5 ms·

> Playing god with things we barely understand the impact of. Doesn't matter - god doesn't either. That's why it is running this experiment :-) Seriously, sin

> Playing god with things we barely understand the impact of. Doesn't matter - god doesn't either. That's why it is running this experiment :-) Seriously, since when did anyone ever understood the impact of anything? What the long-term impact of any new development or invention would be? Apart from running the experiment. Unless it is something very specific I don't see how this ever is a valid argument. Had we stayed in the trees we would have to deal with other issues and felt no better.

coldtea 7y ago
>Seriously, since when did anyone ever understood the impact of anything? When the impact was low and localized, and the methods to affect change crude. I.e. for the most part of human history. Now we have surgical methods to edit genes etc, but combined with the knowledge and understanding of a Wild West quack doctor (and their profit motive).
- nosianu 7y ago
  It never was, with increasing numbers of humans. Things like agriculture and animal husbandry were spread together with the population across vast distances and changed the landscape, the flora and the fauna. > Now we have surgical methods to edit genes etc I refer back to the comment you replied to... in any case., I don't see how understanding is the main point. We actually understand quite a bit, far more important are the incentive systems that often force us to do stuff against what we actually know. I'm pretty sure companies in the past and present that used landscape (rivers etc.) as garbage dumps knew that that wasn't good, so understanding does not seem to help nearly as much as some think.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    The "vast distances" were just some places humans could establish cities. 90% of the planet country was untouched for the better part of history, or had very minor alterations (a village and some crops in an area of 100s of square kilometers). Heck, most of the "most advanced" populations didn't even know about other huge continents (Australia, Asia, Americas). Today a modified plant or insect can travel all over the globe, take plane rides, and so on...
    - nosianu 7y ago
      > The "vast distances" were just some places humans could establish cities. The "vast distances" were the whole planet and an ever increasing population, even before the explosion in numbers later. See the reports about the impact the Mongols or the plague, both killing large parts of the populations back then, with great impact on the environment. Humans always had a large impact on their environment especially after inventing agriculture.
      - jacobush 7y ago
        And before on the (now extinct) mega-fauna.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - lm28469 7y ago
    > We actually understand quite a bit Last time I checked gene editing, especially on humans, is basically like using a shotgun to blast DNA and praying we didn't break anything of value. [0] We simply don't understand the mid-long term consequences. Remember when we used lead paint in kindergartens, uranium in lipsticks, asbestos in everything and sprayed unprotected kids with DDT ? That was "science" and "progress" at the time. We thought we knew everything but we didn't. And we're pulling the same shit with gene editing, something that has the potential to change the human gene pool forever, there is no git revert with that, it's not a "move fast and break things" type of situation. (And I'm not even talking about the moral aspect of it). [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2174149-crispr-gene-editing-is-not-quite-as-precise-and-as-safe-as-thought/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2174149-crispr-gene-edi... https://www.sciencealert.com/sadly-the-chinese-crispr-babies-may-be-doomed-to-die-young https://www.sciencealert.com/sadly-the-chinese-crispr-babies...

coldtea 7y ago

>Seriously, since when did anyone ever understood the impact of anything? When the impact was low and localized, and the methods to affect change crude. I.e. for the most part of human history. Now we have surgical methods to edit genes etc, but combined with the knowledge and understanding of a Wild West quack doctor (and their profit motive).

nosianu 7y ago
It never was, with increasing numbers of humans. Things like agriculture and animal husbandry were spread together with the population across vast distances and changed the landscape, the flora and the fauna. > Now we have surgical methods to edit genes etc I refer back to the comment you replied to... in any case., I don't see how understanding is the main point. We actually understand quite a bit, far more important are the incentive systems that often force us to do stuff against what we actually know. I'm pretty sure companies in the past and present that used landscape (rivers etc.) as garbage dumps knew that that wasn't good, so understanding does not seem to help nearly as much as some think.
- coldtea 7y ago
  The "vast distances" were just some places humans could establish cities. 90% of the planet country was untouched for the better part of history, or had very minor alterations (a village and some crops in an area of 100s of square kilometers). Heck, most of the "most advanced" populations didn't even know about other huge continents (Australia, Asia, Americas). Today a modified plant or insect can travel all over the globe, take plane rides, and so on...
  - nosianu 7y ago
    > The "vast distances" were just some places humans could establish cities. The "vast distances" were the whole planet and an ever increasing population, even before the explosion in numbers later. See the reports about the impact the Mongols or the plague, both killing large parts of the populations back then, with great impact on the environment. Humans always had a large impact on their environment especially after inventing agriculture.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      And before on the (now extinct) mega-fauna.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- lm28469 7y ago
  > We actually understand quite a bit Last time I checked gene editing, especially on humans, is basically like using a shotgun to blast DNA and praying we didn't break anything of value. [0] We simply don't understand the mid-long term consequences. Remember when we used lead paint in kindergartens, uranium in lipsticks, asbestos in everything and sprayed unprotected kids with DDT ? That was "science" and "progress" at the time. We thought we knew everything but we didn't. And we're pulling the same shit with gene editing, something that has the potential to change the human gene pool forever, there is no git revert with that, it's not a "move fast and break things" type of situation. (And I'm not even talking about the moral aspect of it). [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2174149-crispr-gene-editing-is-not-quite-as-precise-and-as-safe-as-thought/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2174149-crispr-gene-edi... https://www.sciencealert.com/sadly-the-chinese-crispr-babies-may-be-doomed-to-die-young https://www.sciencealert.com/sadly-the-chinese-crispr-babies...