Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Letum
It's likely that this kind of thing happens in nature on a regular basis anyway.
The earth was very different when the first semi-chemical semi-biological life forms where
produced, however it is likely that is is an event that has happened, and continues to happen
every now and again. It is likely that there are plenty of places where the right
chemicals and conditions exist.
|
Invalid comparison.
The danger with artificially influencing genes is that we breed humans and do not see them as humans, that we create groteque abberations simply because we can do it, and abuse the first and/or the latter for medical purposes and slave work, and to design our own private designer babies not different to the items we buy for our luxury needs. the danger is that we create a genetic monoculture, and we know for sure one thijng: less diversity in agriculture and misture of species in a given environemnt increases their vulnerability to for destuction due to a single infection or parasite which threatens the whole population insrtead of only parts of it. Translating this to the level of a species-specific geene-pool is a risk that evben cannot be fully overseen or overestimated. And blind and uncritical optimism that is so very typical for the industry wanting to push a new product is the last thing that we need. |
How is the comparison "invalid"?
Quote:
|
The danger with artificially influencing genes is that we breed humans and do not see them as humans
|
The danger with artificially splitting the atom is that we blow our selves to bits in a
nuclear apocalypse.
Just because we study and experiment with genetics, does not mean we are heading
towards Huxley's "Brave New World".
Like nuclear technology, this kind of genetic research could be used for both good
and bad. That does not mean we should avoid it.
If you think the research in it's self, and not just it's ends, is immoral, then I refer
you to my above comparison.