| Author | Message | ||
     Gregtonn |
Does this scare anyone? https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_kahn_gene_editi ng_can_now_change_an_entire_species_forever G | ||
| Torquehd |
Warning: This post contains other-than-proglib content. If anything other than oversaturated humanism offends you, skip this post. Or better yet, read it twice. While the bible doesn't overtly state that DNA is God's fingerprint, if you spend enough time studying "secrets" in the bible, it's fairly easy to come to the conclusion that the Genome is a scroll of God's secrets (doesn't it even look like a scroll, unrolled and twisted like a spiral staircase?). Pandora's box? Not even. Think Armageddon. What happened to that tower that the people built on the plain of Shinar? What happened to the cherub who sought to become like God? It didn't end well; elevation of creature rather than Creator never does. I don't see how tampering with The Programmer's divine code is going to end any better. Again, this isn't overtly stated in the bible. Just an educated guess. I could be totally wrong. But I'd rather not find out. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'll watch the Ted talk shortly. Until then.... this dilemma is not new. From simple dog/horse breeding eugenics to super soldiers from Hydra sci-fi and comics have commented on the dangers. The movie "Gattaca" hints at the civil rights implications when DNA testing gets fast and cheap. Serious morality questions for a prospective parent. Of course you want your child to be healthy. No heart disease good eyesight no diabetes. Obvious goods. Athletic build? Sure. Let's have a future hall of famer! Beauty? Kid will make more money. Sure. Smarts? Height? ( tall guys make more ) porno star endowment? Gotta make a future Penthouse letters writer? Then the practical. If we reduce our biodiversity or introduce gmo innovation will we destroy our species future? Is there a "believe socialism works" gene? An obedience combo? You almost can't be paranoid enough..... and can we fix that someday? | ||
| Patches |
Genesis 1:11 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:21 - And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24 - And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Genesis 1:25 - And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 6:20 - Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. Genesis 7:14 - They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. Leviticus 11:14 - And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Leviticus 11:15 - Every raven after his kind; Leviticus 11:16 - And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, Leviticus 11:22 - Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. Leviticus 11:29 - These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, Deuteronomy 14:13 - And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, Deuteronomy 14:14 - And every raven after his kind, Deuteronomy 14:15 - And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, Colossians 1:15-17 (KJV) 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. | ||
| Aesquire |
Think, though. If you have a genetic condition that runs in your family, say, that one that Angelina Jolie's family does with Breast Cancer. Would it not be right and moral to at least make sure you don't pass those genes to the next generation? Not a matter of gene alterations or mutation but just careful selection to clean up the pool. The morals get murkier when you talk about selection from the parent's genes for height, or build... But not wanting to have naturally fat kids isn't evil, right? | ||
| Sifo |
It will be fun to watch on some levels. We have a certain segment of society pushing the gay agenda to make it appear to be mainstream. We are told it's not a choice, so it must be genetic. Who's going to ask for their baby to be gay though? Or will it become the new badge of courage to request a gay baby just to prove that you are not homophobic? I could actually see some liberals doing that. Meanwhile, ban that GMO corn! | ||
| Aesquire |
Finally got a chance to view the TED talk from the OP. Scary stuff. Really scary. Tremendous power to solve some serious problems, and the potential for a script kiddie bio-hacker to destroy.... everything. Spiderman has the saying. With great power comes great responsibility. | ||
| Henshao |
I think the phrase is more accurately: With great responsibility, occasionally comes power. At least in my experience... | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
You can also use this tech to alter bacteria and viruses. | ||
| Figorvonbuellingham |
What about taking medication that alters our bodies? Should we not take it? I know I wish I had never taken ciprofloxacin as it is slowly deteriorating my tendons. If they can alter my genes to stop that I'm all for it providing it doesn't have any ill side effects. If they can alter my genes to repair the damage to the retina of my left eye and restore my vision....I'm all for it. Messing with genes to change the human race....bad idea. | ||
| Ourdee |
Prior to Spiderman, KJV, Luke 12:48, "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." | ||
| Slaughter |
We see the same arguments used against grafting. God never intended a fruit to blossom from a hardwood. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ferris the TED talk was specific that this isn't for germs but only for sex using critters. Like fish & humans. That's the good news. The bad news is bacteria & viruses are already being tweaked in labs. Don't need this tech. The editor nanotech is frightening on a new level. Example. You want to eliminate the genes for...... say, believing in stupid myths like socialism or Islam. ( keep in mind we aren't able to do that this week ) Will this prevent people from believing in grand ideas? Will the next generation not think motorcycles are fun? That freedom is important, or exists at all? We juggle priceless eggs in variable gravity. | ||
| Blake |
Come on Steve, editing designer genomes is a huge leap from grafting plants. Grafted plants reproduce their original DNA, nothing of the host rootstock is passed on naturally. And aren't fruit trees hardwoods themselves? The danger is in some person or persons thinking that they know how to solve a problem while failing to identify the consequences, the unforeseen consequences. Seems to me that wildly reprogramming the genetic code of organisms could be very risky, almost to the point that near omniscience is required to avoid catastrophe. The butterfly effect applied to nature's balance. The risk just seems too great. With plant grafting there is none. Maybe if science ever has an answer for free will, the soul, or existence itself, then maybe come talk to us about letting laboratory scientists revise the natural world. What we know is little. Imagining otherwise is just irresponsible and arrogant. | ||
| Blake |
The arrogance of the lady presenting the talk is off the charts. She's not sure if this gene drive tech makes us into gods? That reminds me of an old story: A scientist says to God, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs, edit genomes, and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.” Her final comment in its context of using the gene drive to combat malaria is most chilling. She declares that "It can be frightening to act, but sometimes not acting is worse." I would ask her, "how do you know that?" Such statements warrant thorough justification/vetting. | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, Designer genes have been with us for a while, and the moral and practical arguments for and against are well worth discussion. The Editing nanotech here is the scary part. Say you breed/engineer/magic up a Rabbit that has been altered to be a carnivore. ( highly unlikely, but bear with me ) Nice trick, interesting science, and please don't let that escape. But if it does, we have only a major problem, expensively and dangerously dealt with. IF Mendelian genetics apply. If not, in One year only the quick and the armed will be left alive in the Bunny Apocalypse. This tech eliminates the natural correction factors nature has. Cancels survival of the fittest. Evolution, poorly understood and even more poorly attacked and defended, nonexistent. If this tech worked on bacteria, I might support a total ban with a Holy Inquisition, but so far it just needs watching. She declares that "It can be frightening to act, but sometimes not acting is worse." I would ask her, "how do you know that?" Such statements warrant thorough justification/vetting. Oh Yes. Don't forget the end of DDT was at least partially based on lies and kills "a thousand a day" or whatever her assertion. In that case too, the desire to DO SOMETHING led to BAD THINGS. | ||
| Rick_a |
It would be the same as all the plastic surgery junkies out there. Some would still pride themselves in doing it the old fashioned way. If you've got a bad predisposition you may have to live and work a little harder and maybe not live as long. That's worth it to some. There's always those with more money than sense or morality. | ||
| Spiderman |
If god created man, now man edits man. Isn't it transitive? I mean that is the argument you are using for selective breeding and tree grafting... Another example of your pick and choose attitude to what suits your ideals. | ||
| Blake |
Are editing and creating the same thing? If not, then a transitive relation doesn't apply, does it? Not sure exactly which point you're addressing, re "pick and choose attitude". Not sure whose comments you're addressing. I'm not sure the issue of the gene drive has any special theological significance. My own concern is the arrogance of men/women who are too quick to essentially tell us that we must deploy this gene drive in the fight against Malaria. Has anyone asked the hard questions like, "what if Malaria is vital to a balanced and thriving ecosystem?" What if it acts like a vaccine of sorts for the vast herds of grazing animals, causing them to develop resistance to other pathogens or parasites that would otherwise decimate their populations? That's just one possible catastrophic scenario. How do we even rule that out? Isn't it ironic that we cause people to suffer on behalf of protecting one obscure already nearly extinct little fish called the "Snail Darter", but are so eager to wipe out an entire widespread population of Protozoa? Fish are cuter than parasitic Protozoa. Do humans have a special intrinsic value that sets us above other living entities, or are we just being bigoted specie-ists, prejudiced in favor of ourselves? Hmmm, could it be there's a theological or at a minimum a philosophical question that is demanding an answer? Interesting discussion. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Some things are meant to live, and others meant to die. It is not up to me to determine what that meaning is. To attempt to do so would be an affront to God. | ||
| Hootowl |
In order to form an antibody, the animal would have to be susceptible to the disease. They are not. Only humans get human malaria (there are many types of malaria...pretty sure they're not talking about all of them). It cannot have a vaccine effect on a animals, other than humans. But it doesn't, it just kills us. Millions of us. This is no different than eradicating polio or measles. Did we worry about what it might do to the animal kingdom when we wiped out smallpox? I really don't understand the hesitation. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Perhaps the reason so many are starving is there are just too many, period. God's creation is not all pretty flowers and butterflies. He created life, and also death in it's many forms. | ||
| Aesquire |
Has anyone asked the hard questions like, "what if Malaria is vital to a balanced and thriving ecosystem?" Given a choice of watching children die or messing with an ever changing adapting "ecosystem"? I would tend to save the children. However, there are plenty of humans, more than the planet can support without serious artificial aids, including specially bred food crops, Power production/transmission equipment on a vast scale and refrigeration. Now the extreme Greenies hypocritically urge us to return to nature. ( not themselves of course, they will still live in a high rise condo with the Sharper image massage chair and the Kale and strawberry energy drinks ) Take away the artificial environments we create to live in and the population would drop to a pre-medieval level, and we literally would not have enough to bury our dead. The transition period would see the cities burn ( more pollution ) and the rivers choked with bloating bodies. Now, I'm no Greenie. A conservationist, sure ( but not a conservative ) and I feel we should be good stewards to the planet we are given. ( by who is a theological question, the previous generations gave us the mess we have now, and they got if from previous gens... back to Eve, at least ) So I have no problem wiping out malaria, or smallpox, or AIDS, or mutant killer bunnies. You just have to be careful. Even the best intentions often lead to disaster. The Yellowstone Park Elk are a prime example of badly managed with the best of intentions wildlife. However, the editor tech is a whole new way to wreck stuff with the best of intentions. I think her assertion that we could use the same tech to correct errors made is wildly optimistic. Entropy doesn't seem to work that way. It's easier to destroy than to build. Personally I'm good with wiping out mosquitoes altogether, I hate the little monsters. The diseases they spread are horrific and kill millions. OTOH, birds eat them, ( And I like birds, when they aren't crapping on my stuff ) and I can imagine some well meaning cretin developing a mosquito Mk2 that does not need mammal blood to reproduce, doesn't bite, and doesn't spread disease. Gee, there's no way that could backfire!  | ||
| Hootowl |
"It's easier to destroy than to build." You ever try to unstick two Lego blocks?  | ||
| Blake |
Jeff, If what you say is all 100% absolutely true, then you've addressed that one single question. Can you think of all the others that have not yet been asked? I'm not arguing for or against, just objecting to what seems like admonition so from a journalist to proc Ed with very hasty medicine that may well have symptoms far worse than those it cures. If such things don't make us nervous, or at a minimum extremely cautious, we are being incredibly naive and arrogant. A vaccination is administered to a patient to cause the body to naturally build resistance to infection. That's a far leap from completely altering another animal's genome so that it cannot transmit another species, a parasitic one to humans. It's the unknowns of which we are unaware, the "unknown unknowns" that warrant extreme caution. As far as we know the anti-malarial gene-driven mosquito proposal could be an awful Pandora's box. Do we know that the malarial protozoans at issue don't serve some vital beneficial role in the natural order? There all all kinds of symbiotic relationships in nature where the elimination of one organism greatly harms another. Consider the flora in the human digestive system for one. Who's to say that the benign infection of the protozoan in herd animals doesn't play some vital role, perhaps stimulating production of enzymes, or other vital biological factors. Maybe it benefits the bats that consume the mosquitos? Maybe it benefits the mosquitos? We're not talking about defensive medicine here, not mere armoring-up human internal defenses against disease; we're talking about going on the offense by revising another animal's genome in order to make extinct yet another animal. Surely caution is warranted. No? Okay to create a gene-drive to sterilize and thus irradiate fleas and cockroaches? | ||
| Henshao |
As much as I hate leeches, ticks, fleas, mosquitoes, and all other blood suckers I am extremely leery of the butterfly effect. Does anyone remember that episode on the original star trek with, basically, the space hippies? It's easy to remember the dubbed singing but the plot was quite a bit more frightening than the delivery. They were dying of a super disease, one that had been CREATED by all the super-sterilization and super inoculations and wonder-medicine of the future. Sort of like a super nuclear cockroach of diseases, it had come about in the thing that nature abhors, a vacuum; this time a vacuum of infectious things. Future medicine apparently could do nothing against it. That was probably a clumsy explanation but the concept of that disease stuck with me for a long time. Reminds me of the end of the most recent War of the Worlds, where the Martian immune systems just couldn't hack it on Earth. "We have earned the right to live here." | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, "Given a choice of watching children die or messing with an ever changing adapting "ecosystem"? I would tend to save the children." Uh huh. Well, who wouldn't? But that's not really germane to the issue, but rather just a statement about our psychology, our mindset. At issue is whether or not that mindset ought be tempered by caution, and how much so, which you also seem to hint at later in your post. I'll pick on you for one more thing: Nobody has to stand by and watch. There is a lot that can be done to fight malaria. Methinks your dichotomy then is a false one.  .  (Message edited by blake on May 18, 2016) | ||
| Hootowl |
Not cockroaches. Nature needs those. Parasites like fleas, ticks, etc.? Not so much. If I could wipe our fleas forever, I would do it. Any parasite really. | ||
| Aesquire |
The way the road to Hell is paved is quite germane to your objections. It's the psychology of how we justify our experiments in the world. The arguments to sell this tech are going to be the same as selling Planetary Rule to stop Global Warming. Appeal to emotion, and limit the information content to favor your choice. Don't get me wrong, I might be the kind of guy that thinks it a good trade off to drop a tiny amount of oil in a semi-stagnant creek to reduce the mosquito population, if there is a good area for that oil to be cleaned up naturally, in the fens, before it gets to intakes down stream. Small local things where you can control of predict the large scale effects can be good, and useful. ( the Dept. of Environmental Conservation may not agree with me. Faced with a one sized fits all approach, inherent in a Bureaucracy, they won't allow any intentional pollution for the sake of me having a more pleasant time on my deck. ) But I'm a bit scared of the tech here to change a huge local population of bugs to a mono-genetic population bred for a purpose. Yes, there are other things to fight malaria, and the other bug borne diseases. Simplest is to move where there's no disease. Then hide? Soak your home in chemicals and wear a hazard suit outdoors? All these have problems, as does killing all the skeeters. I'm not for it, I just understand the appeal of the idea. Caution is indeed called for. Killer Bunnies may sound like a joke.... but the eco-warriors often release lab animals during assault/protests at Universities and Commercial labs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCI18qAoKq4 It's Just A Rabbit! | ||
| Ducbsa |
GMO safe, says the Gubmint (although does that mean it is actually dangerous?) http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/16/report-in -brief/ |
