5 ms·

Yes. Why is that even a question? Bans on tools have only ever delayed progress and caused misery. Besides, we've been genetically alternating species for tens

Yes. Why is that even a question? Bans on tools have only ever delayed progress and caused misery. Besides, we've been genetically alternating species for tens of thousands of years. Understanding the essential similarity of selective breeding and genetic modification is table stakes for having a serious and informed opinion about this technology.

MiracleUser 7y ago
you seem to have gotten negative feedback, but I agree with your sentiment. It is kind of silly to think we are "altering" species. We would be creating new species or breeds using existing ones as a template. Unless there is some agenda I am unaware of to go out and kill all existing members of a species after we create our own version of it? If nothing else, isolate the artificial species into controlled habitats. I know a primary use-case often discussed is regarding mosquitoes where that wouldnt be the case.. but imagine editing the genetics of zoo animals so that they are much more easily acclimated to zoo life. Less negative effects of poor temperature control, a broader dietary selection, reduced reaction times for dangerous animals. And there is no risk of environmental impact since they are in isolated enirovments
- teraflop 7y ago
  As mentioned in the NYTimes article, a gene drive is more than simply introducing organisms with new traits into a population. It also codes for cellular machinery so that if the gene appears in one copy of a chromosome, it will splice itself into the other chromosome. In other words, if an organism inherits one copy of the altered gene from either of its parents, nearly all of its descendants will also carry it. Which means that even a trait that is fairly detrimental to the organism's survival can spread through the population, in violation of what natural selection would predict. So, yes, we can "alter" a species.
  - MiracleUser 7y ago
    You are not emphasizing the descendants part enough. It still requires existing members of the species to propagate the gene with natural breeding, same as 'natural' genetic mutations. So if it is a gene detrimental to survival, it can still very easily die off. Which is not in violation of what natural selection would predict.
claudiawerner 7y ago
>Bans on tools have only ever delayed progress and caused misery. It really depends on the "tool"; arguably a great many atrocious weapons are tools, yet it's hard for me to see nuclear disarmament as anything but progress. Technology is not neutral, it is informed by concerns and developments outside of its own instrumental purposes. In the same way that recent (last century or so) tools/technology have brought massive improvements to the lives of everyone, the same way they bring massive improvement is the way that other tools (or even the same ones) bring massive regression. As for this particular technology, I don't know enough about it to comment - only to say that in general a variety of different concerns should be involved in its design and evaluation - from scientists to ethicists.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  > it's hard for me to see nuclear disarmament as anything but progress Nuclear armament is progress. Without nuclear weapons, we would have had many more WWII-style large-scale industrial total wars, probably with cumulative causalities in the hundreds of millions. You don't need nuclear weapons to kill lots of people. Nuclear weapons have made large scale total war impractical, which means it doesn't happen anymore. Nuclear disarmament would be a disaster, and wishing for it is naive.
- asdf21 7y ago
  M.A.D. had resulted in the most peaceful time in history by far

MiracleUser 7y ago

you seem to have gotten negative feedback, but I agree with your sentiment. It is kind of silly to think we are "altering" species. We would be creating new species or breeds using existing ones as a template. Unless there is some agenda I am unaware of to go out and kill all existing members of a species after we create our own version of it? If nothing else, isolate the artificial species into controlled habitats. I know a primary use-case often discussed is regarding mosquitoes where that wouldnt be the case.. but imagine editing the genetics of zoo animals so that they are much more easily acclimated to zoo life. Less negative effects of poor temperature control, a broader dietary selection, reduced reaction times for dangerous animals. And there is no risk of environmental impact since they are in isolated enirovments

teraflop 7y ago
As mentioned in the NYTimes article, a gene drive is more than simply introducing organisms with new traits into a population. It also codes for cellular machinery so that if the gene appears in one copy of a chromosome, it will splice itself into the other chromosome. In other words, if an organism inherits one copy of the altered gene from either of its parents, nearly all of its descendants will also carry it. Which means that even a trait that is fairly detrimental to the organism's survival can spread through the population, in violation of what natural selection would predict. So, yes, we can "alter" a species.
- MiracleUser 7y ago
  You are not emphasizing the descendants part enough. It still requires existing members of the species to propagate the gene with natural breeding, same as 'natural' genetic mutations. So if it is a gene detrimental to survival, it can still very easily die off. Which is not in violation of what natural selection would predict.

claudiawerner 7y ago

>Bans on tools have only ever delayed progress and caused misery. It really depends on the "tool"; arguably a great many atrocious weapons are tools, yet it's hard for me to see nuclear disarmament as anything but progress. Technology is not neutral, it is informed by concerns and developments outside of its own instrumental purposes. In the same way that recent (last century or so) tools/technology have brought massive improvements to the lives of everyone, the same way they bring massive improvement is the way that other tools (or even the same ones) bring massive regression. As for this particular technology, I don't know enough about it to comment - only to say that in general a variety of different concerns should be involved in its design and evaluation - from scientists to ethicists.

quotemstr 7y ago
> it's hard for me to see nuclear disarmament as anything but progress Nuclear armament is progress. Without nuclear weapons, we would have had many more WWII-style large-scale industrial total wars, probably with cumulative causalities in the hundreds of millions. You don't need nuclear weapons to kill lots of people. Nuclear weapons have made large scale total war impractical, which means it doesn't happen anymore. Nuclear disarmament would be a disaster, and wishing for it is naive.
asdf21 7y ago
M.A.D. had resulted in the most peaceful time in history by far