I think that people have a real tendancy to only look at the short term when it comes to issues that affect us as a species. I'll put it bluntly, and perhaps many, or all of you, may think me an extreme pessimist for it. I prefer to think that I am taking the long, practical view that advocates "better to be prepared for the worst that to leap forward blindly". In a nutshell, I think that, if not tightly controlled and restricted, or perhaps destroyed, the ability to alter our own genetic code is an extremely dangerous tool , that may herald humankind's self-destruction. Perhaps a little bit of backstory is in order. Humankind, in terms of our abiulities to affect our environments, are unrivalled on this world. Fittingly, we have done a nice job of turning the functioning of the world to our desires. I'm sure you could think of many ways that we have altered the world, but some of the most relevant I believe fall under the general category of "quality of life." "Quality of life" is a catch all term I use to mean anything that "improves" the way people live, and the mechanism that we use to alter nature (in whatever incarnation) to achieve this. Perhaps a good example is "death rate / 1000 live births". It's quite impressive that in Canada, we only have 5.9 (or whatever) deaths per 1000 live births. This is great! Look at our advanced medical technology! Look at our dominence over the natural world! See how we eradicate the forces which plagued our neanderthal ancestors! Now, a pause for a moment. I'm not saying that we should abolsih all technology to save ourselves. I AM saying that it is a terribly shortsighted view that technology has forced us to impose upon ourselves. The fact of the matter is, those primitive, virulent forces of nature that our ancestors battled with kept the human species from stagnating. It kept the gene pool rich and diverse, because man had to adapt to the changes in his environment. However, societies evolve. Societies become more and more advanced, and gradualy develop tools, language, and explode with a wild diversity of creations that allow man to "enjoy a more natural life by exercising his ability to control nature." Only, we haven't really sat down, as a species, and thought about what this behavior means in the long run. Unfortunately, it think that man's continued artificialization of nature is a self-destructive and self-fulfilling course of action. Back again to that low-death-rate thing -- Now, in our modern day world, hardly anyone dies from the same causes that would have killed them in the wilds of our past. Society strives to preserve all lives, all the time - a noble and admirable goal, but a dangerous pursuit, true. Which is not to say that we can turn the clocks back. 30000 years ago, it was morally okay to let a member of the tribe die becuase he had a broken leg, and was a burden to the group. Today, we that would be morally wrong, and rightly so. Our society's values doom us to continue our course of action, no matter the danger to ourselves. Which bring us to the crux of the matter! The very fact that we strive to preserve all life throws our own evolutionary process out of balance. In the past, mankinds evolution was directed - we needed to adapt to our environment to stay alive. Today, we master our environment, or at least exercise considerable influence, with poor control. So, to what do we respond, in evolutionary terms? It's hard to say. We evolve against our own technologically induced changes in our lives, which far outstrip our ability to evolve. Additionally, our continued dominance over nature exposes us to more and more unforseen scenarios, at an unprecedented rate. Finally, couple this with man's continually advancing medical technology, and you are faced with a gene pool that is stagnating, and is not evolving. I'd have to say that it is at least a possibilty that man evolution has halted, and is possibly declining. THe introduction of a new tool like the ability to modify our own genome may prove to be the last nail in the coffin. Who's to say that our own pattern of: 1. get new technology 2. screw up badly 3. learn our lesson 4. use it for prosperity won't cock up horribly around step 2? I don't think we prepared to take our own definition as a species intop our own hands and start mucking around with little bits of it. Who's to say we won't end up creating a new bunch of humans, recognized as "societally ideal" that turn out to be horribly unfit for the realities of survival in the real world? Who's to say it won't be misused unknowingly in this way? I hope I haven't blabbered too long, or accidentally offended jillions and jillions of people with htis post. The opinions within are strictly my own, agree or disagree as you will.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that people have a real tendancy to only look at the short term when it comes to issues that affect us as a species. I'll put it bluntly, and perhaps many, or all of you, may think me an extreme pessimist for it. I prefer to think that I am taking the long, practical view that advocates "better to be prepared for the worst that to leap forward blindly". In a nutshell, I think that, if not tightly controlled and restricted, or perhaps destroyed, the ability to alter our own genetic code is an extremely dangerous tool , that may herald humankind's self-destruction. Perhaps a little bit of backstory is in order. Humankind, in terms of our abiulities to affect our environments, are unrivalled on this world. Fittingly, we have done a nice job of turning the functioning of the world to our desires. I'm sure you could think of many ways that we have altered the world, but some of the most relevant I believe fall under the general category of "quality of life." "Quality of life" is a catch all term I use to mean anything that "improves" the way people live, and the mechanism that we use to alter nature (in whatever incarnation) to achieve this. Perhaps a good example is "death rate / 1000 live births". It's quite impressive that in Canada, we only have 5.9 (or whatever) deaths per 1000 live births. This is great! Look at our advanced medical technology! Look at our dominence over the natural world! See how we eradicate the forces which plagued our neanderthal ancestors! Now, a pause for a moment. I'm not saying that we should abolsih all technology to save ourselves. I AM saying that it is a terribly shortsighted view that technology has forced us to impose upon ourselves. The fact of the matter is, those primitive, virulent forces of nature that our ancestors battled with kept the human species from stagnating. It kept the gene pool rich and diverse, because man had to adapt to the changes in his environment. However, societies evolve. Societies become more and more advanced, and gradualy develop tools, language, and explode with a wild diversity of creations that allow man to "enjoy a more natural life by exercising his ability to control nature." Only, we haven't really sat down, as a species, and thought about what this behavior means in the long run. Unfortunately, it think that man's continued artificialization of nature is a self-destructive and self-fulfilling course of action. Back again to that low-death-rate thing -- Now, in our modern day world, hardly anyone dies from the same causes that would have killed them in the wilds of our past. Society strives to preserve all lives, all the time - a noble and admirable goal, but a dangerous pursuit, true. Which is not to say that we can turn the clocks back. 30000 years ago, it was morally okay to let a member of the tribe die becuase he had a broken leg, and was a burden to the group. Today, we that would be morally wrong, and rightly so. Our society's values doom us to continue our course of action, no matter the danger to ourselves. Which bring us to the crux of the matter! The very fact that we strive to preserve all life throws our own evolutionary process out of balance. In the past, mankinds evolution was directed - we needed to adapt to our environment to stay alive. Today, we master our environment, or at least exercise considerable influence, with poor control. So, to what do we respond, in evolutionary terms? It's hard to say. We evolve against our own technologically induced changes in our lives, which far outstrip our ability to evolve. Additionally, our continued dominance over nature exposes us to more and more unforseen scenarios, at an unprecedented rate. Finally, couple this with man's continually advancing medical technology, and you are faced with a gene pool that is stagnating, and is not evolving. I'd have to say that it is at least a possibilty that man evolution has halted, and is possibly declining. THe introduction of a new tool like the ability to modify our own genome may prove to be the last nail in the coffin. Who's to say that our own pattern of: 1. get new technology 2. screw up badly 3. learn our lesson 4. use it for prosperity won't cock up horribly around step 2? I don't think we prepared to take our own definition as a species intop our own hands and start mucking around with little bits of it. Who's to say we won't end up creating a new bunch of humans, recognized as "societally ideal" that turn out to be horribly unfit for the realities of survival in the real world? Who's to say it won't be misused unknowingly in this way? I hope I haven't blabbered too long, or accidentally offended jillions and jillions of people with htis post. The opinions within are strictly my own, agree or disagree as you will.