4 ms·

I think this is because while we've been messing around creating novel human genomes for at least two-hundred-thousand years, we've been creating non-human tho

I think this is because while we've been messing around creating novel human genomes for at least two-hundred-thousand years, we've been creating non-human thought processes for only 40 years. And it's really only picked up in the last 10. Our butts are at least partly covered that we do anything particularly awful on the genetic engineering front because genomes have been scrambling around in all kinds of different configurations for billions of years now and nothing too awful has happened. Except, arguably, us. Although I like to think we're the best result so far rather than the worst.

micro_cam 10y ago
I don't buy the genetic engineering is natural argument for a couple of key reasons The first thing is that with natural selection of cross breeding new strains start small and ramp up providing a natural provisional test period. With genetic engineering the goal is often something like a blockbuster new type of corn which sees global adoption quickly. So if something unexpected happens there is a non zero risk of lots of people's food supplies not working out. Further if we're making analogies to nature, it's important to note that terrible things happen in nature. The key part of natural selection is that only some organisms get to reproduce and the rest often live miserable short lives. I mean, to be flippant, our butts are covered in the sense we probably won't see anything worse than zinka, sickle cell anemia or ebola?
- AbrahamParangi 10y ago
  While it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where we create bioweapons of unprecedented ferocity, state actors have probably already done this to some degree. I argue that outside of engineered diseases it's difficult to imagine existential risks that could be posed by genetic engineering. Except, of course, making a better human which would almost certainly and immediately pose an existential risk to old Homo sapiens sapiens.
  - onestepatime 10y ago
    > While it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where we create bioweapons of unprecedented ferocity, state actors have probably already done this to some degree. There is still a difference between "created" and "deployed at large scale".
13years 10y ago
>billions of years now and nothing too awful has happened Depends on perspective. Millions of species are extinct. Which is to say some mutation actually don't work out so well.

micro_cam 10y ago

I don't buy the genetic engineering is natural argument for a couple of key reasons The first thing is that with natural selection of cross breeding new strains start small and ramp up providing a natural provisional test period. With genetic engineering the goal is often something like a blockbuster new type of corn which sees global adoption quickly. So if something unexpected happens there is a non zero risk of lots of people's food supplies not working out. Further if we're making analogies to nature, it's important to note that terrible things happen in nature. The key part of natural selection is that only some organisms get to reproduce and the rest often live miserable short lives. I mean, to be flippant, our butts are covered in the sense we probably won't see anything worse than zinka, sickle cell anemia or ebola?

AbrahamParangi 10y ago
While it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where we create bioweapons of unprecedented ferocity, state actors have probably already done this to some degree. I argue that outside of engineered diseases it's difficult to imagine existential risks that could be posed by genetic engineering. Except, of course, making a better human which would almost certainly and immediately pose an existential risk to old Homo sapiens sapiens.
- onestepatime 10y ago
  > While it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where we create bioweapons of unprecedented ferocity, state actors have probably already done this to some degree. There is still a difference between "created" and "deployed at large scale".

13years 10y ago

>billions of years now and nothing too awful has happened Depends on perspective. Millions of species are extinct. Which is to say some mutation actually don't work out so well.