3 ms·

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 strain

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".