4 ms·
I'm unclear on what you mean by "they" when you say "either they work or they don't" - his bugs? Or the way in which those bugs, once released, solve a particul
by jstclair 14y ago
I'm unclear on what you mean by "they" when you say "either they work or they don't" - his bugs? Or the way in which those bugs, once released, solve a particular problem? Or once released, those changes are non-harmful? My problem with risk is the attitudes towards proof ( or principle of least harm) in the latter, not a quibble with the previous two. And I think we can take satisfaction of those two conditions a necessary condition for the possibility of the third, right?
- jstanley 14y agoAs the article states, his ideas have a history of being successful (though he almost certainly has a hell of a lot of unsuccessful ideas that we haven't heard about). I think that's what "moron" was referring to.
- jstclair 14y agoGreat remind about unsuccessful ideas; as I prefaced my original remark, I am impressed by his accomplishments. And I have no doubt that he (or someone else, eventually) would be able to build engineered organisms that could "work" (in the small sense), and survive and reproduce (and so work, in the larger sense). But that success is pretty distant from being able to predict and control the long-term effects once they're released. [edit: spelling/undo autocorrect]