4 ms·

There are a lot of comments here declaring various versions of "slippery slope!". Looking at history, one would have to conclude that employing science-based m

by jddj 7y ago

There are a lot of comments here declaring various versions of "slippery slope!". Looking at history, one would have to conclude that employing science-based methods to improve the natural environment by reversing problems which we have unintelligently created in the past (mosquitoes, rodents, antibiotic resistant bacteria, etc) through our own carelessness isn't necessarily directly linked by a slippery slope to something like eugenics or ecosystem collapse. We have the potential to do good as well as evil, even capable of implementing laws and international treaties which (for example) prohibit CRISPRing embryos. Many ideas are worthy of at least being assessed on their merits and not being discarded purely because they belong to a certain class. If there is a genuine slippery slope (which is somewhat ironically claimed with some measure of certainty in the same breath that says we're incapable of foreseeing consequences), but the idea is good, perhaps we could leverage our legal frameworks and social structures to limit that. It seems crazy that we should be expected to accept the consequences of any negative effects which we have had on the planet to date through our carelessness because approaching them with a scientific method and anything but the crudest tools (pesticides, etc) is labelled "playing god" and totally off limits.

ses1984 7y ago
Whoa whoa whoa, how did we create or contribute to the mosquito problem?
- brohee 7y ago
  Creating predator free breeding environments for them (any place that can hold stagnant water in an urban environment). And feeding them (by being there).
- xoa 7y ago
  Of the ~100 genus (around 3500 species) of mosquitos, only a fraction bite humans and only 3 genus are responsible for most disease spread: Aedes mosquitoes (yellow fever, dengue, and encephalitis), Anopheles mosquitoes (malaria, filariasis, elephantiasis), and Culex mosquitoes (encephalitis, filariasis, West Nile virus). All of these are invasive species to much of the world, they're only there because they were brought in by humans in the first place just like other invasives, and often fairly recently. Their spread has been further heavily facilitated by human altered environments, not just in the big picture like global warming but also more standing water, disruption of predators, and so on. And the death toll is actually quite remarkable, around 700,000 people a year die directly due to mosquito transmitted diseases.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  > how did we create spreading the mosquito species in all sort of vehicles. Killing birds, spiders, bats, fishes and everything except pokemons > or contribute to the mosquito problem? Having babies. Lots and lots of human babies full of delicious blood. More humans than ever, mean more mosquito restaurants than ever.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nightwing 7y ago
Why do you think CRISPRing embryos is a bad thing? Eugenics in 20th century was evil because government was trying to decide which people could have children together. The normal eugenics where people decide for themselves, worked well for all species so far. So with CRISPR a law that prohibits using it, dooming people to have ill, or not very smart children is the same kind of evil, as the laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 20th century.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Except we don't know exactly how these things work yet. It's not like CRISPR or even our understanding of the genome is very good. (Except a few mutations we know are very bad.) So I can agree to a certain point, but it's not like we are at "sure, fire away" levels like in Star Trek.
  - nightwing 7y ago
    I agree that as with any new and powerful tool, caution is required, and it is important to make sure that parents fully understand the risks and are not misled to believe that CRISPR is the only solution when it isn't. But i think it is important to remember that we do not use it because it is not ready yet, not because it is somehow inherently evil.
- jddj 7y ago
  If that was your interpretation, maybe I could have been more clear. I don't think gene editing of embryos is necessarily a bad thing (nor are there any international treaties as far as I'm aware), I was simply throwing it out there as an obvious example of something we're likely capable of in this space since many countries, including the US, already have laws which prohibit it. My personal opinion leans more towards a moratorium while the issues with the technology and ethics are ironed out, because of the inherent complexity in that domain. The linked article touches on the difficulties in achieving gene drives in mammals, and it would be easy to demonstrate that the scale of ethical concerns dwarfs those for attempting to eliminate malaria over a few mosquito generations and only after careful consideration of the consequences and implementation of failsafes. Nobody is concerned that CRISPR will only be available to socioeconomically advantaged mosquitos, for example. Edit: trying to use fewer parentheses

by jddj 7y ago

ses1984 7y ago

Whoa whoa whoa, how did we create or contribute to the mosquito problem?

brohee 7y ago
Creating predator free breeding environments for them (any place that can hold stagnant water in an urban environment). And feeding them (by being there).
xoa 7y ago
Of the ~100 genus (around 3500 species) of mosquitos, only a fraction bite humans and only 3 genus are responsible for most disease spread: Aedes mosquitoes (yellow fever, dengue, and encephalitis), Anopheles mosquitoes (malaria, filariasis, elephantiasis), and Culex mosquitoes (encephalitis, filariasis, West Nile virus). All of these are invasive species to much of the world, they're only there because they were brought in by humans in the first place just like other invasives, and often fairly recently. Their spread has been further heavily facilitated by human altered environments, not just in the big picture like global warming but also more standing water, disruption of predators, and so on. And the death toll is actually quite remarkable, around 700,000 people a year die directly due to mosquito transmitted diseases.
pvaldes 7y ago
> how did we create spreading the mosquito species in all sort of vehicles. Killing birds, spiders, bats, fishes and everything except pokemons > or contribute to the mosquito problem? Having babies. Lots and lots of human babies full of delicious blood. More humans than ever, mean more mosquito restaurants than ever.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nightwing 7y ago

Why do you think CRISPRing embryos is a bad thing? Eugenics in 20th century was evil because government was trying to decide which people could have children together. The normal eugenics where people decide for themselves, worked well for all species so far. So with CRISPR a law that prohibits using it, dooming people to have ill, or not very smart children is the same kind of evil, as the laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 20th century.

jacobush 7y ago
Except we don't know exactly how these things work yet. It's not like CRISPR or even our understanding of the genome is very good. (Except a few mutations we know are very bad.) So I can agree to a certain point, but it's not like we are at "sure, fire away" levels like in Star Trek.
- nightwing 7y ago
  I agree that as with any new and powerful tool, caution is required, and it is important to make sure that parents fully understand the risks and are not misled to believe that CRISPR is the only solution when it isn't. But i think it is important to remember that we do not use it because it is not ready yet, not because it is somehow inherently evil.
jddj 7y ago
If that was your interpretation, maybe I could have been more clear. I don't think gene editing of embryos is necessarily a bad thing (nor are there any international treaties as far as I'm aware), I was simply throwing it out there as an obvious example of something we're likely capable of in this space since many countries, including the US, already have laws which prohibit it. My personal opinion leans more towards a moratorium while the issues with the technology and ethics are ironed out, because of the inherent complexity in that domain. The linked article touches on the difficulties in achieving gene drives in mammals, and it would be easy to demonstrate that the scale of ethical concerns dwarfs those for attempting to eliminate malaria over a few mosquito generations and only after careful consideration of the consequences and implementation of failsafes. Nobody is concerned that CRISPR will only be available to socioeconomically advantaged mosquitos, for example. Edit: trying to use fewer parentheses