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."

Comments

The answer

[Jade E. 2]

Will Genetic Engineering Kill Us?

Not if Nanotechnology gets there first.

Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[dtolton]

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.)

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[SocialWorm]

Maybe with Genetic Engineering we'll be able to eliminate the stupid gene. (That statement may set off a firestorm.)

It already did -- James Watson, one of the orgininal discoverers of DNA, said what basically boils down to exactly that earlier this year, and it was quite controversial. See http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 93451

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[TonyZahn]

Every new technology has been heralded with predictions of doom and gloom

I think that a little bit of this can be very healthy though. Going completely gung-ho on new technologies could be dangerous, and having a little caution is a good thing. Genetic engineering, AI, nanotech, the internet, the hammer, whatever, all of these have the potential to become bad things, but for the most part haven't because people were careful. That said, I'm all for any new technology that comes along, with the understanding that any tool can be used to achieve both positive and negative ends.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[Alric]

Your points cannot be overemphasized, but your example of AI/robots is a little off. In that realm we are trying to recreate ourselves.

With genetic engineering, we are just trying to make a few improvements to ourselves, modify an existing product. It's a lot easier to tweak an engine than it is to create one from scratch.

However, I do have some fear of where this road leads, because from my experience, one should not go around tweaking a system until he understands it well enough to create it entirely on his own. It often leads to horrible, unanticipated results.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[ElectricRook]

Doug,

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?

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be little heretic, but i think genetic enineering is the ONLY thing which can SAVE US. Natural selection does not work anymore (at least in "civilised" world) thanks to progress in medicine. Even sexual selection does not work - in its second-reproduction phase: succesful peopple (whatever does it mean) have usualy less children than the ones which somehow left over to each other. So the the degeneration in western countries is slowly progressing during last 100 years. If the mankind does not want to give up its humanitarian ideas and make artificial selection (sterilisation or even worse...), genetic engineering is the only hope.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[D_Gr8_BoB]

The 70's and 80's produced volumes of work predicting robots subjugating mankind to their will.

And so you want to stop the paranoia that leads to this kind of work? While not all the books you're probably talking about were good, the list of classics written as a response to fear of a cataclysm is pretty extensive: 1984, Brave New World, Farenheight 451, The Martian Chronicles, Canticle for Leibowitz, Cat's Cradle, etc.

So I say if a little healthy mass-hysteria about genetic engineering or nanotech is required to create great apocalyptic literature, it's a small price to pay.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[sigep_ohio]

stupidity does not see race or sex or sexual orientation. it happens to whites, blacks, men, women, gay, or straight. it is not any thing like the nazi's idea of the perfect blonde, blue eyed man. heck, eliminating the stupid gene might help us all get integrated a little better, cause it seems to me that stupid people are often times the most racist/sexist.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[sigep_ohio]

your dogs example is true, but dog breeds were never "un-naturally" genetically modified. Existing mutations were selectively bred into the "breeds". This is would be equivalent to a human breeding program to select for say athletics or intelligence. i don't think it is quiet the same as genetic engineering as it is currently being worked.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[mmol_6453]

then again, i am all for safeguards against any new, untested technology.

Asbestos was well tested. It took a long time before people associated pyrolysis with the production of carcinogens. (For example, cigarettes give you cancer.)

As has been demonstrated countless times in computer applications alone, you can never remove all the bugs in a device. There will always be things you didn't expect.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[DetrimentalFiend]

Has anyone stopped to think what might happen if we didn't do genetic engineering? Sure, everyone thinks about the moral implications of such topics, but no one ever stops to consider that we have essentially stopped evolution and possibly turned it around. More often, now, people need glasses, have diseases, and other unwanted characteristics because those people don't die like they used to. At the risk of sounding like a flamer, I've also noticed that (typically) it's the dumb people who have more kids. If this process continues, before long, everyone's going to be on medications, need glasses, be allergic to lots of stuff, and so on because we have not replaced the natural selection that we did away with a while ago. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should start a third riche, but I do think that people need to consider that perhaps genetic engineering is just a continuation of what was done naturally before.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[Anonymous Coward]

sex is sex, blood and sports are fear. Novelty is the new one. And I like it.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[wurp]

That link says nothing that could be interpreted to say they've discovered a "stupid gene" or can eliminate it. They list a few diseases that cause retardation that they can identify genetically, but I think you're taking a casual comment by James Watson and making more of it than is there.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[JDevers]

Did you and I read different things?? But in a documentary series to be screened in the UK on Channel 4, Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder and that molecular biologists have a duty to devise gene therapies or screening tests to tackle stupidity. "If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease," says Watson, now president of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, New York. "The lower 10 per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent The lower 10 percent isn't limited to those that are retarded, that would be more like the lower .5 percent. He is basically refering to "common idiots". I happen to agree with him, but just wanted to point out what you didn't notice.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[Michael.Forman]

It was reported that in a conversation between George Bush and James Watson, the topic of modifying genes to improve intelligence came up. President Bush wanted to know if the genes would come in a boot cut.

Michael.
Let's do a 25% split between funny, troll, offtopic, and informative, shall we?

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[wurp]

That's what I read. I still don't see where that says they've identified genes that cause stupidity. He explicitly says "I would call that a disease." The new scientist article even has another researcher replying to Watson's comments later pointing out that they're more meant to be inflammatory than informative.

However, I did miss the phrase where the article says "Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder". I still doubt that Watson said that they had identified the genes causing low intelligence. I think it's just sensationalism by New Scientist, who in my experience doesn't show the journalistic restraint I expect. The quote that they give from Watson (which you included in your post) absolutely doesn't say they can identify stupidity genes. It says Watson would call stupidity a disease, which sounds like an opinion rather than any scientific statement.

If someone had identified a gene that commonly causes stupidity, we would be seeing information about it in more than just an oblique phrase in a New Scientist article.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[ElectricRook]

I will be little heretic, but i think genetic enineering is the ONLY thing which can SAVE US.

From what threat? Lack of touch with reality is the most pressing threat I see.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[juhaz]

Ah, but it works.

People are always forgetting natural selection doesn't work toward any particular goal of "good (for humans, or anyone)". Only survival. In the world of today, stupid masses are obviously smart and fit enough to stay alive.

Introduce a real pressure that threatens the species and things will start to change.

Thus, depending on the definition of word "SAVE US", genetic engineering may well be the only thing that can make us change towards something "better", instead of staying only as good as we need to be to survive.

Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress

[tmortn]

Iregardless folks, stupidity is relative. If you actually manage to raise the bottom 10% it just means who makes up that bottom % will be smarter than the bottom 10% in the past. It will not change the fact that there will still be a bottom 10%. Though I wonder here if what is being discussed is mental retardation.. or simply the dense kid that studies hard but always gets D's because they just don't get it. Reducing genetic disorders would be a great and wonderfull thing. But societally there will need to be a replacement for the 'short bus kids'. A new rock bottom intelligence level will be created. Or those that used to be right above will simply be moved into the already existing bottom level. Either way as I said a bottom 10% will always be defined. Thus Stupidity is a fundamental societal existence. All that varies is what defines being stupid. Is it not being able to read/write ?? Or is it not being able to do diferential equations ?

In other words

Go to a Public Highschool and you will find it has a bottom 10%.
Go to a Private Highschool and you find it too has a bottom 10%.
As do Junior Colleges.
Even Harvard has a bottom 10% not to mention Harvard Law.

In any human environment the lower 10% is defined somehow. Sometimes the differences are gross. Sometimes minute. But we by our nature class and measure ourselves against others. We by default define social pecking orders. We are social animals.

If as a society we raise the overall level of intelligence thats a good thing. But I always have to laugh when people say that by doing so we will wipe out stupidity. That simply isn't the case. All that will truly accomplish is to re-define stupidity.

Good needs Bad to be definable.
Up needs Down.
Left needs Right.
Right needs Wrong.
Smart needs Stupid.

If you truly eliminate people of lower intelligence you also eliminate people of higher intelligence by deffinition. Because Smart and Stupid are relative definitions defined by each other. If you don't belive me then look at in this light. Once upon a time in the US a highschool diploma was more than something you wiped your nose with. Today for your average 'good' job you had best come calling with some form of higher education, preferably a 4 year acredited institution and posses a relavent degree. Is this truly because a highschool education has degraded so far.... or because college educations are more common ? Check the percentage of higher education degrees in the work force in 2003 as opposed to say in 1903.

Its the crux of equality really. True equality can never exist so long as people make value judgements of each other because when as a society we judge each others value in any way we move away from equality. Equality is bland, it is ideal. It is Utopia.

Best argument I've ever heard.

[unformed]

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.

Re:Best argument I've ever heard.

[hey!]

Well, forone thing beavers have built dams the same way for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Changes in scale and method of beaver dams take place on evolutionary time scales. Ecosystems can adapt.

Changes in human dam building methods and scale happen on cultural time scales (e.g. millions of times faster). We also build dams not for the benefit of ourselves, but of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. Therefore our dams tend do be much larger. You can't compare the local millpond to the Yangtze project.

Getting to your basic point, perhaps the poing of our lives is to better our lives. However, we, unlike the beaver, are free to consider in advance the consequences of our action, and to define what "better" would be.

Re:Best argument I've ever heard.

[cookie_cutter]

For those don't understand, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

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.

Re:Best argument I've ever heard.

[Drakonian]

Whoa whoa whoa. What if a beaver builds a new "superior" beaver? Is that still nature?

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.

Re:Best argument I've ever heard.

[The0racle]

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.

Re:Best argument I've ever heard.

[Dinny]

" 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."

I don't think that Brave New World is a perfect place for you or me, but think of your fellow man. Look around in this world and see home many people don't value the freedoms they have. I see so many people who would gladly give up control of their destiny to be free of depression, fear and self-doubt. How many people despair about their lack of control of their life while they are happy?

Re:Best argument I've ever heard.

[Agn0stic3000]

You must have skipped Brave New World's later chapters where the savage's dialogue w/ Mustapha Mond points out exactly what was wrong with their so-called utopia.

Check out Huxley's last book Island for another vision of technology's place in society. Or read what Nietzsche says about "the last man" in Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Re:Best argument I've ever heard.

[unformed]

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.

Re:Best argument I've ever heard.

[Drakonian]

No, and that's why nothing matters except for our current, here and now, enjoyment and satisfaction.

I strongly disagree. If that was the case there are very few things that would have ever been accomplished in this world. Would anyone go to school? I wouldn't, it isn't enjoyable. What about going to work? There are precious few who would. Would anyone go to war to stand up for what they or their country believe? It's not a lot of fun.

The Last and First Men

[Avumede]

In the 1920's (if memory serves me correctly), Olaf Stapledon took a look at the issues of the future of humanity in his classic sci-fi novel The Last and First Men, which is certainly one of the most unique books in science fiction. Genetic engineering plays an important part of the book. I highly recommend it to anyone that wishes to ponder the relationship of science and exploration to the fate of mankind.

A kid playing with a handgun

[Dark Bard]

The real problem is the irresponsible way it's being handled. Shortly after the first field tests geneticly enhanced grain is in wide spread use. Now it looks like the insects have become immune to it and the "super weed" senerio has come true. Causually throwing animal genes into plants and plant genes into animals is terrifying. The standards are so lax a generation or two of the plant or animal and it's in the ecosystem. If you look at the effect 200 years of developement has had on the lanscape, what will 200 years of genetic tinkering do to the genetic landscape?

Re:A kid playing with a handgun

[Dark Bard]

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?

Re:A kid playing with a handgun

[aardvarkjoe]

However, the reverse is true about nuclear power. The more we learn about it, the scarier it becomes.

Huh? Most people think that nuclear power creates giant insects, will cause their children to become homocidal glowing-eyed telepaths, and that the power plants are ready to explode catastrophically at any moment, as soon as Osama Bin Laden hacks into the computer systems. I don't see any difference in the irrational fears between nuclear energy and genetic engineering.

Re:A kid playing with a handgun

[HiThere]

Well, bananas are a special case. They distract from your argument.

Still, I agree. There's nothing inherrently wrong with genetic engineering. But there's much that's inherrently wrong with sort-sighted opportunism being used in that field, and that's what we seem to be seeing. But I doubt that any species will go extinct because of being cloned, because one of the things that becomes possible is the addition of novel immune mechanisms. (We can't do it yet, but within five years I'd bet on it.) But the laws may prevent this, of course...

Re:A kid playing with a handgun

[GlassHeart]

That goes for all current crops, and farm animals as well.

That's the problem. Humans have interfered with natural selection by adding our preferences (sweet apples, meaty potatoes, etc) into the mix. This is not a problem if you plant a favorite apple tree in your backyard, but becomes a problem when we systematically remove space for all other kinds of apples (ugly ones, sour ones, etc) to make room for our apples. These monocultures are highly susceptible to pests, as you can imagine, and therefore require large amounts of pesticide. The lack of biodiversity is its single point of failure, if you will. Potatoes are in a similar situation. Because Russet potatoes are big and white (perfect for french fries), they've squeezed out other species, and the land they're planted on are heavily poisoned with pesticide.

Want another example? Americans prefer "marbled" beef, where fat and lean meat are interleaved. The best way to achieve that is to have the cows feed on corn (most beef you can buy in the US come from cows that have never tasted grass). Unfortunately, cows can't digest corn, so they are also fed antibiotics to keep them alive. They are also fed hormones to accelerate their growth to slaughter weight, from about five years down to just 18 months.

Do you really think all of this comes for free (I'm not talking about dollar cost) to the one who eats it?

Re:A kid playing with a handgun

[ElectricRook]

INAL I fed cattle. Actually almost all western US cattle taste grass. Fed cattle built up to high feed need some form of roughage >%20 at a minimum, or their gut won't work (been there). The cheapest source (California) is usually grass, it may be in the form of hay, haylage, ensiled corn stalks, legume silage. (ensiled is feed is fermented, kind of like Hawiian poi)

Almost all (>95%) of western US beef cattle are raised on grass, and the calves (the only ones to hit the feed lot are between 6-12 months old) are typically raised to at least 6 months on pasture or range land.

Cattle actually process Maize (Corn in the US), better than people. If not for processin Corn with Slacked Lime (a very caustic chemical) Corn does not provide sutable nutrition for those simple gut humans.

Cattle are fed antibiotics only in rare cases, I have only seen it in dairy replacement heifers in confinement conditions.

Specialized veternarians usually consult on livestock feed. What constitutes good cattle feed: good nutritional properities, inexpensive for the feed value, easy for the livestock to digest, complete nutritional properities. Cattle eat a very complete diet, often concocted from agricultural product you and I cannot or would not eat. Such as: Almond hulls, Corn stalks, Rice polishings, Grape Pommace, Molasses.

Cattle only eat what they want to eat. If they are fed something they can't digest, or don't want to eat, they don't gain weight. If they don't gain weight, the farmer loses money.

About FAT Farmers are paid by weight, uniformity and the amount of marbeling in meat. In Japan, they prefer the meat almost white with fat. Fat is stored energy, and an indicator of the health of an animal. A skinny rough animal is not healthy. One that can grow a good layer of stored energy, and a clean slick glossy coat is healthy. Well marbled meat contains lots of energy. I may consume more energy than I need.

Predicting the future

[jeffmock]

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

Re:Predicting the future

[cookie_cutter]

He said that it's really easy to write about an apocolyptic future, but hard work to imagine a happy world in the future.

I've never found it hard at all. I just imagine a democracy where every citizen is as reasonable as I am. Utopia follows :)

The real problem ...

[Mr. Mai]

The discoveries by themselves will not harm us, it is the bad use of new technologies that will kill us. Just as the use of nuclear energy to make bombs intead of radiotherapy. The bad use of genetics will certainly have a terrible effect on humanity.

Counterpoint

[delphin42]

"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.

Gen-eng will join species, not divide them.

[cookie_cutter]

genetic engineering and other technologies are going to divide human beings into classes that may one day try to destroy one another

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.

Re:Gen-eng will join species, not divide them.

[Nerant]

What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
Imagine a world where if you want your child to benefit from genetics, you have to spend a proportional amount of money for said engineering to be done.
The social divisions between the rich and the rest of us, will only widen.
Perhaps genetic enhancements should be regulated as a public benefit or utility, where all have somewhat equal opportunity to get them.

Re:Gen-eng will join species, not divide them.

[Telex4]

You're only seeing one side of the die here though, as many of the more technophilic (is that a word? :)) posters here seem to do. Technology, even that which seems to improve things, isn't always a good thing.

Let's say I invent a really good robot that automatically plays football. It means we get to watch better football on TV, and you don't need to pay them huge salaries, so everyone's a winner! Unfortunately, kids stop kicking balls around, and everyone who plays football loses both a pasttime and a healthy form of exercise and socialisation.

We may make the human species far "better", but what would be better? If we were all beautiful and intelligent and suave? There's a place for people who are obsessed with this false ideal of perfection - Hollywood. What makes us special is our character, our spirit, not some superficial traits we can genetically modify, and so going down the road of genetically engineering humans will only serve to make people even more obsessed with essentially meaningless traits. Of course there are more difficult cases, like diseases, but that's altogether different.

There's also a genetic problem with genetic unification, which is neatly illustrated by the way that Monsanto and others are thinning and consolidating their gene pools. There are many hundreds of different type of rice around the world, and the strength of this is that should a disease or pest come along that affects one type, the chances are that others won't be susceptible. If they are all oe or two types taken from the same original parent, they're all doomed. Genetic diversity is extremely important, and any genetic engineering that tries ti consolidate is only asking for nature's troubles.

Come on people, let's be scientific here. Scientists (as opposed to technologists) study things in safe isolation, with a view to discovering the whole truth about the subject, and this simply isn't what is happening with genetic engineering. What we are seeing is science driven with the philosophy of technology (develop until it seems practical enough to sell, then roll out), which is unscientific and dangerous. Don't call critics of technology unscientific, because it's plainly untrue.

Re:Gen-eng will join species, not divide them.

[naasking]

What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
Imagine a world where if you want your child to benefit from genetics, you have to spend a proportional amount of money for said engineering to be done.
The social divisions between the rich and the rest of us, will only widen.

(flash back a few thousand years)
Imagine a world where only the rich have access to weaponry.
(flash back a few hundred years)
Imagine a world where only the rich will be have access to advanced health care.
(flash back one hundred years)
Imagine a world where only the rich will have access to cars.
Imagine a world where only the rich have access to flight.

etc., etc., etc.

Initial offerings are always expensive. Economies of scale and competition always end up bringing the price down to levels affordable by everyone.

Perhaps genetic enhancements should be regulated as a public benefit or utility, where all have somewhat equal opportunity to get them.

Government control/regulation and "public interest" are anti-thetical. Government always has its own agenda, and you can never entrust it to act in the "public good"; there are infinitely many varying opinions on what constitutes "good", and inevitably, you, and many others, will disagree with what the government decides. Why not let everyone make their own decisions? That's what the free market permits.

Well glad to see that nobody gets it

[jj_johny]

So technology gets better, everyone lives better, etc. etc. or technology has dark side and it destroys us. Well I believe that the future of everyone's happiness revolves around spirituality not technology. I look at people chasing after such dumb things and well I don't see how this or that technology (nanotechnology, fuel cells, ...) really matter to how you feel about your life. In fact, I only see that as people get more and more materialistic, they tend to go on autopilot. Its not that the materialism is bad, per se, but the lack of critical thinking about it is what gets most people stuck in a very unhappy situation - stuck in bad job, stuck in bad marriages, doing things that really don't make them happy.

So its all great that smart thinking people are figuring out what is going on technology wise in 50 or 100 years but too bad most people don't think about what they do everyday. Autopilot really sucks when it steers you right into a hillside.

Scared?

[greymond]

People who are afraid of genetic manipulation are also the same people afraid of cloning. They usually read or have read too many sci-fi books or watched too many sci-fi movies to understand that we could actually make HUGE benefits in health science and medicine.

Of course you can just as easily cut your steak with a knife and fork as you can stab and eat someone to death with the same utensils anyway - does that mean we shouldn't eat with a knife and fork anymore?

Re:Scared?

[Dark Bard]

Combining the genes of plants and animals was science fiction. A lot of the potential downside of genetic engineering pales what science fiction envisioned. Like handguns it's not the technology that's dangerous it's how it's used. In roughly ten years of serious effort, most of it in the last three to five years, a great deal of damage has been done. Genetic diversity in several grain crops is in serious peril. Why is this important? One desease can wipe out all the world's supply. Imagine no more corn or rice. Can't happen? When is the last time you saw an American Elm? They died out in my life time from an imported desease. The technology needs serious regulation. Unfortunately it's streading faster than nuclear technology did and it may not be possible. The 20th century was a time we feared The Bomb. In the 21st century we will fear genetic engineering.

Re:Scared?

[f0rtytw0]

I'm not against GE food or anything but recently I've been going over this topic in depth and I have one question for you. Do you know whats in that steak you are cutting? Bet you don't and I bet the companies that manufactored that steak don't want you to know. Nevermind what effects it might have on you down the road.

There are counterarguments, of course

[joak]

"We might create a group of people much smarter than us, that might want to kill us," said bioethicist George Annas, chair of the Health Law Department of Boston University School of Public Health.

Or they might be so much smarter than us that they realize they don't need to kill everyone who differs from them . . .

(Comment borrowed from Sladek's "Roderick at Random")

Re:There are counterarguments, of course

[One Louder]

Well, if they do try to kill us, we'll just take advantage of the fact that despite their advancement, they'll still think two-dimensionally.

good analysis

[ih8apple]

Here's a good analysis on eugenics from salon.com from 3+ years ago.

Good information, but also important is the fact that things haven't changed much in the last 3 years in spite of everyone's fear of things moving too fast for the ethical consequences to be considered.

If Genetic Engineering is going to kill the US...

[dduardo]

Then I better move to Canada.

Re:No.

[Tet]

Wrong answer. It will kill us. There are two methods by which it will do so:

1. 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.
2. 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...

Stephen Hawking's view of the future...

[jbischof]

..which I find very appealing at least, if not also completely agree with.

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.

Re:Stephen Hawking's view of the future...

[Razor Blades are Not]

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.

Re:I have a question...

[Joe the Lesser]

Um, does many thousands of people starving daily due to rampant overpopulation count?

What about the thousands of asthma sufferers plagued by air pollution?

perhaps these only qualify as gloom...

And what about the giant lizard that keeps mutating and attacking Japan...?

This WILL happen!

[rice_burners_suck]

A number of technologies are about to end the world. I will list them here and then describe how.

• Nanotechnology: Microscopic robots will be built. These robots, about the size of a blood cell, will be capable of combining into the shape of anything, and of changing color individually to give the appearance of the thing the shape of which they take.
• Quantum computing: Microscopic computers will be build with more computing power and more capacity to learn than a thousand human brains. They will be able to combine into vast networks with nearly infinite numbers of nodes through wireless communication.
• Biotechnology will allow scientists to make entire creatures, life supporting organs, or individuals cells to suit whatever purpose is at hand.

These three technologies will ultimately converge to create microscopic robots the size of a single blood cell with more ability to reason than an entire university of the world's greatest geniuses and with all of the advantages of both biologically based organisms and those of robotic origin. These cells will combine on-the-fly to form creatures, machines or any device, of any shape and size and of any appearance, for whatever purpose deemed necessary by the network of trillions upon trillions of cells that make up the object. There will be nearly infinite numbers of these cells in existance and they will convert the entirety of Earth's resources, down to the last blade of grass and the last grain of sand, into more such cells, thus reproducing until no matter on this planet remains that does not join in the vast network of sheer processing power and knowledge that this thing will become. At this point, there will be a monster the size of an entire planet, or billions upon billions of smaller monsters, perhaps the size of a human, that can shape-shift at any moment to whatever shape and purpose its vast mind desires. This will travel around the solar system, assimilating the matter of all space-dust, rocks, satellites, planets and moons into its vastness. Once complete, this process will extend into the farther reaches of nearby star clusters, further reaching into the farthest reaches of the galaxy and eventually taking over the entire universe. The sole purpose of this device would be to gain more power, not for use as a means to obtain a further goal but as an end. And it means that we will all die in the process.

Better Programmers

[Herkum01]

I know this is will become true, how can we current batch of programmers can compete with programmers of the future with thier third arm. They will be able to keep both hands on the keyboard AND STILL USE A MOUSE!

We've been doing it for centuries

[Gothmolly]

How is modern genetic engineering different then selective breeding? When farmers bred the two best cows or sheep, and then bred THOSE offspring, wasn't that genetic engineering of the breed? What about when you marry someone who looks a certain way? Are your children "genetically engineered" ?

No it will save us

[quantaman]

Currently the human race is on the path to extinction (or at least significant degredation). The fact is that large numbers of people with genetic mutations and just plain bag genes that would of been eliminated from the gene pool are now living and reproducing. When it comes to the longterm survival of the species we really only have a few alternatives.

1. Eugenics. Not a choice we want to take forced sterilization has been tried in the past (the Canadian government for a while in the 40s or 50s (i think) had the forced sterilization of people with mental disabilities) and this would constitute quite a serious breach of a persons rights and could start us down a slippery slope. Another option is screening of fetus' while this may work for serious disabilites i don't really see it pratical trying to work out whether the fetus is productive enough to keep, this is also difficult to execute while avoiding the species degrading as you would have to reject fetus' who are just a little stupid or destined to have other minor problems otherwise you're just avoiding the inevitable.

2. No more medicine or at least careful application of it. Only treat those ill by accident, not by genetic weaknesses, not a nice alternative either.

3. Selective breeding. Been doing this for a few thousand years (with livestock). Not sure to what extent it was practiced with ancient slaves but selective breeding is certainly a reason why the US has so many great black athlete's currently. This would be hard to enforce and again would constitute major violations of human rights. Again not an option I'd choose.

4. Do nothing. Simple enough we keep improving health care and ignore the genes. Eventually either the situation gets so bad we have to take an alternative or the race is degraded to a point where it can't sustain its society and we either collapse destroying ourselves entirely or fal back to a point where evolution takes over again until we get to that point again. Rinse and repeat. Not fun either.

5. Genetic therapy. Start with fixing obvious defects but slowly build up to actual improvements. Depending on implementation we quickly reach a point where the rich form a true nobility, in other words if your parents are rich you actually are faster, smarter, stronger, and more stable (as long as you don't get too arrogant). One solution to this is strict controls on the amount of genetic engineering like with a public health care system. Everybody gets free access to the same treatment regardless of wealth or status and everybody wins. Social stability remains and the race keeps improving. Sounds like the best option to me.

p.s. can anybody think of any options I missed?

As someone with a LOT to gain...

[gurps_npc]

First of all, let me explain, that this is my life we are talking about.

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.

Re:As someone with a LOT to gain...

[fockewulf]

cloning your kidneys won't really help as your immune system will continue to damage them. Like all autoimmune diseases, the best solution would be to locate the immune system genes and somehow replace them with the healthy genes.

most of the issues people have with gene therapy is when it's done at the germ line since changes (good or bad) will progress onto the progeny. There aren't those kind of risks with somatic cell gene therapy where only the individual in case is affected.

So the cure would work for you, but your offspring are still at risk of contracting the same disease and might have to undergo the same treatment

The whole issue of interfering with the human species would only occur with germ line gene therapy and not with the somatic line one. it's a distinction which is often missed when people rant against gene therapy as a whole.

In theory..

[MoogMan]

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...

Re:No.

[cookie_cutter]

Your first point is irrelevant, because even using no genetic engineering technology, our species will continue to mutate and eventually be no longer recognizably human.

Your second point assumes that we will only use genetic engineering to select genes out of the gene pool. Contrary to the beliefs of early eugenicists, this is both undesirable and unlikely, as modern genetics realizes the inherent benefits from having a diverse gene pool(such as the ability to resist killer diseases), and genetic engineering will allow us to further diversify our gene pool by extending it with genes from other species(I wouldn't mind a cow's ability to digest cellulose), and even with artificial genes.

I fear IP property suits and a perm. underclass

[Billly Gates]

Gentic engineering scares the shit out of me. I think the science invovled is pretty cool though.

However if companyA patents a gene for example that makes kids smarter and some parents use it, the child then is owned by companyA. We already see this in drug companies patenting genes. Why the fuck should I be charged for using drugs to treat my ADHD because I am owned by someone? ITs my fucking genes and they should not patent me. Its scary and in my opinion is slavery. These media sponsered RIAA/MPAA companies look ethical compared to some bio-engineering companies. I remember an old slashdot article which stated that a Candadian farmer was charged royalities for his crops because some pollen drifted from another farmer into his crops. These same companies will charge people they own for drugs and maybe even income someday as well as their children. After all there children also contain there (tm) genes developed by companyA.

Next comes permanent underclass. How many here are having trouble finding work because of no degree? Well a degree will not help you if you are not known to be a so called super-engineered child. No opportunities for any white collar job. Only people with +160 IQ's can have them. After all the shareholders want top notch people and its there right. McDonalds wants you. Please apply.

After this situation comes true then rich parents will only have children who are engineered. If they do not then they condemmn there children to a life of poverty where they earn less then 10k a year. This in return will skyrocket demand and make BIO-engineering CEO's cream in there pants. They will sell parts of people's genes to the highest possible bidder. DMCA like laws will continue to protect these shitty companies so they can rake in hundreds of billions a year from scared parents willing to do anything to make sure their children are not left behind.

This is scary as hell and wrong. In computing things are going in reverse like a circle. First there were plain old computers with single users, then computers with terminals and wan's, then pc's , now networked pc's with thin clients. Same thing could happen in our society with old world upper class vs poor class mentallity. New money has taken over old money in the 20th century and educational oppurtunities changed this. Now with genetic engineering it will turn around. Its " who are your parents" all over again. And no way to get around the barriers that seperate the 2 classes. The middle class might be the next upper class. We are already seeing former middle class jobs being shipped oversea's.

Charlton Heston said it ...

[cpn2000]

Genetic engineering does'nt kill people ... People kill people.

Re:No.

[Pyrosz]

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.

We have that now, there called geeks.

Thank god for third world countries ...

[Paolomania]

... because it is in the poorest areas of the earth that cannot afford genetic engineering that good old fashioned darwinian evolution and selection will ensure that the species always has a failsafe in the case that the rest of us engineer ourselves in some way that has some unforseen critical flaw (vulernability to a new class of infections, loss of ability to perform unassisted reprodutcion or childbirth, new genetic diseases resutling from mutations of engineered genes, etc.).

Re:Aside from no X-Men..

[k-0s]

I see your point but this will most likely be the sole domain of first world countries. Will the population bump up? Very minimally if at all. First world countries are on the verge of ZPG (zero population growth) as it is right now. Saving one child out of 100 or 1000 is not going to make any kind of population spike. The over population is happening in third world or low end second world countries where this technology will propbably not make it to and if it does make it there the cost is going to be out of range of the people there. This is all very sad but the truth is sad. I really don't see overpopulation being the major problem with the technology.

It's all about balance

[xRelisH]

The idea of the ability to increase ones child's IQ is like putting someone on sterioids.

With steriods, they get larger muscles and are generally stronger, but everything else doesn't become stronger to compensate. That is, your joints don't grow stronger and neither does all of the other types of tissue to balance out the growth. This is why a lot of people with sterioids get into lifting accidents, their muscles are strong enough, but not the rest of their body.

So, back to my point, you can't just increase someone's IQ. That person would also need to grow emotionally. Essentially, this would probably result in someone being emotionally unstable. The only true way to improve ourselves that I can think of is good ol' natural evolution, which is slow, but works!

Re:WORST! argument I've ever heard.

[mrtroy]

For those don't understand, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World...Furthermore, the few that are too intelligent to live in that world are given their own island, to do as they please.

If i do recall correctly, Alphas were smartest. Betas were best, since they werent too smart or too dumb, but they envied the Alphas. Deltas were pretty dumb, and Epsilons were handicapped mentally.

So, what you are saying is we should go to Huxley's world and (poorly worded in parent) put the smartest few on their own island.

This is the worst interpretation I have ever saw from someone concerning Huxley's book.
First: Huxley was making a satirical statement about the conditions which his generation faced, when he wrote the book. I would get into more detail, but nobody will read it.
Second: Huxley never meant he wanted the world to end up that way, he was just exaggerating how things were in order to make a point.
Third: The point is, kind of, that we can not restrict people's freedoms, stratify our population (put people in classes), and brainwash our population

Huxley wrote about how the leader was "Ford" (yes, like the car manufacturer), and there was also "Model T" (yes, like the first mass produced car). He was implying that if things continue going the way they are, this society could develop.

Re:Evolution vs. Science

[TheWhaleShark]

No, that's not counter to evolution. If a species as a whole develops methods to compensate for particular weaknesses in individual organsims, they have engaged in a sort of evolution. The problem doens't necessarily have to go away, you just have to be able to deal with it.

However, your point about allergies is valid. Genes are constantly changing; while really big gentic changes happen over huge spans of time, relatively minor changes happen from generation to generation. In this case, the prevalence of anit-allergy medication may have resulted in a higher succeptability to allergies, since the body no longer has to develop a mechanism to compensate for allergies. This is the same reason that steroids can make you impotent; once you have an outside source of testosterone, your body produces less of it.

The Biggest Danger...

[mmol_6453]

...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.

Cro-Magnon Clans Urged to Go Slow With Fire

[reallocate]

(Cro-Magnon News Agency) -- Shamans and clan activists are questioning the wisdom of allowing widespread use of newly discovered techniques for artificially producing fire.

A Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc meeting, sponsored by Clans United for Ethical Technology, today issued a resolution calling on clan and tribal leaders to block the spread of fire-making techniques to the general population.

"We must insure that making fire remains under the strict control of shamans and our clan leaders," said Clans United chief, Orm Marr-dhuk. "Tests have indicated that fire is dangerous if not handled properly. We fear that its widespread use could result in countless deaths by burning and the loss of many of the forests on which we all depend for shelter and food. Pending new developments, Clans United urges our leaders to decree that fire making will remain the exclusive privilege of the shaman and leadership classes. Perhaps someday, if the common people have developed the skills to use fire without risking life and limb, we can reconsider our recommendation."

When asked about the several flaming tar torches that provided light for the meeting at the Cauvet cave, Chief Orm replied that "We shamans have made the appropriate sacrifices to the goddess. She has given us the secrets of safe fire use. We cannot expect ordinary people to understand these things."

Didn't this happen before?

[litewoheat]

I wonder if a Neanderthal wrote a similar article when he found our the Cro Magnons were coming?

Controlling our evolution

[Shamashmuddamiq]

Genetic engineering has always been part of the big picture. Take, for instance, dogs -- they are (most likely) genetically engineered wolves, prepared specifically to serve the purposes of ancient humans. Additionally, "natural selection" can also be a kind of genetic engineering.

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.

Re: Ethics are the enemy of progress

[mmol_6453]

Every technogy has both positive and negative uses.

Physics led to artillery. I'm not going to argue with that. Did you know that knowledge of physics lead to things like boats? Balloons? Rockets?

As for chemistry: Nitroglycerin is an explosive, sure, but did you know that it helps prevent full-out heart attacks, if taken when symptoms show up?

Re:No.

[cookie_cutter]

That's how evolution works.

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.

At a crossroads

[Master Switch]

I think Humans are reaching a crossroads that every intelligent species in this universe reaches at some point in its history. We are coming to understand the machinery of life and how we ourselves our put together. We now have or will soon posses the knowledge we will need to tweak and adjust human behavior by altering the way our minds form. We will be able to tweak and "improve" our bodies (Or the bodies of subsequent generations). This doesn't mean that our generation or even two or three generations out will be able to do these things, but that in the next 1000 years or so, we will see dramatic self directed changes in our form and function.

Having said that, I don't believe that this will lead to a panacea. There in lies the test, can we survive and thrive under our own evolutionary direction. Our behaviors to date were evolved to help us thrive in somewhat different circumstances. Do we have the foresight to guide our own evolution, can we overcome our shortcomings and make the right decisions. I think the difference will be in how well we temper our aggressive, violent nature. If we can balance aggression with forethought, we might just make it. I'm sure that the universe is littered with failed species that have gotten this far and then imploded. Let us hope we do not become one of them.

Will genetic engineering kill humans?

[confused philosopher]

Will genetic engineering kill humans?

Confused Philosopher is not confused about this:

Yes.

It will because we will try to replace one type of bacteria with another "harmless" one, not realizing that the new bacteria doesn't produce an important by-product, and by the time we realize, we will have all been infected and starving/rotting/going-loopy.

Spam of the future...

[Johnboi Waltune]

Knock down walls with your genetically-engineered MONSTER COCK!!

I personally hope the world is turned to gray goo by nanotech before I ever see that in my inbox.

Playing God

[Max Threshold]

I've often wondered if our medicine and technology will harm our evolutionary progress. It's a touchy issue because it deals with relative human "worth" in the context of survival of the species. It's apparently an issue too volatile to address; I've never heard anyone mention it. (Or maybe I'm just nuts for having thought of it.) Think about it though. Thanks to modern medicine, lots of people are alive who by the rights of natural selection ought to be dead. People with weak immune systems. People with congenital defects. People who just aren't as smart or as agile as the rest of us. In short, people who are genetically inferior. And they're reproducing... So I take issue with those who object to genetic engineering on the grounds that we're "playing God." We've been playing God for centuries. You could even argue that we've been playing God since the first farmer planted his crop in a field where it never naturally grew. Here's another thought: Given our piss poor management of agriculture, medicine, and the other technologies we've had for centuries, I don't hold out much hope for genetic engineering to be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for humankind. When will we learn?

Wanna bet?

[dubl-u]

As many people saw in Wired, there's already a prediction on this over at Long Bets:

By 2020, bioterror or bioerror will lead to one million casualties in a single event.

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.)

Job Description: Well-known Thinker

[fbg111]

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.

I want to be a well-known thinker too. I sit around thinking most of the day anyway. I want to be invited to conferences and get paid lots of money for speculating on random future issues that are so far away that I'll be dead before being proven right or wrong. So what do I have to do to enter the profession of Well-known Thinker? I'm applying to econ graduate school right now, but if there's an easier way to get into this, I'm all ears. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

seed patents are scary

[wadiwood]

Not specifically that case, but I think that is what the Australian farmers do not want to happen. Along with the unanticipated allergy problem.

I think a legal system that allows big money and lawyers to win every time, instead of fairness and justice, will self implode in the long run. Hopefully sooner rather than later.