The point was that there is an observable model. How does the method make a difference, if the results are the same?
The dogs actually have an advantage because we have had more time to weed out the really bad mistakes.
With genetic engineering we could make a multitude of errors and not catch them, till they have spread.
Not that I am saying the entire thing is a mistake, we could solve a lot of problems with it. Repairing clear genetic errors like blindness or heart defects is one thing. Casually changing hair and eye color is just plain wrong.
The issue as that the moral implications wont really hit us till we have already done damage. Then we will probably go the other extreme and put all kinds of silly laws in place. It will be generations before we strike a balance.
Ethics and common sense always seem to fall behind tech. The kinds of modifications people will find most attractive are bound to be the ones that will also be the most detrimental to the species. Lets just hope that the dangerous period passes quickly and without doing too much damage before we come to our senses.
Look at dogs as an example. We have been tinkering with them for many generations. The results are a bunch of "purebreds" that look cute, but often have associated health problems. Meanwhile your standard mutt is among the healthiest of all dogs.
I really hate this kind of logic. If we followed this argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no new discoveries. We have to take chances sometimes. It's part of the development process. Also, if you always waited till the perfect time for projects like this, you would find the perfect time never came.
Put all the money in the space program into hunger relief and you would still have starving people. Invest a little cash into the program and you might just get a higher return. We have already had some good things come out of it. Food storage solutions & hydroponics both got a helping hand from the space program.
At the same time, NASA is a joke these days. It's only a shadow of its former glory. I would really like to see space exploration taken on by the private sector. The tourist approach is actually a good thing in my book. Get more people up there. Make it a profitable proposition and the rest will follow. Unfortunately, since NASA is the only game in town I have to support them until something better comes along. Stopping space exploration altogether would be worse than letting NASA mishandle it.
Slashdot Mirror
The point was that there is an observable model.
How does the method make a difference, if the results are the same?
The dogs actually have an advantage because we have had more time to weed out the really bad mistakes.
With genetic engineering we could make a multitude of errors and not catch them, till they have spread.
Not that I am saying the entire thing is a mistake, we could solve a lot of problems with it. Repairing clear genetic errors like blindness or heart defects is one thing. Casually changing hair and eye color is just plain wrong.
The issue as that the moral implications wont really hit us till we have already done damage. Then we will probably go the other extreme and put all kinds of silly laws in place. It will be generations before we strike a balance.
Ethics and common sense always seem to fall behind tech. The kinds of modifications people will find most attractive are bound to be the ones that will also be the most detrimental to the species. Lets just hope that the dangerous period passes quickly and without doing too much damage before we come to our senses. Look at dogs as an example. We have been tinkering with them for many generations. The results are a bunch of "purebreds" that look cute, but often have associated health problems. Meanwhile your standard mutt is among the healthiest of all dogs.
I really hate this kind of logic. If we followed this argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no new discoveries. We have to take chances sometimes. It's part of the development process. Also, if you always waited till the perfect time for projects like this, you would find the perfect time never came.
Put all the money in the space program into hunger relief and you would still have starving people. Invest a little cash into the program and you might just get a higher return. We have already had some good things come out of it. Food storage solutions & hydroponics both got a helping hand from the space program.
At the same time, NASA is a joke these days. It's only a shadow of its former glory. I would really like to see space exploration taken on by the private sector. The tourist approach is actually a good thing in my book. Get more people up there. Make it a profitable proposition and the rest will follow. Unfortunately, since NASA is the only game in town I have to support them until something better comes along. Stopping space exploration altogether would be worse than letting NASA mishandle it.