I am creating life, says US scientist

[Skybird]

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 becasue 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.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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"?

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.

[DeepIron]

That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before.

We are too immature as a species to be playing with this stuff...

With enough $$$, hypothetical turns into realization... And those who control the $$$ will control its outcome.

[CB..]

this is a cracker i'd like to throw the "Matrix" into the mix aswell (tho in a sideways and technically inaccurate fashion)..
if we are designing LIFE to suit OUR needs...thus abandoning any right to claim LIFE as a special and unique element in the universe..and one which should be respected as such...and that does include us also

then...

Whose needs are WE designed to fullfill...?

adinfinitum
are we standing in an endless hall of mirrors?
whose rules are we playing by...? should we be telling "some-one" to "sod off"???

evoloution tells us that "the ends justify the means" and i'm not sure religion really says any different..

we ought to spend a couple of hundred years thinking about this before we play this "ball"
how likely is that to happen?? zero percent..

might be a clue there..matrix style..i say we find the miserable apeths who designed us to suit their needs.. and tell 'em to "sod off"...lol...madness of course...or is it...?? danger will robinson danger...

[antikristuseke]

What seems to imply that we fill any need or that we were designed?

[CB..]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

What seems to imply that we fill any need or that we were designed?

nothing and everything...depending on your point of view i suppose...which in a hall of mirrors is going to be at best unreliable .we have an incomplete view of the universe (to say the least lol)..the question is does the universe have an incomplete view of us?...even the evoloutionary concept exhibits some sort of pattern...some sort of objective no matter how randomly and unitelligbly arrived at...where did that come from ? why evolve at all?? if not to fullfill some sort of plan? even if it is just "survival of the fittest"...and if that 'aint some sort of a plan then i don't know what else is?
it's a hell of a circular argument i know but it's an entertaining one...we don't know...that's probably half the fun of it..we don't think about this stuff enough..we just rush ahead assuming we are sure of ourselves...assuming we have it all under control...we 'aint got "diddly squat" under control...which is where the contemplation of universe as our home (which might be construed as religious thought) comes in...gawd we aint even "potty trained" as yet (were still ****ting on our home planet) lol bit early to be playing god...

i honestly don't know..which is a relief..but the questions are great !

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

How is the comparison "invalid"?

Neither does evolution try to design accoridng to man's ideas, nor is man's ideas reflecting the way evolution has advanced in it's own ways. Instead, man tries to artifically make evolution more natural, or in other words: replace evolution with himself.

but man does not know the man interacting, interdepending complexities that web evolution has spun is made of. For just one example, see here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=121673

[STEED]

Us men create life every day when we break wind, right men.

[DeepIron]

What seems to imply that we fill any need or that we were designed?

My wife says I fill her needs.... works for me... and I don't worry about the 'design" stuff. I consider Human Beings to be a "Work in Progress"...

Originally Posted by STEED

Us men create life every day when we break wind, right men.

Depends on what I had for lunch. If it's an egg salid sandwich, better stand waaaaaay back.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Neither does evolution try to design accoridng to man's ideas, nor is man's ideas reflecting the way evolution has advanced in it's own ways. Instead, man tries to artifically make evolution more natural, or in other words: replace evolution with himself.

So....your equaly against pigeon breeding?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

So....your equaly against pigeon breeding?

Feel free to think of yourself as nothing more than a pigeon, but me - I don't buy it. Even pigeon breeding envolves natural selection of genes - it does not enforce genetic combinations that nature - if left alone - would never put together. Also, pigeons do not try to manipulate their own genes. Pigeon breeding compares to humans of different races having sex and children in the natural way.

Quiztime. Is Plutonium a "natural" element"? It was not created by mother nature, but by man, in the lab. Naturally, to our knowledge it does not exist anywhere in the nature known to man.

And how do you adress the risks of messing up genes by designing them so that a certain function if fulfilled or a certaion disease does not show up - at the price of intirducing an even greater threat to the organism, as described in that old article I referred to i my last posting? It describes things that we just have started to get an image of that they are an issue - knowing we do not much, or better: close to nothing about these links and interdependancies. and if a scientist would create life and intentionally desiogn flaws and arrors into it, even disease, to make it immune to other diseases, he would also be at war with some ethics commission.

And yes, the ethics of this all - an abyss opening up before us...

We are not ready for these things. We do not know about the powers we start to mess around with. Maybe in the future, sometime, but that is not more than a "maybe".

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quiztime. Is Plutonium a "natural" element"? It was not created by mother nature, but by man, in the lab. Naturally, to our knowledge it does not exist anywhere in the nature known to man.

Plutonium, like all radiological elements (if not all elements), has a half-life. The most common isotope is Plutonium-239, the one used for nuclear weapons, which has a half-life of 24,100 years and is'nt found in nature because it has allready decayed. A more stable isotope is Pu-244, with a half life of 80 milin years and is the nucleon-richest atom that naturally occurs in the Earth's crust, but in very small quantities.

Im fascinated by nuclear physics and since i quit smoking (allmost a month ago) have developed insomnia so i have way too much time to look into things like this.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quiztime. Is Plutonium a "natural" element"? It was not created by mother nature, but by man, in the lab. Naturally, to our knowledge it does not exist anywhere in the nature known to man.

No time to address the rest atm I shall leave that for tomorrow,
however.....

Yes, plutonium is found in nature. It's not common because the conditions required to
produce it are not very common and it has a somewhat short half life.
However, there is still enough around on earth to be detectable if you look for it around
uranium deposits.

IIRC it is formed through neutron exchange (?) which occurs in nature quite a lot in stars
and also a little on earth.

The earth probably had a lot of it around a few billion years ago before it all decayed.


There are no purely man-made elements.

[Skybird]

Ah. I stand corrected. I learned at school and read in (old) books that plutonium is a fully artificially created element. wikipedia just told me that this is a widespread mistake in public.