The intention of this response is sympathised with, but the =

subject is of an entirely different nature to the =

comparisons offered..

>> In other words, no matter how bad an idea, there will be
>> money and a place that will be willing to 'risk it' and =

>> foist it upon the world
>> with whatever longer consequences there may be.

Aye.

> At the time it was considered inevitable that the human =

> brain
> would be eclipsed by an electronic brain and soon.
> We didn't have enough information then to know how
> far away that was, nor how near it was.

BUT the beliefs were based on hubris  - on what we thought =

WE would be able to do.
The new beliefs are based also on hubris. We have pried open =

a toolbox and a glistening array of mystical and magic =

machinery beyond our remotest understandings 9as assessed by =

the man who knows more than any of us about them). And we =

are pushing the buttons and pulling the levers and crying =

with glee at the wonderful resyults that the magic machines =

can achieve.  We did not make them. We did not design them. =

We know what they can do but not what they will do.

> Right now we can imagine all sorts of bad scenarios given =

> just this
> first tiny foray into biological engineering.

And they can be demonstrated with certainty, even given our =

minute amount of knowledge,  to be entrirely reasonable =

possibilities. Real world proof of concept demonstrations of =

about the worst possible outcomes exist, arrived at entirely =

by experimental accident,  - fortunately in crippled form.

> Yes, we don't know how the cells work to the last piece, =

> and to some
> degree we are playing with fire.

We know only a very very very small fraction of the whole =

story. Venter knows this well. Most don't. We do however =

know how severely we are playing with fire.

> But while some of the first fires must have gotten out of =

> control and
> killed many people - perhaps populations of people, we got =

> through
> that.

Straw man. Totally incomparable.
Best (albeit feeble) comparison would be that fire might =

somehow ignite incipient fie in every living being and once =

unleashed spread from organism to organism across the =

planet. eg "ice 9" would be a far better analogy than fire.

> The first atomic bomb didn't ignite the atmosphere.

And the first water pistol didn't dissolve the person shot =

with it.
And there was never any prospect that it would. Or that the =

A bomb would cause air to undergo fission or fusion =

reactions. AND the engineers who were developing it had an =

extremely good idea of how likely it was that it would, even =

at their level of knowledge at the time. Any peson can make =

a suggestiion of a possible danger and people will then =

proclaim sagely on it. The difference with what is being =

done with GMO in general is that almost any doomsday =

scenario has the genuine possibility to be credible. eg it =

is CERTAIn that it would be possible to make an 'organism' =

that combined the caharcteristics of HIV, the common cold =

and Ebola and that would have a very very very very good =

chance of destroying the whole human race while leaving most =

other species untouched. this is not a doomsday ignite the =

atmosphere idea but rather a certain possibility - the only =

question is - 'how would we achieve it, given that we can't =

yet drive the toolbox to more than a few percent of its =

capacity?'.

> There are
> several places in the past where risk wasn't known or =

> understood,

Whereas in this area it is utterly undoubted what the risks =

can be. How we go about unlocking the risks is the only =

question.

> the benefit has been great.

The benefits and potential capabilities are undoubted. =

Pohl's "Day Million" http://dmznyc.com/html/daymil.01.html =

does a good job of painting some of them - if you consider =

his Eutopian future benefit filled :-).

> That's not to say that the ends justify
> the means,

More extreme F.O.T.E.' ers would be sure it did - go to.

>  but that even if human self-destruction is possible using
> these methods (and it's not at ALL clear that it's even =

> possible,
> nevermind probable) it can still be considered an unlikely =

> outcome.

What part of "certainly possible" don't you understand?
What part of "possibly certain" don't you understand?
:-)


> While some restraint should be shown,

:-)
:-) :-)
:-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) =

:-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) =

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)  ... err - stack overflow - =

printer on fire ...

> I think the fears are greatly
> overpowering the discussion here.  It seems like any =

> discussion of the
> possible good and useful end product that could result =

> would simply
> devolve into, "It's too dangerous."

This is where I came in :-)

> We stand on the bridge at Khazad-d=FBm. The not distant
> enough drums sound their doom-doom call ...



                Russell =


-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist