It is unlikely that this cobbled-together bacterium (for want of a better term) will be pathogenic. Virulence in bacteria is usually the result of specific adaptions to overcome a host's defence mechanisms - not pure chance alone. Perhaps virulence factors could be inserted by the malevolent, but such a thing occurring by chance alone is unlikely (although the role of selection shouldn't be neglected...). Also, such artificial bacteria probably won't be as hardy as the real McCoy; they probably would need to grow on enriched media with all sorts of nutrients and special carbohydrates, etc and be lovingly cared for by their proud parents:) and the danger of accidental escape is fairly low given the precautions taken. So an artificial bacterium isn't really that great a danger compared with modification of an existing one to add virulence, or (less imaginatively) just mass propagation of some existing nasty like anthrax.
Although the technology isn't going to arrive tomorrow, the very real prospect is that we will
1) work out how genes interact to produce socially desirable phenotypes (eg. intelligence). I heard the head of arguably the top biomedical research facility in Australia (Dr Suzanne Cory, Head of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute) comment that it would take us 100s or 1000s of years to work out what the genes mean. I disagree; I think that while this might seem likely to a biologist, once enough mathematicians work on it we will find an automated method that greatly accelerates this work. Bioinformatics is only in its infancy; what it makes possible may be the greatest demonstration of the power of mathematics and computer science to date. In any case, we don't need to really understand it. The history of science is the history of partial understanding and application of that understanding before we really know what we're doing and all the side effects.
2) develop reliable techniques for germ-line gene therapy or other techniques for making genetics changes in the embryo. Somatic gene therapy is unlikely to ever reach the level of sophistication required to modify the genetic complement of all cells. Germ line gene therapy is just much easier.
When 1) and 2) have been achieved to a sufficient degree, someone, somewhere will start doing germ line gene therapy to make (for arguments sake) smart people. It will start off experimental, probably somewhere with few laws regulating such procedures. Then the ultra-rich will be able to have it, then the slightly less rich. There will be some ugly errors at first, but they will be forgotten as we become more competent and develop improved methods of quality control. As the technology improves and becomes more widespread, at each point there will be people at the border --- people who can afford the technology and must decide whether or not to use it. They will want the best for their children, and they will see that unless they do use the technology, others will have an edge over them. They will fear that their children will be unable to compete --- much as many of those parents currently into "maximizing their child's potential" by trying to get them into the best schools, do the most number of activities to the highest level, etc, do it out of fear. We all know this is losing our childhood and a part of our humanity; but many of us are willing to make that sacrifice to compete, because if we don't, someone else wins and we lose. The same principle will apply for germ-line gene therapy. We will end up choosing it, not because we fail to appreciate the harm, but because of a fear of condemning our children to a lifetime of being second rate.
I hope it comes after I have kids (and it probably will). I'd rather not have to make that choice. By the way, the comment that intelligence and other traits are in the eye of the beholder, and so there won't be any dillema... pure postmodernist sophistry. Sure intelligence is multifactorial, and some of the factors might turn out to be partially incompatible, so that we have to decide which factor is the most important component of intelligence and compromise the others. We might even find that intelligence is partially incompatible with some other trait, and we need to make a choice on what kind of tradeoffs we need to make. But that just means there are a few subchoices within the crucial question: will you be choosing to maximize your child's potential through genetic manipulation?
(I won't be reposting this if there are any spelling errors; I'm sure you can work out what I mean.)
>In addition the entire tone of Revelation is symbolic, whereas Genesis obviously intends to record history.
I agree the later chapters are far more historical; but the first few chapters
i) use words like "formless void" - I don't think the Hebrew for this is found anywhere else in the Bible. I also seem to recall mention of waters surrounding the earth...breathing life into dust, etc...admittedly it's a while since I read it. In any case, it seems to me that here language is used for purposes outside their usual meaning. In this respect, it is similar to Revelation. I agree though that its tone is quite distinct from Revelation, as you might expect given the character of the events each covers.
ii) are similar to Revelation in that they present a story, but also simultaneously speak about deeper issues like human nature (eg. it was not good for Adam to be alone) or the nature of evil (in both the Fall and in Revelation). Both present such issues in concise pared down expositions making heavy use of symbols. eg. the apple, the fig leaves, etc. Note that I am not saying they didn't exist; rather, that these symbols and the resonances they have for us are at least as important as the historical content.
iii) repeat themselves, like Revelation. Note that the two separate accounts of Creation in Genesis are not identical in order and such details; but that hardly matters. Each account makes a different point, much as the cycles of symbols in Revelation look at identical events from different points of view and emphasise different themes, without worrying too much about being able to correlate everything between each cycle.
If we are to take the early chapters of Genesis absolutely literally, then of course the answer is yes, the two are irreconcilable.
However, very few Christians read Revelation, the last book of the bible dealing with all the apocalyptic end of world stuff, and expect to see literal dragons, bowls in the sky, etc. The language is highly symbolic. Mightn't we expect that descriptions of Creation, a situation also far outside of the environment our languages evolved to describe, might be symbolic too? And in that case, do we really need to take a Highlander-"there can only be one" approach?
The order of Creation, etc in Genesis is broadly compatible with evolution (emphasis on broadly here). However, it is unlikely that the intention of the author was to give a scientific account of Creation. Science isn't what the rest of the bible is concerned with; relationships between God and each other are. The Creation vs Evolution debate is IMHO not only pointless, but demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the orthogonal roles of Big Bang-Evolution type ideas of science and the Why am I here-What is the point etc type ideas of the early chapters of Genesis.
Those acquainted with Peter Singer's work will know he proceeds from a basis of absolute utilitarianism. ie. his ethics seek to maximise good for people regardless of the means by which this is accomplished. In so doing he rejects the doctrine of double effect (that failing to do something with outcome X can have a different moral character to actively doing something with outcome X) and others such norms -- with challenging consequences.
For instance, he argues that the money we spend on luxuries rather than the charity we know would save lives is morally equivalent to killing for luxuries. On this basis he donates 10% of his annual income to charity. While I can't speak for other Slashdot readers, I find his argument on this matter (read Practical Ethics; another useful book on this matter is Causing Death and Saving Lives by Jonathan Glover) both unassailable and disturbing given the way I live my life.
His advocacy of infanticide and the like on the basis that infants are not people follows similar levels of intellectual rigor, although my disagreement with a number of his supporting arguments on this matter gives me the comfortable position of differing on these issues. Although I frequently disagree with his conclusions, I consider his highly focussed arguments on such matters very useful for clarifying my own ethics by difference; for identifying where pure utilitarianism goes wrong.
On both these issues, Peter Singer's scholarship forces me to look more carefully at my own beliefs and motivations and I consider him one of those distinguished thinkers whose work encourages us not only to memorize his conclusions -- which are frequently abhorrent -- but to actually think outselves about uncomfortable matters. As such I consider him absolutely worthy of his appointment and hope his ethics will stir up critical and original thought in the US, much as it has in both Australia and Germany.
Knowledge is power -- knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley. This comment get to the heart of the divide between big companies and open source / free software / whatever (and capitalise those terms to taste, btw):
Although big companies are primarily about making as much money as possible, they know that to make a lot of it, power (a monopoly or other device) is required. Thus, in the long term at least, the sharing of knowledge is an anathema.
Of course, one can make money without such motives; just not as much. In this milleu, altruism, regrettably, leads to the local, but not the global, maximum.
So while open source is a useful tactic for small companies, at most it is a temporary ploy of large ones who are aiming for an entirely different prize.
Slashdot Mirror
It is unlikely that this cobbled-together bacterium (for want of a better term) will be pathogenic. Virulence in bacteria is usually the result of specific adaptions to overcome a host's defence mechanisms - not pure chance alone. Perhaps virulence factors could be inserted by the malevolent, but such a thing occurring by chance alone is unlikely (although the role of selection shouldn't be neglected...). Also, such artificial bacteria probably won't be as hardy as the real McCoy; they probably would need to grow on enriched media with all sorts of nutrients and special carbohydrates, etc and be lovingly cared for by their proud parents :) and the danger of accidental escape is fairly low given the precautions taken. So an artificial bacterium isn't really that great a danger compared with modification of an existing one to add virulence, or (less imaginatively) just mass propagation of some existing nasty like anthrax.
Although the technology isn't going to arrive tomorrow, the very real prospect is that we will
... pure postmodernist sophistry. Sure intelligence is multifactorial, and some of the factors might turn out to be partially incompatible, so that we have to decide which factor is the most important component of intelligence and compromise the others. We might even find that intelligence is partially incompatible with some other trait, and we need to make a choice on what kind of tradeoffs we need to make. But that just means there are a few subchoices within the crucial question: will you be choosing to maximize your child's potential through genetic manipulation?
1) work out how genes interact to produce socially desirable phenotypes (eg. intelligence). I heard the head of arguably the top biomedical research facility in Australia (Dr Suzanne Cory, Head of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute) comment that it would take us 100s or 1000s of years to work out what the genes mean. I disagree; I think that while this might seem likely to a biologist, once enough mathematicians work on it we will find an automated method that greatly accelerates this work. Bioinformatics is only in its infancy; what it makes possible may be the greatest demonstration of the power of mathematics and computer science to date. In any case, we don't need to really understand it. The history of science is the history of partial understanding and application of that understanding before we really know what we're doing and all the side effects.
2) develop reliable techniques for germ-line gene therapy or other techniques for making genetics changes in the embryo. Somatic gene therapy is unlikely to ever reach the level of sophistication required to modify the genetic complement of all cells. Germ line gene therapy is just much easier.
When 1) and 2) have been achieved to a sufficient degree, someone, somewhere will start doing germ line gene therapy to make (for arguments sake) smart people. It will start off experimental, probably somewhere with few laws regulating such procedures. Then the ultra-rich will be able to have it, then the slightly less rich. There will be some ugly errors at first, but they will be forgotten as we become more competent and develop improved methods of quality control. As the technology improves and becomes more widespread, at each point there will be people at the border --- people who can afford the technology and must decide whether or not to use it. They will want the best for their children, and they will see that unless they do use the technology, others will have an edge over them. They will fear that their children will be unable to compete --- much as many of those parents currently into "maximizing their child's potential" by trying to get them into the best schools, do the most number of activities to the highest level, etc, do it out of fear. We all know this is losing our childhood and a part of our humanity; but many of us are willing to make that sacrifice to compete, because if we don't, someone else wins and we lose. The same principle will apply for germ-line gene therapy. We will end up choosing it, not because we fail to appreciate the harm, but because of a fear of condemning our children to a lifetime of being second rate.
I hope it comes after I have kids (and it probably will). I'd rather not have to make that choice. By the way, the comment that intelligence and other traits are in the eye of the beholder, and so there won't be any dillema
(I won't be reposting this if there are any spelling errors; I'm sure you can work out what I mean.)
>In addition the entire tone of Revelation is symbolic, whereas Genesis obviously intends to record history.
...admittedly it's a while since I read it. In any case, it seems to me that here language is used for purposes outside their usual meaning. In this respect, it is similar to Revelation. I agree though that its tone is quite distinct from Revelation, as you might expect given the character of the events each covers.
I agree the later chapters are far more historical; but the first few chapters
i) use words like "formless void" - I don't think the Hebrew for this is found anywhere else in the Bible. I also seem to recall mention of waters surrounding the earth...breathing life into dust, etc
ii) are similar to Revelation in that they present a story, but also simultaneously speak about deeper issues like human nature (eg. it was not good for Adam to be alone) or the nature of evil (in both the Fall and in Revelation). Both present such issues in concise pared down expositions making heavy use of symbols. eg. the apple, the fig leaves, etc. Note that I am not saying they didn't exist; rather, that these symbols and the resonances they have for us are at least as important as the historical content.
iii) repeat themselves, like Revelation. Note that the two separate accounts of Creation in Genesis are not identical in order and such details; but that hardly matters. Each account makes a different point, much as the cycles of symbols in Revelation look at identical events from different points of view and emphasise different themes, without worrying too much about being able to correlate everything between each cycle.
If we are to take the early chapters of Genesis absolutely literally, then of course the answer is yes, the two are irreconcilable.
However, very few Christians read Revelation, the last book of the bible dealing with all the apocalyptic end of world stuff, and expect to see literal dragons, bowls in the sky, etc. The language is highly symbolic. Mightn't we expect that descriptions of Creation, a situation also far outside of the environment our languages evolved to describe, might be symbolic too? And in that case, do we really need to take a Highlander-"there can only be one" approach?
The order of Creation, etc in Genesis is broadly compatible with evolution (emphasis on broadly here). However, it is unlikely that the intention of the author was to give a scientific account of Creation. Science isn't what the rest of the bible is concerned with; relationships between God and each other are. The Creation vs Evolution debate is IMHO not only pointless, but demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the orthogonal roles of Big Bang-Evolution type ideas of science and the Why am I here-What is the point etc type ideas of the early chapters of Genesis.
Those acquainted with Peter Singer's work will know he proceeds from a basis of absolute utilitarianism. ie. his ethics seek to maximise good for people regardless of the means by which this is accomplished. In so doing he rejects the doctrine of double effect (that failing to do something with outcome X can have a different moral character to actively doing something with outcome X) and others such norms -- with challenging consequences.
For instance, he argues that the money we spend on luxuries rather than the charity we know would save lives is morally equivalent to killing for luxuries. On this basis he donates 10% of his annual income to charity. While I can't speak for other Slashdot readers, I find his argument on this matter (read Practical Ethics; another useful book on this matter is Causing Death and Saving Lives by Jonathan Glover) both unassailable and disturbing given the way I live my life.
His advocacy of infanticide and the like on the basis that infants are not people follows similar levels of intellectual rigor, although my disagreement with a number of his supporting arguments on this matter gives me the comfortable position of differing on these issues. Although I frequently disagree with his conclusions, I consider his highly focussed arguments on such matters very useful for clarifying my own ethics by difference; for identifying where pure utilitarianism goes wrong.
On both these issues, Peter Singer's scholarship forces me to look more carefully at my own beliefs and motivations and I consider him one of those distinguished thinkers whose work encourages us not only to memorize his conclusions -- which are frequently abhorrent -- but to actually think outselves about uncomfortable matters. As such I consider him absolutely worthy of his appointment and hope his ethics will stir up critical and original thought in the US, much as it has in both Australia and Germany.
Knowledge is power -- knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley.
This comment get to the heart of the divide between big companies and open source / free software / whatever (and capitalise those terms to taste, btw):
Although big companies are primarily about making as much money as possible, they know that to make a lot of it, power (a monopoly or other device) is required. Thus, in the long term at least, the sharing of knowledge is an anathema.
Of course, one can make money without such motives; just not as much. In this milleu, altruism, regrettably, leads to the local, but not the global, maximum.
So while open source is a useful tactic for small companies, at most it is a temporary ploy of large ones who are aiming for an entirely different prize.