Russell McMahon wrote: > Taking only the engineering perspective: I think we should proceed at a rate > that is prudent given what we know. I believe that if we do not there will > certainly be others who do. There are some areas that are beyond being > reasonably addressed. I agree. However I also imagine that the really great advances, the ones that will cure so many of the ills of mankind will come not from those "proceeding most prudently" but may come from the pioneers etc who traditionally are prepared to take more risks in the quest for the common good, or even for profit. > - We cannot stop people addressing the military aspects and we can be > certain that this is happening in numerous countries now. We can be sure > that selective and formidable weapons of stupidity are already under > development. Of course they are. This is a actually a counter argument to your case, as we can assume the highest probability of dangerous release will be from weapons GE, which IS going to continue anyway, and WILL be field tested if my understanding of MI is valid. Regardless of how crippled you would like to make the commercial (ie medical, the "good guys") industry... ;o) > > The simplified analogy of figuring out how the machine works by playing > > with the controls is apt if not entirely accurate. Hey I like doing that! How else are you going to do things with the machine that the "plods" haplessly following the manual written by other plods will never discover? > I have proposed the ideal GE research facility for some years. Yes - of > course I know it's a dream. Seal off a 500 mile radius area somewhere useful > (Australia?) and build a world class GE research facility therein where ALL > world GE research is carried out. All underground. Total containment. Crops > grown in artificial underground fields with artificial sun etc. yada yada > ... All the world cooperates to learn together. Probably have NO useful GE > food products for about 50 years :-). Interestingly, I'm told that this > facility approximates that in the film "Resident Evil". They also had > problems:-). "You are all going to die!" (excerpt from Resident Evil soundtrack). There is a predictable finality to life, personally I would take the *chance* of dying sooner and more knowlegable than later and more ignorant. > * - LITERALLY in every possible way - any time we find a new way to do what > nature does not let itself do, we use it. We rush headlong into anything > that we can do, in order to gain new knowledge, Nobel prizes, money, market > share and fame. I'm astounded that you propose other than rushing headlong into gaining new knowlege. > Yes. A "weapon" could be tailored to destroy certain ethnic groups and not > others. Too bad for converts :-) A truly unbiased observer may argue that the human species would be better off after removal of some ethnic groups. > IF a GE disaster occurs the hazard is what matters. Nobody at Chernobyl > cared, after the event, that the risk of such an event occurring HAD been > low. And if Curie had forseen Chernobyl you would have advised stopping all research? > Q: How much good does a product have to show before it's worth the possible > hazard of wiping out 25% of the world's population, regardless of how > unlikely this is ? > > Some people will actually try to give you an answer to that question. I am one of those "some people" and suggest that you can't evaluate risk vs consequence based upon the severity of the consequence alone. The consequence of dying in mechanical transport is very real, but you will not convince me to abandon cars/planes etc and only walk everywhere from now on. Almost EVERY single great advance man has made, things you would have trouble living without, came after research into dangerous things, like electricity, vaccines, microwaves, etc. Many great leaps forward came from those prepared to cut a few corners and follow their heart even when the scientific elite of the time were arguing the possible safety of the new technology and whether or not electricity should even be legalised. > There comes a stage where no amount of good is worth the gamble. I can't believe you said that! At what stage does a possibility if immense good become worthless? Like dying yourself for the betterment of mankind? Risking research that your followers may be ostracised and persecuted even after your death, but so that the long term future of man benefits? ;o) Are you advocating that all science grinds to a near halt and only tiny "safe" steps are taken from this point on... While we bury ourselves in paperwork and subject every step of a research process to an "independant committee" approval? Or is it just this one particular scientific field that turns your stomach? Maybe now that man approaches the ability of a lesser god; to make new life forms. I'm sure animal breeders in ancient times were persecuted for their "ungodly" modifications to animal species. GE is not a new argument, it's just another step up the ladder. > To my somewhat surprise, on this issue the NZ Greens make almost total > sense. On all other issues they seem to go too far. Possibly they agree with > the medicine arguments that I mentioned above. Most "greens" are attempting a worthy and respectable cause. I think the public are generally behind most things the greens stand for, just they get tired of the long haired tie-dyed trouble making protestors. > Nature will very probably provide one sooner or later, that people world > wide will find of gripping interest. Absolutely. About the only thing homo sapiens can guarantee for their future is being replaced by homo superior. And that is already happening, whether GE research continues or not. ;o) -Roman -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.