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."
This is the same line of thinking that many people have followed
for the last century. Every new technology has been heralded
with predictions of doom and gloom. The 70's and 80's produced
volumes of work predicting robots subjugating mankind to their
will. As we progress with work on AI we find we are still a
long way from that type of outcome.
The stories are too many to recount all of them, but a quick
jaunt through history shows that people are resistant to
change. They are slow to adopt technologies that change their
world view, and they often react violently if that change will
alter their religious view of the Universe. As an example look
at the debate still raging over evolution.
That isn't to say we shouldn't be careful of new technologies
and put good safeguards in place, however I for one am tired of
overly alarmist predictions of every new technology. It would
be nice to see some beautiful predictions of how the future
might be better with the technology.
Maybe with Genetic Engineering we'll be able to eliminate the
stupid gene. (That statement may set off a
firestorm.)
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
This thing reminds me of an interview with Steven Spielberg when the "back to the future" movies came out in the 80's. He said that it's really easy to write about an apocolyptic future, but hard work to imagine a happy world in the future.
Maybe it's because we tend to idealize the past and forget about the horrible aspects of life 50-200 years ago. Maybe this sets a trend line where the past was great, the present is not as good, so the future must be hellish if we extrapolate far enough.
jeff
"He proposed a worldwide treaty organization that would ban germ-line genetic engineering"
This is just yet another case of the difficulty balancing our scientific curiousity with our (often warranted) fear of the unknown.
To present the other side of this argument, try reading this.
-- Adam
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of species and of what advanced genetic engineering technologies allow.
The biological species concept defines a species as a set of organisms which can breed among themselves, but not with members of other species
Genetic engineering, particularly trangenics, makes this concept obselete, because it is possible to transfer genes from any species to any other, pretty much eliminating any species boundaries.
Yes, different people will have different sets of genes, but with gen-eng, it will be possible to move from any one type to any other, ie "upward mobility" will be possible for everyone, which is infinitely preferable to what we have now where people are stuck with the gene's they're born with.
- We'll modify ourselves to the point where
we're no longer recognisably human. At that point,
"we" are dead, and a new species will have taken
our place. Yes, I mean that -- eventually,
the genetically modified will not be able to
interbreed with the unmodified.
- The diversity of our genetic makeup is one of
the things that keeps us as a race going. If
genetic modification becomes pervasive, humanity
will be unable to resist converging on an
idealised notion of the "perfect" human being.
At that point, there is a much higher risk of
a killer disease capable of wiping out the
entire population.
As to which of those two it will be, only time will tell..."The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
The problem with that world wasn't that people were too happy.
The problem was that the whole world was stagnant, nothing new was ever done, and books that prescribed independant thinking were banned. There was also the mandatory religious participation, and the uninformed administration of drugs which, while making you healthy while alive, caused you to die around 60.
The "too intelligent" people weren't "given" their own island, they were exiled to particular islands, where they couldn't influence their brain-washed brethren.
In one of his lectures he talks about the future of our society, especially that related to genetic engineering and how the future of science will effect our evolution.
Evolution up to know, has proceeded slowly, about one bit of DNA changes every year. If we take it into our own hands (ignoring the moral implications and side effects) we could alter our own DNA at a far greater rate. Add that with the ability to predict what the changes will do, we can evolve at a far greater rate.
Our children will be better, faster, and stronger. I mean who initially would say no to "Sir, would you like me to remove the possibility of Downs Syndrome from your child"? Now replace Downs Syndrome with Diabetes or with Weak Minded or with Scrawny. You can see that it isn't that unreasonable or that far away.
Of course, when you put yourself in Stephen Hawking's shoes, a man who biology abandoned a long time ago, it makes perfect sense to imagine that intelligent humans can prevent the types of conditions that completely disable a person without the aid of a machine.
The best argument I've read against genetic engineering goes something liek this. We will have no way to know if the things we excel at are just because of the $99 Gene sale from XYZ Cromosones or if it's because we worked hard and tried to get better at something we like/want to do. Say for example a mother has worked very hard to become a skilled pianist. She wants her child to be even more skilled than her at music, so just gives her the appropriate music genes. Now the daughter is an excellent pianist but is playing the piano something she does because she enjoys music? Or does she just feel this strange compulsion to play the piano without it being something you use strive for? The worst part about it is how can she tell? If you are genetically engineered, how can you have thoughts about whether genetic engineering is OK? Your whole mindframe is biased. How can you find out who you really are, and what isn't just part of a catalogue? How can you control your own destiny when it has already been decided for you?
I also think you have a very unique perspective on Brave New World. A perfect society!?? Out of interest, did you think 1984 depicted a similarly perfect society? Do you feel that is what society should be like - no real freedoms, everyone just walking around in a state of perpetual bliss? A society where you in no way control your own destiny. I guess in that case, it would make sense that you approve of genetic engineering.
Random is the New Order.
Im all for Genetic Engineering in theory. The problem lies when you have to define whether a gene is valid/useful/good. If there are certain genes linked to such things as Austism and Dyslexia, then maybe we'd be killing off a chunk of potential "great thinkers" in the future...
Evolution is a constant stuggle between predator and prey. Take for example a hypothetical battle between a plant and a bird. Bird eats plant. Plant doesnt approve, so develops poison. Bird develops immunity. Plant develops thorns. Bird develops long beak.
Things like genetic enginering, to me, are simply the human beings "thorn." It will not stop the battle, but it seems an inevitable and neccesary step. Diseases, epidemics, mutations, AIDS, cancer, etc will all continue. The bird will develop the longer beak. It seems almost our duty, if we view ourselves as merely a mechanism of nature, to develop our thorn.
Now, you might want to argue that by the very nature of eliminating some known diseases, genetic mutations, etc we will do nothing but create deadlier, more efficient, more adaptable enemies. To me, that seems the most logcailly compelling argument against genetic engineering, but i would still argue against it.
...is non-localization of technology's effects.
chemical (Spills), biological (disease epidemics) and political(police states) disasters are bad enough. Imagine what would happen if the effect of a disaster couldn't be localized?
That's the kind of danger nanoluddites and anti-GE fanatics harp on. What we need is a way to limit the effects of any type of disaster we're capable of creating.
We need to expand human presence beyond the reach of any one disaster. The problem is, nobody takes things like colonization seriously anymore. Human expansion discussions are considered things of science fiction.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Humans have evolved to a point where we have used our available resources to slow our evolution. Natural selection no longer works like it used to. Poorly-adapted (however you measure that) people can live just as long and have just as many children as those who are well prepared for adverse survival conditions. Developed countries defend a right to life, no matter how stupid you are.
Now we have a chance to turn this trend around and speed up our evolution; to control it in ways that were never practical before. We should embrace this opportunity. It will happen whether we like it or not. Like many "scary" new technologies, we need to recognize it, develop some kind of conventional wisdom regarding its use, and then exploit it to our best benefit. Declaring it dangerous, banning it, and trying to run the other direction is not only futile, it sets us behind those who will embrace it.
...just my 2 gil.
How can you tell?
You can't, and that's exactly why it doesn't matter. Actually, while we're at it, how do you know that you're not simply some larger creature's pet. Maybe we're just ants in some (higher's creature) a world kid's room.
Do we know for sure?
No, and that's why nothing matters except for our current, here and now, enjoyment and satisfaction.
Um, never took a course in population genetics, have you?
Because if you had, you would surely know about the neurtal theory of molecular evolution, which "proposes that the majority of nucleotide substitutions and polymorphisms are the result of selectively neutral mutants" ie, most changes in the gene pool are selectively neutral. This theory revolutionized genetics, and led to the development of many useful techniques like "molecular clocks" to determine when two bloodlines split off from each other.
Furthermore, the neutral theory does not require selection on an allele to be totally absent (s = 0), but only that it is small with respect to the effects of random genetic drift ( 4*Ne*s less than 1, where Ne is the effective population size, and s is the selection coefficient).
Which means that even genes which are HARMFUL to the individual sometimes become fixed in all members of the species, becoming more frequent than the less harmful versions.
Over time, this leads to movement of the genepool away from it initial state, even if the environment favours the initial state.
The scary part is that in the year the prediction has been up, nobody has been willing to bet against him.
For those not familiar with the site, it's a place where people can make predictions and bets about the future. The soonest allowable bet is two years from now, but most go out a lot farther than that. So if you're so sure about your opinions on biotech (or any other topic) that you're willing to throw down on the public record, you can. (All the wagers go to charity, so don't think you'll be getting rich. But if you win, you can pick the charity.)