3 ms·
No, we really don't. What we know is what has happened in "nature", and while we can try to extrapolate from that, we really have no clue as to what is possibl
by eivarv 10y ago
No, we really don't.
What we know is what has happened in "nature", and while we can try to extrapolate from that, we really have no clue as to what is possible.
Even though you grossly exaggerate how genes work with regards to resistance/danger, the possibility of phenotypes that could lead to negative effects in human consumers is just as real by "natural" means.
I don't really think your comparison with nuclear weapons works though; for one, there is no such thing as a "natural" nuclear weapon - not to mention that a "natural" (objective) concept of "weapon" (irrespective of any subject making/wielding/using/thinking about/whatever) would have to exist if we were to compare apples to apples.
- tomp 10y ago> I don't really think your comparison with nuclear weapons works though The idea behind my comparison is simply, that we can engineer things much more dangerous than nature can, that would never appear in nature by themselves.
- smspiff 10y agoWe're still a long way from being able to engineer things that are more dangerous than what nature has figured out. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
- TeMPOraL 10y agoIn this case, dangerous literally equals useful. Anything capable of working with vast amounts of energy is dangerous by the very virtue of humans being very fragile. Whether something is dangerous or useful is a function of how we handle/apply it. But, generally, that's what we do. With brains, we can do in a few months what would take natural selection millions of years to "discover". Doing that, using our brains, seems kind of like the whole point of being a human.