3 ms·
My argument isn't that because something happens in nature it's OK. But rather it is closer to the argument that the Large Hadron Collider will not create a bl
by pcrh 11y ago
My argument isn't that because something happens in nature it's OK. But rather it is closer to the argument that the Large Hadron Collider will not create a black hole that the whole planet will be sucked into.
In the case of the LHC, we know that particles collide at the speeds planned all the time, yet this does not lead to black holes erupting everywhere.
In the case of the gene transfers currently done, we know precisely what they are and they are already part of the environment, having been derived from other natural organisms. The risk of the current crop of engineered plants becoming super-weeds that choke the planet is not zero, but also not plausible from a biological perspective.
That someone could engineer a super weed is of course possible, as would be engineering the flu virus to produce cholera toxin. So, precautions should indeed be taken when releasing engineered organisms.
- x5n1 11y agoLHC's website states: "Whatever the LHC will do, Nature has already done many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies." This case is not analogous because in this planet's history there have been 6 different extinction events. So in order for it to be analogous, they would have to say that we know a few times in the past this has caused a black hole, but this is totally different. Passing genes from one thing into another can very easily have unintended consequences as they do in nature. The link above is an example of what can happen. By the time you figure it out, perhaps it will be too late. The effects might be local or they might be global, there is no way to predict these things and we can not say with certainty that they don't happen, because we have more than one example of where they do. In fact human intelligence may be an accident of horizontal gene transfer. These are not games that are worth playing in my opinion. You are what you eat. If that stuff it in your food supply, it just might end up in you and the bacteria and other life that lives in you. Another really big problem is dependence. Once you come to depend on these things, just like we are now with carbon producing technology, you can not pull the plug. Even if you know that it's causing harm, the social mechanism needed to pull the plug don't exist in free society and if they do they are very slow moving. That's another big reason to not go down this road, because it's impossible to turn back because of all the people that will die because you can't produce the expected crop yields.
- pcrh 11y agoMy analogy of gene transfer with the LHC is as you quote; whatever humans do with respect to gene transfer has already been done many times over, and never resulted in a mass extinction event. There are two mass extinction events that have a clear biological origin. Minor extinction events are a permanent feature of evolution. The first is the evolution of photosynthesis causing the Great Oxygenation Event[0]. In this, cyanobacteria converted CO2 into water and oxygen on a massive scale. This lead to a cooling of the planet due to reduced CO2 levels and the precipitation of iron oxides into massive deposits worldwide, today visible as "banded iron formations" [1]. The second mass extinction with a clear biological origin is the current one, where Homo sapiens is converting a massive quantity of carbon previously sequestered during the carboniferous back into CO2 and warming the planet as a result. In addition, this species destroys the habitats of many other species. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation