Slashdot Mirror
Will Genetic Engineering Kill Us?
Kaz Riprock writes "Mark Baard, author of this Wired article was a recent attendee at The Future of Human Nature symposium (that I helped organize). The talks were held at Boston University through the Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. A high profile assemblage of well-known thinkers, such as Steven Pinker, Lee Silver, and Marvin Minsky, were invited to speak at the 3 day conference to examine what 'Human Nature' would be like in 50-200 years.
While the article describes a good amount of the 'doom and gloom' which was presented and discussed, it does not quite capture the upside to our potential future aims. One example from the conference was the talk by Christine Peterson, head of The Foresight Institute, on the future use of nanotechnology to better the human condition."
When a beaver builds a dam, it's called nature. When man builds a dam, we're destroying nature. Is the purpose of our life not to better our lives? And if so, why should we not be allowed genetic engineering, cloning, going to different planets.
The world is constantly changing, and we are part of it.
Now I do understand that many people have moral issues with genetic engineering, and I did (and still somewhat do) too, but if done right, what's the problem. For those don't understand, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It's a scary world that he describes, looking at it from our point of view; however, from the inhabitants point of view, it's a perfect world. Brainwashed, yes, but very few people are unhappy. Furthermore, the few that are too intelligent to live in that world are given their own island, to do as they please.
A perfect society, but it takes a while and a lot of change to get there.
Excellent observation, I agree.
But you are missing the intention of this alarmism. The intent is to sell. It's a sales event for books, seminars, etc.
There are three things that get peoples attention: sex; novelty; and fear. The market for sex is pretty much cornered. That novelty thing takes thought, and can die quickly. But that whole fear thing... Man that stuff can be sold, mixed and resold time and again.
By the way, is that Stupid Gene a double recessive?
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
I have an overactive immune system that attacks my own kidneys. It could kill me in about 10 years. (I am in my 30's).
Kidney transplants from family/etc. might help, but the real problem is that my immune system attacks my OWN kidneys, so you see the problem. Immunosupressant drugs are dangerous, leave me open to disease, and are not 100% effective. I end up with a weak immune system that still damages my kidneys a little bit.
The best hope for saving my life is genetic research into cloning kidneys from my own body, and then implanting healthier, younger kidneys into me. This is barely within our technological grasp, if we make it a priority. Dolly made you wonder, but it gave me hope.
That said, I do not consider Genetic manipulation of Human beings to be changing the species.
First of all, evolution is VERY effective. Any changes we make will be relatively minor. Our only real advantage over Evolution is speed.
Instead of NEW species, we will be making new "races" as in black vs. white, etc. etc.
It will take hundreds of years of actual evolution (living on seperate planets) to differentiate us enough to declare the new races new species.s
But we will end with a more vaired set of intelligent human races.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
But as the article points out - our genetic structure isn't a clear roadmap to these kind of traits.
There isn't a "smarts" gene in the same way there isn't a "grandmother" neuron.
You are correct: given the option to remove, without fear of mishap, genetic dispositions towards certain undesirable traits, most people would choose to do so.
But we are a very long way of being able to promise that. If instead you asked a parent
"Would you like a small chance your child might be more intelligent and healthier, but with a large risk that it may be paralyzed from the waist down from birth?"
Most people would say no.
That's not to say that the day may not approach when we can sequence ourselves a better life, but until then, some forethought is required.
Using ethical means of consideration is only good sense.
The more you learn about cloning the less afraid you become. The downside of cloning is we aren't very good at it and the percentage of birth defects is unacceptable. You are completely wrong about genetic engineering. I have read a great deal about it and went from being a supporter to some one that thinks field studies should be stopped indefinately. Forget the SciFi end of the world senerios. They are possible we just don't need them to be afraid. Genetic engineering is likely to cause in the next century, quite possibly the next ten years, the greatest famines this world has ever seen. Genetic diversity in cereal crops may already be a thing of the past. One desease can wipe out not just a harvest but an entire species of grain. Can't happen? It's going on now with banannas. Everyone is saying the current species being farmed will be extinct in less than ten years due to desease. You can live without them? Well in parts of Africa they are a staple. This is just one problem genetic engineering may casue. They have already made a number of insects immune to the most common form of insectacide. This effects non GM crops. It's been big news lately. There is a lot of potential good that can come from genetic engineering but we have to learn to be responsible. Remember all the nuclear clean up? How do you clean up genetic contamination?