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."
Not if Nanotechnology gets there first.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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 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")
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.
Why do I h8 apple?
- 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
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.
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...?
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
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!
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" ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
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?
I stole this Sig
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
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...
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.
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.
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
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.
Visit www.seriouslythough.com
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.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
(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."
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
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.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
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.
Why slashdot? Why not?
I personally hope the world is turned to gray goo by nanotech before I ever see that in my inbox.
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
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.)