Although you use some scientific mumblings that are basically lost on a fair number of readers, you failed to address "Mr. Katz's" point. Actually, as far as argumentative logic would judge you seem to have inadvertantly supported his view. You state you disagree with his picture, BUT by simply implying that the ability "to custom build a life form" will happen, and because of licensing fees it will be extremely expensive, have you not given credibility to his argument? Now, the assertion that only the rich will have access doesn't sound so ludicrous. His "ridiculous" painting of the future is maybe simple in its explanation, but certainly not silly. It is something that needs consideration.
I am also a little perplexed at your prophetic muttering on the future, and specifically the responsible use of potentially dangerous technology. History, both near current and far past, has shown that whoever wields superior tech will use it to their advantage. Always, and without exception. I simply do not agree with you that "the ethical use of medical treatments is of primary concern in most/all countries." It just simply isn't so.
Now, I don't really like absolute statements such as the one I just made above, but certainly, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. Human evolution, and indeed cultural evolution is a testament to this very fact, and although you and I might be oblivious to it living in the micro level, at the macro level we are part of the very same phenomenon, that of more advanced technology overtaking the less advanced without the slightest hint of moral awareness (heck man, I'm typing on away on a PC - at least one third or more of the world doesn't even own one). If you don't agree, reference Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" (1997), or for a more dated text, Kenneth Waltz's "Man, Society, and War" (1959). However, these authors might be a little annoyed for using their texts in support of such a polemic argument as this.
Much good can and will come from the HGP and genetic engineering. However, that is not the only result. It is irresponsible to assume that "countries" will use the technology with any degree of ethical behaviour without really having the discussion full blown in the public domain and in those countries which will have the technology. Did you follow that?
I also assert, the technology and ability for widespread engineering is a lot closer than you think. The connection between social development, political will and military confilct is fairly well understood, and what we do know is that it's speed of evolution has increased, and the interdependencies are extremely complex. The last century has seen the development of technology over 30,000 (+) times what it was in 1899. In only 100 years, we have gone from polarized and isolated micro-poly-states, to a "global" loose polar status. From taking two weeks to cross the oceans by ship, to six hours of commercial and popularly available FLIGHT. It took numerous wars to achieve the current world organization, and although I wish differently, I'm not convinced we're done with this type of insidious human behaviour! Are you suggesting that this will somehow reverse? Certainly not just because I "wish" it so.
You have also stated what gaps there are in actively using the results of the HGP (specific enzime tech, etc.). I'm fairly confident that work has already begun in these areas. So, how far are we really?
Lastly, technology and its effect on business, government, medicine, military, and even individual existence has been staggering beyond any prophet's imagination, and has been played out over and over again in the last century. Huxley, Orwell and Verne were wrong only to the degree in which they failed to see the impact of technology on society as far reaching as it has become. Although they were praised (or reviled) for their insights, are we not in a better position because of their failures? They were wrong because they did not see far enough. Let's not make the same mistake, by either resting on the hope of future societies making the right decision, or alternatively, becoming a fear mongerer. We need real discussions, right now. And for that, even if I don't completely agree with him, I can thank "Mr. Katz".
Slashdot Mirror
Although you use some scientific mumblings that are basically lost on a fair number of readers, you failed to address "Mr. Katz's" point. Actually, as far as argumentative logic would judge you seem to have inadvertantly supported his view. You state you disagree with his picture, BUT by simply implying that the ability "to custom build a life form" will happen, and because of licensing fees it will be extremely expensive, have you not given credibility to his argument? Now, the assertion that only the rich will have access doesn't sound so ludicrous. His "ridiculous" painting of the future is maybe simple in its explanation, but certainly not silly. It is something that needs consideration.
I am also a little perplexed at your prophetic muttering on the future, and specifically the responsible use of potentially dangerous technology. History, both near current and far past, has shown that whoever wields superior tech will use it to their advantage. Always, and without exception. I simply do not agree with you that "the ethical use of medical treatments is of primary concern in most/all countries." It just simply isn't so.
Now, I don't really like absolute statements such as the one I just made above, but certainly, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. Human evolution, and indeed cultural evolution is a testament to this very fact, and although you and I might be oblivious to it living in the micro level, at the macro level we are part of the very same phenomenon, that of more advanced technology overtaking the less advanced without the slightest hint of moral awareness (heck man, I'm typing on away on a PC - at least one third or more of the world doesn't even own one). If you don't agree, reference Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" (1997), or for a more dated text, Kenneth Waltz's "Man, Society, and War" (1959). However, these authors might be a little annoyed for using their texts in support of such a polemic argument as this.
Much good can and will come from the HGP and genetic engineering. However, that is not the only result. It is irresponsible to assume that "countries" will use the technology with any degree of ethical behaviour without really having the discussion full blown in the public domain and in those countries which will have the technology. Did you follow that?
I also assert, the technology and ability for widespread engineering is a lot closer than you think. The connection between social development, political will and military confilct is fairly well understood, and what we do know is that it's speed of evolution has increased, and the interdependencies are extremely complex. The last century has seen the development of technology over 30,000 (+) times what it was in 1899. In only 100 years, we have gone from polarized and isolated micro-poly-states, to a "global" loose polar status. From taking two weeks to cross the oceans by ship, to six hours of commercial and popularly available FLIGHT. It took numerous wars to achieve the current world organization, and although I wish differently, I'm not convinced we're done with this type of insidious human behaviour! Are you suggesting that this will somehow reverse? Certainly not just because I "wish" it so.
You have also stated what gaps there are in actively using the results of the HGP (specific enzime tech, etc.). I'm fairly confident that work has already begun in these areas. So, how far are we really?
Lastly, technology and its effect on business, government, medicine, military, and even individual existence has been staggering beyond any prophet's imagination, and has been played out over and over again in the last century. Huxley, Orwell and Verne were wrong only to the degree in which they failed to see the impact of technology on society as far reaching as it has become. Although they were praised (or reviled) for their insights, are we not in a better position because of their failures? They were wrong because they did not see far enough. Let's not make the same mistake, by either resting on the hope of future societies making the right decision, or alternatively, becoming a fear mongerer. We need real discussions, right now. And for that, even if I don't completely agree with him, I can thank "Mr. Katz".