figured out a way to farm salmon.
It's not going extinct anytime soon.
Why not with tuna?
Why rely on some genetic monster thing that could have unpredictable effects on the global environment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565327</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1246533480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, this question is simply one of survival of the human species.  10,000 years ago humans did not have the capability of destroying the environment.  Over the last 300 years we developed the ability, though it would have taken a lot of effort or severe negligence to make the world unlivable for humans.  Today, we have the capability to destroy human survivability on Earth by accident, or unintended consequence of otherwise sound choices.  In this situation, the philosophical issues take a back seat to the glaring practical issues of future famines, floods, and man made disasters that we can prevent with proper planning.</p><p>As to why survival is important, in my view, there is intrinsic value in maintaining an environment on earth that will sustain human life supported by many lines of reasoning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , this question is simply one of survival of the human species .
10,000 years ago humans did not have the capability of destroying the environment .
Over the last 300 years we developed the ability , though it would have taken a lot of effort or severe negligence to make the world unlivable for humans .
Today , we have the capability to destroy human survivability on Earth by accident , or unintended consequence of otherwise sound choices .
In this situation , the philosophical issues take a back seat to the glaring practical issues of future famines , floods , and man made disasters that we can prevent with proper planning.As to why survival is important , in my view , there is intrinsic value in maintaining an environment on earth that will sustain human life supported by many lines of reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, this question is simply one of survival of the human species.
10,000 years ago humans did not have the capability of destroying the environment.
Over the last 300 years we developed the ability, though it would have taken a lot of effort or severe negligence to make the world unlivable for humans.
Today, we have the capability to destroy human survivability on Earth by accident, or unintended consequence of otherwise sound choices.
In this situation, the philosophical issues take a back seat to the glaring practical issues of future famines, floods, and man made disasters that we can prevent with proper planning.As to why survival is important, in my view, there is intrinsic value in maintaining an environment on earth that will sustain human life supported by many lines of reasoning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561245</id>
	<title>Re:We 3 Tuna</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1246561860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that anything like We 3 Kings?<br>(Hint: &amp;lt; yields &lt;)<br>(Super Hint: &amp;amp;lt; yields &amp;lt;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that anything like We 3 Kings ?
( Hint : &lt; yields ( Super Hint : &amp;lt ; yields &lt; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that anything like We 3 Kings?
(Hint: &lt; yields (Super Hint: &amp;lt; yields &lt;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>EraserMouseMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246563120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should hunt them to near-extinction. Then they'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned. Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat. . . in mass quantities . . . EVERY evening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should hunt them to near-extinction .
Then they 'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned .
Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat .
. .
in mass quantities .
. .
EVERY evening ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should hunt them to near-extinction.
Then they'll get put on the extinction list and all tuna fishing will be banned.
Then my roommate will have to find a different terrible-smelling food to eat.
. .
in mass quantities .
. .
EVERY evening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563399</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1246525560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see, selective breeding based on phenotype is perfectly acceptable.  As soon as you base it on genotype, suddenly you've destroyed the world utterly.  Fascinating.  Turkeys were bred into existence based on phenotype, and are a pretty horrifying tumorous monstrosity.  They're so obese they can barely even move, and are totally unable to have sex due to their disgusting size.  That's fine I guess, but as soon as you start selective breeding based on genotype, it's a billion times worse!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see , selective breeding based on phenotype is perfectly acceptable .
As soon as you base it on genotype , suddenly you 've destroyed the world utterly .
Fascinating. Turkeys were bred into existence based on phenotype , and are a pretty horrifying tumorous monstrosity .
They 're so obese they can barely even move , and are totally unable to have sex due to their disgusting size .
That 's fine I guess , but as soon as you start selective breeding based on genotype , it 's a billion times worse !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see, selective breeding based on phenotype is perfectly acceptable.
As soon as you base it on genotype, suddenly you've destroyed the world utterly.
Fascinating.  Turkeys were bred into existence based on phenotype, and are a pretty horrifying tumorous monstrosity.
They're so obese they can barely even move, and are totally unable to have sex due to their disgusting size.
That's fine I guess, but as soon as you start selective breeding based on genotype, it's a billion times worse!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561619</id>
	<title>You disgust me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246563120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources.  This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term.  Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.</p></div><p>Seriously, you do. I'm all in favor of trying to limit population growth, as the earth does have limited resources. Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level, and I haven't heard of any food shortages over there. But you do realize how lack of food limits population growth right? It's not lower birth rates because people in some of the most food insecure nations of the world have the highest birthrates.<br> <br>Starvation. Primarily of those too weak to defend themselves. That means small children, and often their mothers. Spend some time reading about what starvation does to the body sometime. It's a terrible way to die, and even if it weren't you're cheering for the death of children to stop the growth of population. How can you live with that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has : make more food for more people with fewer resources .
This is completely backwards , and will fail us in a devastating way long term .
Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.Seriously , you do .
I 'm all in favor of trying to limit population growth , as the earth does have limited resources .
Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level , and I have n't heard of any food shortages over there .
But you do realize how lack of food limits population growth right ?
It 's not lower birth rates because people in some of the most food insecure nations of the world have the highest birthrates .
Starvation. Primarily of those too weak to defend themselves .
That means small children , and often their mothers .
Spend some time reading about what starvation does to the body sometime .
It 's a terrible way to die , and even if it were n't you 're cheering for the death of children to stop the growth of population .
How can you live with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources.
This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term.
Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.Seriously, you do.
I'm all in favor of trying to limit population growth, as the earth does have limited resources.
Most of Europe has birthrates below replacement level, and I haven't heard of any food shortages over there.
But you do realize how lack of food limits population growth right?
It's not lower birth rates because people in some of the most food insecure nations of the world have the highest birthrates.
Starvation. Primarily of those too weak to defend themselves.
That means small children, and often their mothers.
Spend some time reading about what starvation does to the body sometime.
It's a terrible way to die, and even if it weren't you're cheering for the death of children to stop the growth of population.
How can you live with that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561221</id>
	<title>AM/FM Tuna?</title>
	<author>Freshly Exhumed</author>
	<datestamp>1246561800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which bands does it receive? Is it a superheterodyne tuna?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which bands does it receive ?
Is it a superheterodyne tuna ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which bands does it receive?
Is it a superheterodyne tuna?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28566987</id>
	<title>Re:Sashimi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246543620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wrong in thinking it willl be whales.</p><p>That is a mistaken western anti-spiritual identity tradition fallacy.</p><p>It should not be encouraged.</p><p>Your words incite inconvenience.</p><p>Your thinking is improper.</p><p>You are inadequate.</p><p>You know what you should do now.</p><p>I courteously bow and leave you to your obligations.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong in thinking it willl be whales.That is a mistaken western anti-spiritual identity tradition fallacy.It should not be encouraged.Your words incite inconvenience.Your thinking is improper.You are inadequate.You know what you should do now.I courteously bow and leave you to your obligations .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong in thinking it willl be whales.That is a mistaken western anti-spiritual identity tradition fallacy.It should not be encouraged.Your words incite inconvenience.Your thinking is improper.You are inadequate.You know what you should do now.I courteously bow and leave you to your obligations.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564293</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.</i><br>Ummmm... but they haven't been breaking down cell barriers to inject cross species genes, and cross *kingdom* genes (mixing plant, animal and fungal genetic material) into cells in new combinations. This is neither selective breeding nor natural selection.</p><p>This is new. This is a vast experiment with many unknowns, driven by the profit motive.</p><p>That's why I don't like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.Ummmm... but they have n't been breaking down cell barriers to inject cross species genes , and cross * kingdom * genes ( mixing plant , animal and fungal genetic material ) into cells in new combinations .
This is neither selective breeding nor natural selection.This is new .
This is a vast experiment with many unknowns , driven by the profit motive.That 's why I do n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.Ummmm... but they haven't been breaking down cell barriers to inject cross species genes, and cross *kingdom* genes (mixing plant, animal and fungal genetic material) into cells in new combinations.
This is neither selective breeding nor natural selection.This is new.
This is a vast experiment with many unknowns, driven by the profit motive.That's why I don't like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561393</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1246562340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no, it might be dangerous!</p><p>We better not do it then!</p><p>Moan panic aaaah fear shock trauma noooo!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , it might be dangerous ! We better not do it then ! Moan panic aaaah fear shock trauma noooo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, it might be dangerous!We better not do it then!Moan panic aaaah fear shock trauma noooo!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560887</id>
	<title>Tuna Overlords</title>
	<author>JerryLove</author>
	<datestamp>1246560780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I be the first to welcome our new Tuna overloards...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I be the first to welcome our new Tuna overloards.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I be the first to welcome our new Tuna overloards...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560789</id>
	<title>It would be nice if they could add</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A modify the DNA so that few dozen Sharks Fins appear on the new fish.<br>Perhaps they could save the real thing from extinction.<br>Then again the 'Green Lobby' would rise up against 'Genetically Modified Fish' Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A modify the DNA so that few dozen Sharks Fins appear on the new fish.Perhaps they could save the real thing from extinction.Then again the 'Green Lobby ' would rise up against 'Genetically Modified Fish ' Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A modify the DNA so that few dozen Sharks Fins appear on the new fish.Perhaps they could save the real thing from extinction.Then again the 'Green Lobby' would rise up against 'Genetically Modified Fish' Sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560845</id>
	<title>TUNAZILLA!</title>
	<author>wcrowe</author>
	<datestamp>1246560600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'nuf said...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'nuf said.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'nuf said...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562915</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246567260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until of course we find that these genetically-mutated tuna have infiltrated natural stocks and any unforeseen genetic abnormalities are passed on to them as well.  I don't know why it's so hard to understand the differences between natural selection and the dangers posed by genetically-introduced traits.  I'm not a biologists, but I've seen the insanely haphazard changes you can get in plants and animals by manipulating even one seemingly harmless gene.  And, not completely understanding what we're doing means that there are HUGE risks involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until of course we find that these genetically-mutated tuna have infiltrated natural stocks and any unforeseen genetic abnormalities are passed on to them as well .
I do n't know why it 's so hard to understand the differences between natural selection and the dangers posed by genetically-introduced traits .
I 'm not a biologists , but I 've seen the insanely haphazard changes you can get in plants and animals by manipulating even one seemingly harmless gene .
And , not completely understanding what we 're doing means that there are HUGE risks involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until of course we find that these genetically-mutated tuna have infiltrated natural stocks and any unforeseen genetic abnormalities are passed on to them as well.
I don't know why it's so hard to understand the differences between natural selection and the dangers posed by genetically-introduced traits.
I'm not a biologists, but I've seen the insanely haphazard changes you can get in plants and animals by manipulating even one seemingly harmless gene.
And, not completely understanding what we're doing means that there are HUGE risks involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561773</id>
	<title>Re:Fish Overlords</title>
	<author>S77IM</author>
	<datestamp>1246563660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I have one simple request .
And that is to have sharks with frickin ' laser beams attached to their heads !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I have one simple request.
And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562019</id>
	<title>Mod me down, or another alternative....t</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1246564620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you know, we could just stop overfishing them.<br>WTF is wrong with you people?<br>Instead of questioning ourselves on our energy consumption, we just hope that tomorrow will bring new photovoltaic modules with 12000\% efficiency.<br>Instead of questioning ourselves on the fact that we eat too much meat and fish, we keep on depleting fish resources around the world, while some Japanese (incidentally, the biggest tuna consumers &amp; fishers) scientists might come with a super-tuna "next decade or so".<br>Problem is, it might already be too late.</p><p>It is high time we learned to take some responsibilities and stop relying on dubious techno-science stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you know , we could just stop overfishing them.WTF is wrong with you people ? Instead of questioning ourselves on our energy consumption , we just hope that tomorrow will bring new photovoltaic modules with 12000 \ % efficiency.Instead of questioning ourselves on the fact that we eat too much meat and fish , we keep on depleting fish resources around the world , while some Japanese ( incidentally , the biggest tuna consumers &amp; fishers ) scientists might come with a super-tuna " next decade or so " .Problem is , it might already be too late.It is high time we learned to take some responsibilities and stop relying on dubious techno-science stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you know, we could just stop overfishing them.WTF is wrong with you people?Instead of questioning ourselves on our energy consumption, we just hope that tomorrow will bring new photovoltaic modules with 12000\% efficiency.Instead of questioning ourselves on the fact that we eat too much meat and fish, we keep on depleting fish resources around the world, while some Japanese (incidentally, the biggest tuna consumers &amp; fishers) scientists might come with a super-tuna "next decade or so".Problem is, it might already be too late.It is high time we learned to take some responsibilities and stop relying on dubious techno-science stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867</id>
	<title>Tuna Porn?</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1246560720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I predict they will genetically enhance the necessary parts to incorporate them into the weird porn industry that thrives in Japan. After the tunas career is up they can still serve his enhanced parts as a rare delicacy in restaurants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict they will genetically enhance the necessary parts to incorporate them into the weird porn industry that thrives in Japan .
After the tunas career is up they can still serve his enhanced parts as a rare delicacy in restaurants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict they will genetically enhance the necessary parts to incorporate them into the weird porn industry that thrives in Japan.
After the tunas career is up they can still serve his enhanced parts as a rare delicacy in restaurants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28574929</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry Charlie...</title>
	<author>Mythrix</author>
	<datestamp>1246614240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's Aquaman when you need him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's Aquaman when you need him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's Aquaman when you need him?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560723</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will it come with frickin' "LASERS" ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it come with frickin ' " LASERS " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will it come with frickin' "LASERS" ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568015</id>
	<title>Re:Fish Overlords</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1246552680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet the population is kept in check by hungry salarymen eating anything with tentacles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet the population is kept in check by hungry salarymen eating anything with tentacles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet the population is kept in check by hungry salarymen eating anything with tentacles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569139</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>barath\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1246653480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> "the size of fish<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies </i>

Hmm. Fish grow slowly over time. Industrial fishing kills off the huge ones, and ensures that smaller ones don't get to grow up enough to grow huge.
Solution : Timemod instead of Genemod. Invent a time machine/time accelerator so that said fish spends 50 years (in far past or in 50:1 time ratio) to grow huge.
For some reason, there are opponents to this as well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the size of fish ...has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies Hmm .
Fish grow slowly over time .
Industrial fishing kills off the huge ones , and ensures that smaller ones do n't get to grow up enough to grow huge .
Solution : Timemod instead of Genemod .
Invent a time machine/time accelerator so that said fish spends 50 years ( in far past or in 50 : 1 time ratio ) to grow huge .
For some reason , there are opponents to this as well ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "the size of fish ...has declined due to industrial fishing practices wiping out the larger subspecies 

Hmm.
Fish grow slowly over time.
Industrial fishing kills off the huge ones, and ensures that smaller ones don't get to grow up enough to grow huge.
Solution : Timemod instead of Genemod.
Invent a time machine/time accelerator so that said fish spends 50 years (in far past or in 50:1 time ratio) to grow huge.
For some reason, there are opponents to this as well ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568635</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246559940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, now all they need to breed is whales that like to be near Japan so they can save fuel!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , now all they need to breed is whales that like to be near Japan so they can save fuel !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, now all they need to breed is whales that like to be near Japan so they can save fuel!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28566295</id>
	<title>Re:Tuna Porn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246539000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Most disturbing comment on Slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Most disturbing comment on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Most disturbing comment on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561567</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>Xeth</author>
	<datestamp>1246562940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Humans cannot contain nature indefinitely - so whatever we create will eventually enter the environment and compete with the existing species.</p></div></blockquote><p>We call that evolution.</p><p>Now, that's a glib answer, and it's true that we can't simply excuse away any kind of meddling that way. But you seem to be under the impression that, outside of man's interference, nature is out there standing still. It's not. The world around is is constantly evolving, and genetic patterns are being introduced, flourishing, and failing all the time. While introducing new variations may well be dangerous, it is not (in the general case) more so than what happens without human intervention.</p><blockquote><div><p>Genomes, the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably. We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Welcome to life in a complex system. Anything we do, at any time, could randomly trigger a lethal series of events beyond our comprehension.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Monocultures" increase risk. Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.</p></div></blockquote><p>

While you're right in the general case, you're mistaken about the circumstances about this specific instance. They're talking about replacing hunts for wild fish with aquaculture. If anything, this will save the genetic diversity of wild fish, as they're no longer at risk of being hunted to extinction.</p><blockquote><div><p>Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This is flagrantly incorrect. The population of the U.S. is an immediate and obvious counterexample. Humans don't actually (organically) breed like viruses; we only consume like them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans can not contain nature indefinitely - so whatever we create will eventually enter the environment and compete with the existing species.We call that evolution.Now , that 's a glib answer , and it 's true that we ca n't simply excuse away any kind of meddling that way .
But you seem to be under the impression that , outside of man 's interference , nature is out there standing still .
It 's not .
The world around is is constantly evolving , and genetic patterns are being introduced , flourishing , and failing all the time .
While introducing new variations may well be dangerous , it is not ( in the general case ) more so than what happens without human intervention.Genomes , the resulting organism , and the myriad interaction with other species , viruses , and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably .
We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects .
Welcome to life in a complex system .
Anything we do , at any time , could randomly trigger a lethal series of events beyond our comprehension .
" Monocultures " increase risk .
Even if this program is wildly successful , and they create a huge supply of " perfect " Tuna - they will be a single species , and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out .
While you 're right in the general case , you 're mistaken about the circumstances about this specific instance .
They 're talking about replacing hunts for wild fish with aquaculture .
If anything , this will save the genetic diversity of wild fish , as they 're no longer at risk of being hunted to extinction.Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth .
This is flagrantly incorrect .
The population of the U.S. is an immediate and obvious counterexample .
Humans do n't actually ( organically ) breed like viruses ; we only consume like them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans cannot contain nature indefinitely - so whatever we create will eventually enter the environment and compete with the existing species.We call that evolution.Now, that's a glib answer, and it's true that we can't simply excuse away any kind of meddling that way.
But you seem to be under the impression that, outside of man's interference, nature is out there standing still.
It's not.
The world around is is constantly evolving, and genetic patterns are being introduced, flourishing, and failing all the time.
While introducing new variations may well be dangerous, it is not (in the general case) more so than what happens without human intervention.Genomes, the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably.
We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.
Welcome to life in a complex system.
Anything we do, at any time, could randomly trigger a lethal series of events beyond our comprehension.
"Monocultures" increase risk.
Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.
While you're right in the general case, you're mistaken about the circumstances about this specific instance.
They're talking about replacing hunts for wild fish with aquaculture.
If anything, this will save the genetic diversity of wild fish, as they're no longer at risk of being hunted to extinction.Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.
This is flagrantly incorrect.
The population of the U.S. is an immediate and obvious counterexample.
Humans don't actually (organically) breed like viruses; we only consume like them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561057</id>
	<title>Re:tuna doesn't taste good?</title>
	<author>davegravy</author>
	<datestamp>1246561200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're probably trying to dispel the fear that super-tuna will taste bad because they are unnatural.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're probably trying to dispel the fear that super-tuna will taste bad because they are unnatural .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're probably trying to dispel the fear that super-tuna will taste bad because they are unnatural.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564659</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246530420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That, or we could wonder how a super-Tuna could destroy Tokyo. Probably with attached laser-beams...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That , or we could wonder how a super-Tuna could destroy Tokyo .
Probably with attached laser-beams.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, or we could wonder how a super-Tuna could destroy Tokyo.
Probably with attached laser-beams...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562237</id>
	<title>Re:Tuna Porn?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1246565340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure I'd want to eat a porn star... especially since they've all been eaten so many times before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I 'd want to eat a porn star... especially since they 've all been eaten so many times before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I'd want to eat a porn star... especially since they've all been eaten so many times before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565785</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory.....</title>
	<author>motorhead</author>
	<datestamp>1246536000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can tune a piano but you ca n't tuna fish</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561809</id>
	<title>Tuna less scary than Corn?</title>
	<author>MaizeMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246563780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So far there's on idiot down thread to turned this into "let's starve the masses to save the planet" but overall the response has been a lot more reasoned than I expected. Seems DNA altered Tuna is less threatening than DNA altered plants.<br> <br>I'm drawing a blank, does anyone else have an idea why that would be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far there 's on idiot down thread to turned this into " let 's starve the masses to save the planet " but overall the response has been a lot more reasoned than I expected .
Seems DNA altered Tuna is less threatening than DNA altered plants .
I 'm drawing a blank , does anyone else have an idea why that would be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far there's on idiot down thread to turned this into "let's starve the masses to save the planet" but overall the response has been a lot more reasoned than I expected.
Seems DNA altered Tuna is less threatening than DNA altered plants.
I'm drawing a blank, does anyone else have an idea why that would be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565121</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246532340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you saying that there is no difference between selective breeding a direct genetic manipulation? Because even though I'm not an eco-maniac, I don't think it's a good idea to underplay the differences here. Maybe it will all work out fine. But using selective breeding as evidence that it will seems evident of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that there is no difference between selective breeding a direct genetic manipulation ?
Because even though I 'm not an eco-maniac , I do n't think it 's a good idea to underplay the differences here .
Maybe it will all work out fine .
But using selective breeding as evidence that it will seems evident of someone who does n't know what they 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that there is no difference between selective breeding a direct genetic manipulation?
Because even though I'm not an eco-maniac, I don't think it's a good idea to underplay the differences here.
Maybe it will all work out fine.
But using selective breeding as evidence that it will seems evident of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560807</id>
	<title>Excellent</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1246560540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes -- but will they be equipped with lasers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes -- but will they be equipped with lasers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes -- but will they be equipped with lasers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562213</id>
	<title>Awww, it even has a little red cape...</title>
	<author>DeusExMach</author>
	<datestamp>1246565280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yawn.  Wake me when they have SuperBeef.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yawn .
Wake me when they have SuperBeef .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yawn.
Wake me when they have SuperBeef.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561795</id>
	<title>Re:We 3 Tuna</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246563720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not me. Corporate food either tastes like shit, or has no taste at all. Compare a grocery store tomato (ripened with phosgene gas) to a home grown one. The one from the store tastes like cardboard, the one from the garden is delicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not me .
Corporate food either tastes like shit , or has no taste at all .
Compare a grocery store tomato ( ripened with phosgene gas ) to a home grown one .
The one from the store tastes like cardboard , the one from the garden is delicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not me.
Corporate food either tastes like shit, or has no taste at all.
Compare a grocery store tomato (ripened with phosgene gas) to a home grown one.
The one from the store tastes like cardboard, the one from the garden is delicious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</id>
	<title>very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1246561020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.</p><p>However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the risks<br>we face from environmental damage.  There are significant consequences to altering genomes of existing<br>creatures, and mostly, people would try to be as careful as possible.  Most all of the changes we've made<br>have been exceedingly helpful.</p><p>But there are a few unavoidable truths:</p><p>1- Humans cannot contain nature indefinitely - so whatever we create <b>will</b> eventually enter the environment and compete with the existing species.</p><p>2- Genomes, the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions<br>are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably.  We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.</p><p>3-  "Monocultures" increase risk.  Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We want to establish a complete aquaculture system that will produce fish that have good strength, are resistant to disease, grow quickly and taste delicious.</p> </div><p>In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources.  This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term.  Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.  The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we *cannot* recreate if we destroy it.</p><p>In the end, the environment we live in has much "momentum" and "power" to inflict damage to the human race than we have power to control and shift the natural world to our needs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.However , doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks , possibly as large as the riskswe face from environmental damage .
There are significant consequences to altering genomes of existingcreatures , and mostly , people would try to be as careful as possible .
Most all of the changes we 've madehave been exceedingly helpful.But there are a few unavoidable truths : 1- Humans can not contain nature indefinitely - so whatever we create will eventually enter the environment and compete with the existing species.2- Genomes , the resulting organism , and the myriad interaction with other species , viruses , and environmental conditionsare far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably .
We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.3- " Monocultures " increase risk .
Even if this program is wildly successful , and they create a huge supply of " perfect " Tuna - they will be a single species , and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.We want to establish a complete aquaculture system that will produce fish that have good strength , are resistant to disease , grow quickly and taste delicious .
In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has : make more food for more people with fewer resources .
This is completely backwards , and will fail us in a devastating way long term .
Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth .
The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better , but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we * can not * recreate if we destroy it.In the end , the environment we live in has much " momentum " and " power " to inflict damage to the human race than we have power to control and shift the natural world to our needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the riskswe face from environmental damage.
There are significant consequences to altering genomes of existingcreatures, and mostly, people would try to be as careful as possible.
Most all of the changes we've madehave been exceedingly helpful.But there are a few unavoidable truths:1- Humans cannot contain nature indefinitely - so whatever we create will eventually enter the environment and compete with the existing species.2- Genomes, the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditionsare far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably.
We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.3-  "Monocultures" increase risk.
Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.We want to establish a complete aquaculture system that will produce fish that have good strength, are resistant to disease, grow quickly and taste delicious.
In many ways TFA sounds a lot like the mentality Monsanto has: make more food for more people with fewer resources.
This is completely backwards, and will fail us in a devastating way long term.
Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.
The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we *cannot* recreate if we destroy it.In the end, the environment we live in has much "momentum" and "power" to inflict damage to the human race than we have power to control and shift the natural world to our needs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561673</id>
	<title>Do *what* if you cross them?</title>
	<author>nsayer</author>
	<datestamp>1246563300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them.</p></div><p>Uh, does jabbing them in the mouth with a barbed hook not count as "crossing them?" I don't think <i>that's</i> what the tuna fishermen would want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new breed will grow faster , taste good , have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them.Uh , does jabbing them in the mouth with a barbed hook not count as " crossing them ?
" I do n't think that 's what the tuna fishermen would want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new breed will grow faster, taste good, have resistance to disease and will totally kick your ass if you cross them.Uh, does jabbing them in the mouth with a barbed hook not count as "crossing them?
" I don't think that's what the tuna fishermen would want.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560941</id>
	<title>*SUPER* tuna?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1246560960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn, and I thought husbands were <i>already</i> whipped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , and I thought husbands were already whipped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, and I thought husbands were already whipped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562017</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1246564560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I, for one, welcome our ichthyous overlords!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I , for one , welcome our ichthyous overlords !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I, for one, welcome our ichthyous overlords!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561111</id>
	<title>Re:Monsanto of the Sea?</title>
	<author>MoreDruid</author>
	<datestamp>1246561380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only in the USA</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only in the USA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only in the USA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560721</id>
	<title>Obligatory.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have they bred them with frickin' laser beams though?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have they bred them with frickin ' laser beams though ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have they bred them with frickin' laser beams though?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563839</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1246527120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Super Tuna Fish!  FUCK YEAH!!!!  Coming again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Super Tuna Fish !
FUCK YEAH ! ! ! !
Coming again to save the motherfucking day , yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Super Tuna Fish!
FUCK YEAH!!!!
Coming again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561925</id>
	<title>Re:Sashimi</title>
	<author>Vectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1246564200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.</p></div><p>Exactly. If the Tuna are bigger, and less prone to diseases, they will be eating more, and not dying as much from (normal non-human) predators. And on that note, what about the other animals that eat tuna? will they be strong enough to still kill the tuna they normally do, will they eat less, or start eating younger ones and sort of usurping this whole plan? Plus if they are bigger and stronger, they will likely linger in climate zones they would normally leave sooner, also (rather drastically, which is the key point) altering the natural sequence of migrations and predator V. prey.</p><p>I hope they have a rather lengthy trial in some giant pool before they release these into the wild.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.Exactly .
If the Tuna are bigger , and less prone to diseases , they will be eating more , and not dying as much from ( normal non-human ) predators .
And on that note , what about the other animals that eat tuna ?
will they be strong enough to still kill the tuna they normally do , will they eat less , or start eating younger ones and sort of usurping this whole plan ?
Plus if they are bigger and stronger , they will likely linger in climate zones they would normally leave sooner , also ( rather drastically , which is the key point ) altering the natural sequence of migrations and predator V. prey.I hope they have a rather lengthy trial in some giant pool before they release these into the wild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.Exactly.
If the Tuna are bigger, and less prone to diseases, they will be eating more, and not dying as much from (normal non-human) predators.
And on that note, what about the other animals that eat tuna?
will they be strong enough to still kill the tuna they normally do, will they eat less, or start eating younger ones and sort of usurping this whole plan?
Plus if they are bigger and stronger, they will likely linger in climate zones they would normally leave sooner, also (rather drastically, which is the key point) altering the natural sequence of migrations and predator V. prey.I hope they have a rather lengthy trial in some giant pool before they release these into the wild.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561125</id>
	<title>Re:Monsanto of the Sea?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246561440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna. Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?</p></div><p>Unpossible.<br>Farmers only get sued because they own &amp; 'control' the fields that Monsanto seeds migrate to.<br>There's no way in hell any court will ding you for catching something that escaped into international waters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers , but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna .
Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds , will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna ? Unpossible.Farmers only get sued because they own &amp; 'control ' the fields that Monsanto seeds migrate to.There 's no way in hell any court will ding you for catching something that escaped into international waters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article talks about targeting aquaculture farmers, but I suppose it is possible the genetically altered tuna could escape into the wild and breed with wild tuna.
Assuming the genes will be patented like Monsanto does with seeds, will fishermen be sued for catching such cross bred tuna?Unpossible.Farmers only get sued because they own &amp; 'control' the fields that Monsanto seeds migrate to.There's no way in hell any court will ding you for catching something that escaped into international waters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561933</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>BCGlorfindel</author>
	<datestamp>1246564200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, let's all hide under rocks and hope we don't change the world into the bringer of our doom in the process.</p><p><i><br>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably. We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.<br></i></p><p>Genetic research doesn't seem so radically new in that context anymore, now does it?</p><p><i><br>The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment...<br></i></p><p>Tell that to the people in the world who are starving. You'll find that the only way to further reduce their 'environmental' foot print is by dying. If that looks like a solution to you at least have the courage to come right out and say it.</p><p>No matter how you cut it the only options our race has ever had has been re-engineer nature or population control. The ages were the later was chosen have never been pretty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , let 's all hide under rocks and hope we do n't change the world into the bringer of our doom in the process.People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture .
...the resulting organism , and the myriad interaction with other species , viruses , and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably .
We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.Genetic research does n't seem so radically new in that context anymore , now does it ? The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better , but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment...Tell that to the people in the world who are starving .
You 'll find that the only way to further reduce their 'environmental ' foot print is by dying .
If that looks like a solution to you at least have the courage to come right out and say it.No matter how you cut it the only options our race has ever had has been re-engineer nature or population control .
The ages were the later was chosen have never been pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, let's all hide under rocks and hope we don't change the world into the bringer of our doom in the process.People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.
...the resulting organism, and the myriad interaction with other species, viruses, and environmental conditions are far too complex for humans predict any outcome reliably.
We are blindly stabbing at potentially world-changing effects.Genetic research doesn't seem so radically new in that context anymore, now does it?The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment...Tell that to the people in the world who are starving.
You'll find that the only way to further reduce their 'environmental' foot print is by dying.
If that looks like a solution to you at least have the courage to come right out and say it.No matter how you cut it the only options our race has ever had has been re-engineer nature or population control.
The ages were the later was chosen have never been pretty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562039</id>
	<title>Tuna are already pretty super.</title>
	<author>McKeegan</author>
	<datestamp>1246564680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're huge, they're incredibly fast, and they have tasty meat. In fact, their meat has some pretty amazing properties, for a fish. It's just that we're probably over-fishing them, which is why the Japanese want to breed a 'better' tuna.

I prefer chicken-salad anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're huge , they 're incredibly fast , and they have tasty meat .
In fact , their meat has some pretty amazing properties , for a fish .
It 's just that we 're probably over-fishing them , which is why the Japanese want to breed a 'better ' tuna .
I prefer chicken-salad anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're huge, they're incredibly fast, and they have tasty meat.
In fact, their meat has some pretty amazing properties, for a fish.
It's just that we're probably over-fishing them, which is why the Japanese want to breed a 'better' tuna.
I prefer chicken-salad anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567179</id>
	<title>Re:Cross them?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246544940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just maybe give them bigger brains ?</p><p>But, really. Piranha are quite tasty, actually.</p><p>Funny you should mention them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just maybe give them bigger brains ? But , really .
Piranha are quite tasty , actually.Funny you should mention them .
; &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just maybe give them bigger brains ?But, really.
Piranha are quite tasty, actually.Funny you should mention them.
;&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561319</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246562100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.  The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we *cannot* recreate if we destroy it.</p></div><p>quite right!  We need less food being grown, not more.  We need less people, producing less demand on the environment.  I volunteer drDugan to be the first to step off the planet for the greater good.  Another 5 billion of you plebes need to get in line behind him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth .
The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better , but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we * can not * recreate if we destroy it.quite right !
We need less food being grown , not more .
We need less people , producing less demand on the environment .
I volunteer drDugan to be the first to step off the planet for the greater good .
Another 5 billion of you plebes need to get in line behind him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Food availability is the single most important factor that drives population growth.
The solution we need is not to re-engineer nature to meet the demands of growing populations better, but rather to focus on moderating the needs of people to fit within a natural environment created over 2 billions years which we *cannot* recreate if we destroy it.quite right!
We need less food being grown, not more.
We need less people, producing less demand on the environment.
I volunteer drDugan to be the first to step off the planet for the greater good.
Another 5 billion of you plebes need to get in line behind him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562089</id>
	<title>polarized opinion across Alantic Ocean</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1246564800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the American side of the pond few Americans care or think GM is harmful.  In Europe almost everyone abhors it.  Its gotten bad enough that American grain aid to Dafur and other starving African areas sometimes rots in warehouses because the Euro advisors tell Africans the grainis poisonous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the American side of the pond few Americans care or think GM is harmful .
In Europe almost everyone abhors it .
Its gotten bad enough that American grain aid to Dafur and other starving African areas sometimes rots in warehouses because the Euro advisors tell Africans the grainis poisonous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the American side of the pond few Americans care or think GM is harmful.
In Europe almost everyone abhors it.
Its gotten bad enough that American grain aid to Dafur and other starving African areas sometimes rots in warehouses because the Euro advisors tell Africans the grainis poisonous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562073</id>
	<title>Singing fish</title>
	<author>SoundGuyNoise</author>
	<datestamp>1246564740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will they demand the return of their fallen brethren who have already been processed into fast food?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they demand the return of their fallen brethren who have already been processed into fast food ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will they demand the return of their fallen brethren who have already been processed into fast food?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568943</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246563900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival. I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it. There's no inherent value in it, is there?</p></div><p>It seems worth noting that this logic only works if you assume that value is something placed on our lives by an intelligent creator, and not something that we place on our own lives.  Since you're starting from the assumption of no intelligent creator, there's a potential conflict there.
</p><p>I'm not sure if that's clear enough, but let me ask this: if there is no creator and no intelligence to the process, then what basis could there ever be for any value judgement other than our own human value judgements?
</p><p>Or do you believe that there isn't such a thing as valid value judgements at all?  In that case, why are you asking about "inherent value"?  In fact, why are you trying to convince people here of anything, if the opinion you're espousing has no value?
</p><p>My best guess from your post is that you have an implied value judgement that "survival of the fittest" is a natural process, and therefore good or at least appropriate.  However, at the same time you're arguing a contrary position that there is no such thing as a contradiction between "natural" and "unnatural", and that no value can be placed on natural processes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if evolution is a completely unintelligent process , then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves ( and whatever else ) off the face of the earth , then it seems to me that would simply mean we were n't " fit " for survival .
I do n't see , from the perspective of that worldview , what loss there would be in losing the world we ca n't recreate if we destroy it .
There 's no inherent value in it , is there ? It seems worth noting that this logic only works if you assume that value is something placed on our lives by an intelligent creator , and not something that we place on our own lives .
Since you 're starting from the assumption of no intelligent creator , there 's a potential conflict there .
I 'm not sure if that 's clear enough , but let me ask this : if there is no creator and no intelligence to the process , then what basis could there ever be for any value judgement other than our own human value judgements ?
Or do you believe that there is n't such a thing as valid value judgements at all ?
In that case , why are you asking about " inherent value " ?
In fact , why are you trying to convince people here of anything , if the opinion you 're espousing has no value ?
My best guess from your post is that you have an implied value judgement that " survival of the fittest " is a natural process , and therefore good or at least appropriate .
However , at the same time you 're arguing a contrary position that there is no such thing as a contradiction between " natural " and " unnatural " , and that no value can be placed on natural processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> if evolution is a completely unintelligent process, then if we misuse intelligence and end up wiping ourselves (and whatever else) off the face of the earth, then it seems to me that would simply mean we weren't "fit" for survival.
I don't see, from the perspective of that worldview, what loss there would be in losing the world we can't recreate if we destroy it.
There's no inherent value in it, is there?It seems worth noting that this logic only works if you assume that value is something placed on our lives by an intelligent creator, and not something that we place on our own lives.
Since you're starting from the assumption of no intelligent creator, there's a potential conflict there.
I'm not sure if that's clear enough, but let me ask this: if there is no creator and no intelligence to the process, then what basis could there ever be for any value judgement other than our own human value judgements?
Or do you believe that there isn't such a thing as valid value judgements at all?
In that case, why are you asking about "inherent value"?
In fact, why are you trying to convince people here of anything, if the opinion you're espousing has no value?
My best guess from your post is that you have an implied value judgement that "survival of the fittest" is a natural process, and therefore good or at least appropriate.
However, at the same time you're arguing a contrary position that there is no such thing as a contradiction between "natural" and "unnatural", and that no value can be placed on natural processes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560893</id>
	<title>need an artificial ocean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the ninja tuna are identified clearly so in the packaging, I whole-heartedly support this idea, but they should leave the wild tuna alone. I would even donate money to the Japanese if they would leave the wild tuna alone and create an artificial ocean with military protection so that the ninja tuna don't accidentally breed with wild tuna.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the ninja tuna are identified clearly so in the packaging , I whole-heartedly support this idea , but they should leave the wild tuna alone .
I would even donate money to the Japanese if they would leave the wild tuna alone and create an artificial ocean with military protection so that the ninja tuna do n't accidentally breed with wild tuna .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the ninja tuna are identified clearly so in the packaging, I whole-heartedly support this idea, but they should leave the wild tuna alone.
I would even donate money to the Japanese if they would leave the wild tuna alone and create an artificial ocean with military protection so that the ninja tuna don't accidentally breed with wild tuna.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561565</id>
	<title>I thought</title>
	<author>auric\_dude</author>
	<datestamp>1246562940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>that Green Peace had canned this line of research some time ago?</htmltext>
<tokenext>that Green Peace had canned this line of research some time ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Green Peace had canned this line of research some time ago?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561713</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246563480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.  However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the risks we face from environmental damage.</p></div></blockquote><p>Agriculture is responsible for the majority of environmental damage and has been long before anyone knew about genes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture .
However , doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks , possibly as large as the risks we face from environmental damage.Agriculture is responsible for the majority of environmental damage and has been long before anyone knew about genes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have been altering the genetics of plants and animals for as long as we have practiced agriculture.
However, doing this with modern techniques can present incredible risks, possibly as large as the risks we face from environmental damage.Agriculture is responsible for the majority of environmental damage and has been long before anyone knew about genes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561231</id>
	<title>Cross them?!</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1246561860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cross them?! Cross them with what? Other tuna species? Piranhas? Cmdr Taco?</p><p>Or, make them angry? Why would they be, err... angry, at anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cross them ? !
Cross them with what ?
Other tuna species ?
Piranhas ? Cmdr Taco ? Or , make them angry ?
Why would they be , err... angry , at anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cross them?!
Cross them with what?
Other tuna species?
Piranhas? Cmdr Taco?Or, make them angry?
Why would they be, err... angry, at anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560687</id>
	<title>Michael Jackson's Frosty Piss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More than just a few days old, it's really frosty by now.  Hell, maybe he got a sex change in which case his tuna is pretty cold too!  Mmm.... MJ SUSHI!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More than just a few days old , it 's really frosty by now .
Hell , maybe he got a sex change in which case his tuna is pretty cold too !
Mmm.... MJ SUSHI !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than just a few days old, it's really frosty by now.
Hell, maybe he got a sex change in which case his tuna is pretty cold too!
Mmm.... MJ SUSHI!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563667</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1246526340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks ---</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks ---</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks ---</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564217</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246528560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Heroes in my sandwich</p></div><p>Dude i herd u like heroes, so I put a hero in your gyro so you can eat while you eat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heroes in my sandwichDude i herd u like heroes , so I put a hero in your gyro so you can eat while you eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heroes in my sandwichDude i herd u like heroes, so I put a hero in your gyro so you can eat while you eat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561807</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246563780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see potential danger.  Tuna are already a highly refined predator.  What if the cages break and a group escape?  Then you have a disease resistant fast growing population of predators loose in the seas.  What could this mean for other species?  Could this throw the ecological balance way out of whack?</p><p>I've worked in population modelling in the past, and predator/prey ecology is complicated, chaotic and inherently unpredictable.  Forget Lotke-Volterra models, although they are nice equations, they are not realistic in real world situations where there are many species with many interactions.  Super-Tuna would be another apex-predator, as nothing else can catch them except humans because they swim so fast.  Messing with apex predators ALWAYS does weird stuff to ecology, and it's never good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see potential danger .
Tuna are already a highly refined predator .
What if the cages break and a group escape ?
Then you have a disease resistant fast growing population of predators loose in the seas .
What could this mean for other species ?
Could this throw the ecological balance way out of whack ? I 've worked in population modelling in the past , and predator/prey ecology is complicated , chaotic and inherently unpredictable .
Forget Lotke-Volterra models , although they are nice equations , they are not realistic in real world situations where there are many species with many interactions .
Super-Tuna would be another apex-predator , as nothing else can catch them except humans because they swim so fast .
Messing with apex predators ALWAYS does weird stuff to ecology , and it 's never good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see potential danger.
Tuna are already a highly refined predator.
What if the cages break and a group escape?
Then you have a disease resistant fast growing population of predators loose in the seas.
What could this mean for other species?
Could this throw the ecological balance way out of whack?I've worked in population modelling in the past, and predator/prey ecology is complicated, chaotic and inherently unpredictable.
Forget Lotke-Volterra models, although they are nice equations, they are not realistic in real world situations where there are many species with many interactions.
Super-Tuna would be another apex-predator, as nothing else can catch them except humans because they swim so fast.
Messing with apex predators ALWAYS does weird stuff to ecology, and it's never good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569967</id>
	<title>Re:super yeast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246621500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.hambletonbard.com/English/Homebrew\_Products/Turbo\_Yeast/Alcotec\_Turbo\_Yeast.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.hambletonbard.com/English/Homebrew \ _Products/Turbo \ _Yeast/Alcotec \ _Turbo \ _Yeast.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.hambletonbard.com/English/Homebrew\_Products/Turbo\_Yeast/Alcotec\_Turbo\_Yeast.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28575547</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246619040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh man.,  I was hoping  to read, "From the Sharks With frickin' laser beams attached to their head dept." or since that's so played out, "From the Ill Tempered Sea Bass Dept."  haha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh man. , I was hoping to read , " From the Sharks With frickin ' laser beams attached to their head dept .
" or since that 's so played out , " From the Ill Tempered Sea Bass Dept .
" haha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh man.,  I was hoping  to read, "From the Sharks With frickin' laser beams attached to their head dept.
" or since that's so played out, "From the Ill Tempered Sea Bass Dept.
"  haha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560761</id>
	<title>Sashimi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading all those articles about how the ocean would be depleted of fish, Tuna being one of my favorite fish I approve, now they need to make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading all those articles about how the ocean would be depleted of fish , Tuna being one of my favorite fish I approve , now they need to make a super version of whatever Tuna eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading all those articles about how the ocean would be depleted of fish, Tuna being one of my favorite fish I approve, now they need to make a super version of whatever Tuna eat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562015</id>
	<title>Because we're not ready yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246564560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humanity is not sufficiently advanced to no longer be faced with the issues you bring up.</p><p>How can we effectively maintain neutrality while attempting to manhandle nature for purposes that directly serve humanity?</p><p>When humans understand their inherent centrality in this World, and become responsible enough to maintain that centrality (while utilizing all this awesome "intellect" people cite when making arguments like this) to 'tweak' settings on the "Big Machine", the argument will dissolve.</p><p>Imagine, for a moment, that you are 4 years old.  It occurs to you that cookies are the penultimate foodstuff, and no foods other than cookies matter, for any purpose, public or private, visible or invisible.</p><p>Imagine, also, that you are endowed with *some* of the creative potential and scientific capability to affect this change in yours, and the the lives of all other 4 year olds, forevermore.</p><p>Now, fast-forward to age 16, when you obese, toothless, malnourished (yes, you can be all three), and by effect of your actions, your peers and their children are similarly afflicted.  Because of the alteration of what I will call "the continuum of persistent reality", you have altered your own ability to maintain compatibility with any other continuum, and thus have altered the ability of any other organism affected by your choices to regain their own, rightfully entitled arc along a projected path.</p><p>In short, you fuck it up for everybody, whether they like it or not, whether they recognize the problem, or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humanity is not sufficiently advanced to no longer be faced with the issues you bring up.How can we effectively maintain neutrality while attempting to manhandle nature for purposes that directly serve humanity ? When humans understand their inherent centrality in this World , and become responsible enough to maintain that centrality ( while utilizing all this awesome " intellect " people cite when making arguments like this ) to 'tweak ' settings on the " Big Machine " , the argument will dissolve.Imagine , for a moment , that you are 4 years old .
It occurs to you that cookies are the penultimate foodstuff , and no foods other than cookies matter , for any purpose , public or private , visible or invisible.Imagine , also , that you are endowed with * some * of the creative potential and scientific capability to affect this change in yours , and the the lives of all other 4 year olds , forevermore.Now , fast-forward to age 16 , when you obese , toothless , malnourished ( yes , you can be all three ) , and by effect of your actions , your peers and their children are similarly afflicted .
Because of the alteration of what I will call " the continuum of persistent reality " , you have altered your own ability to maintain compatibility with any other continuum , and thus have altered the ability of any other organism affected by your choices to regain their own , rightfully entitled arc along a projected path.In short , you fuck it up for everybody , whether they like it or not , whether they recognize the problem , or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humanity is not sufficiently advanced to no longer be faced with the issues you bring up.How can we effectively maintain neutrality while attempting to manhandle nature for purposes that directly serve humanity?When humans understand their inherent centrality in this World, and become responsible enough to maintain that centrality (while utilizing all this awesome "intellect" people cite when making arguments like this) to 'tweak' settings on the "Big Machine", the argument will dissolve.Imagine, for a moment, that you are 4 years old.
It occurs to you that cookies are the penultimate foodstuff, and no foods other than cookies matter, for any purpose, public or private, visible or invisible.Imagine, also, that you are endowed with *some* of the creative potential and scientific capability to affect this change in yours, and the the lives of all other 4 year olds, forevermore.Now, fast-forward to age 16, when you obese, toothless, malnourished (yes, you can be all three), and by effect of your actions, your peers and their children are similarly afflicted.
Because of the alteration of what I will call "the continuum of persistent reality", you have altered your own ability to maintain compatibility with any other continuum, and thus have altered the ability of any other organism affected by your choices to regain their own, rightfully entitled arc along a projected path.In short, you fuck it up for everybody, whether they like it or not, whether they recognize the problem, or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563633</id>
	<title>Re:We 3 Tuna</title>
	<author>An ominous Cow art</author>
	<datestamp>1246526280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Undoubtedly the first message from the Super Tuna Council will be:</p><p>ALL YOUR BAYS ARE BELONG TO US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Undoubtedly the first message from the Super Tuna Council will be : ALL YOUR BAYS ARE BELONG TO US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Undoubtedly the first message from the Super Tuna Council will be:ALL YOUR BAYS ARE BELONG TO US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561297</id>
	<title>Re:Cue that eco-maniacs</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1246562040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool.  Breading alters genes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I know it was a typo.  But it was a funny one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool .
Breading alters genes : ) I know it was a typo .
But it was a funny one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.
Breading alters genes :)I know it was a typo.
But it was a funny one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561087</id>
	<title>Greater Tuna?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1246561260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's next, A Tuna Christmas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next , A Tuna Christmas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next, A Tuna Christmas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579757</id>
	<title>Re:Monsanto of the Sea?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246718880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right. But it is not only possible. It is guaranteed to happen.</p><p>And it will fuck up the whole balance of the food chain too.</p><p>But who cares, if you can make bling-bling, and buy that new yacht. (Although nowadays, I guess it is more fashionable to buy yourself a nice government.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right .
But it is not only possible .
It is guaranteed to happen.And it will fuck up the whole balance of the food chain too.But who cares , if you can make bling-bling , and buy that new yacht .
( Although nowadays , I guess it is more fashionable to buy yourself a nice government .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right.
But it is not only possible.
It is guaranteed to happen.And it will fuck up the whole balance of the food chain too.But who cares, if you can make bling-bling, and buy that new yacht.
(Although nowadays, I guess it is more fashionable to buy yourself a nice government.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562095</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1246564860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3-  "Monocultures" increase risk.  Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.</p></div><p>Excellent point.  The obvious solution is to create several different species of Super Tuna!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3- " Monocultures " increase risk .
Even if this program is wildly successful , and they create a huge supply of " perfect " Tuna - they will be a single species , and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.Excellent point .
The obvious solution is to create several different species of Super Tuna !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3-  "Monocultures" increase risk.
Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.Excellent point.
The obvious solution is to create several different species of Super Tuna!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562005</id>
	<title>Re:very dangerous practice</title>
	<author>linguizic</author>
	<datestamp>1246564560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "Monocultures" increase risk. Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.</p></div><p>
Yes monocultures <em>are</em> a risk, when you're entire food supply depends on them.  I have a feeling that you read the Omnivore's Dilemma and took from it what you wanted to hear rather than reading what Michael Pollan <em>actually</em> said.  It wouldn't be the first time someone did that.  I've run in to it quite a bit actually.  The biggest danger that monoculture presents is when you apply it to the particular link that corn plays in the industrial food chain.  If a new disease came around that affected corn, it would affect ALL the corn in the system.  That would then affect the cattle, the chicken, the sweeteners we use for EVERYTHING, etc...  I seriously doubt that frankentuna there would be the keystone of some new industrial agricultural food chain.
<br> <br>
Yes, modifying living creatures can be dangerous.  But all of your arguments are just the modern eco-ludite platitudes that don't really have <em>any</em> content.  The metaphors that you use to portray the environment really speaks volumes about where you get your information.  I suggest you stop reading Mother Jones and pick up a text book on ecology and genetics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Monocultures " increase risk .
Even if this program is wildly successful , and they create a huge supply of " perfect " Tuna - they will be a single species , and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out .
Yes monocultures are a risk , when you 're entire food supply depends on them .
I have a feeling that you read the Omnivore 's Dilemma and took from it what you wanted to hear rather than reading what Michael Pollan actually said .
It would n't be the first time someone did that .
I 've run in to it quite a bit actually .
The biggest danger that monoculture presents is when you apply it to the particular link that corn plays in the industrial food chain .
If a new disease came around that affected corn , it would affect ALL the corn in the system .
That would then affect the cattle , the chicken , the sweeteners we use for EVERYTHING , etc... I seriously doubt that frankentuna there would be the keystone of some new industrial agricultural food chain .
Yes , modifying living creatures can be dangerous .
But all of your arguments are just the modern eco-ludite platitudes that do n't really have any content .
The metaphors that you use to portray the environment really speaks volumes about where you get your information .
I suggest you stop reading Mother Jones and pick up a text book on ecology and genetics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Monocultures" increase risk.
Even if this program is wildly successful, and they create a huge supply of "perfect" Tuna - they will be a single species, and their success will be a risk - a single other species or virus could wipe them out.
Yes monocultures are a risk, when you're entire food supply depends on them.
I have a feeling that you read the Omnivore's Dilemma and took from it what you wanted to hear rather than reading what Michael Pollan actually said.
It wouldn't be the first time someone did that.
I've run in to it quite a bit actually.
The biggest danger that monoculture presents is when you apply it to the particular link that corn plays in the industrial food chain.
If a new disease came around that affected corn, it would affect ALL the corn in the system.
That would then affect the cattle, the chicken, the sweeteners we use for EVERYTHING, etc...  I seriously doubt that frankentuna there would be the keystone of some new industrial agricultural food chain.
Yes, modifying living creatures can be dangerous.
But all of your arguments are just the modern eco-ludite platitudes that don't really have any content.
The metaphors that you use to portray the environment really speaks volumes about where you get your information.
I suggest you stop reading Mother Jones and pick up a text book on ecology and genetics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561063</id>
	<title>super yeast</title>
	<author>Twillerror</author>
	<datestamp>1246561200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't we start with something simpler and get some super yeast meant for beer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't we start with something simpler and get some super yeast meant for beer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't we start with something simpler and get some super yeast meant for beer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561017</id>
	<title>Oblig SouthPark gay fish reference</title>
	<author>VampireByte</author>
	<datestamp>1246561140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishsticks\_(South\_Park)" title="wikipedia.org">fishsticks</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>Do you like to put fishsticks in your mouth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you like fishsticks [ wikipedia.org ] ? Do you like to put fishsticks in your mouth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you like fishsticks [wikipedia.org]?Do you like to put fishsticks in your mouth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561175</id>
	<title>Sounds great...</title>
	<author>joebok</author>
	<datestamp>1246561680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds great, what could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds great , what could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds great, what could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28566987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560807
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28574929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28571325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28575547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28571549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28573839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28566295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1457254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561795
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28574929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28566295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28571325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28571549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28567179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28573839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28575547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561561
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28569139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28568943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28565327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28564293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28561925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28566987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28579619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28562213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1457254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28560807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1457254.28563667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
