Genetic Engineering--would you?

[shubla]

The "Don't play god" argument isn't an argument, and the "you don't know what can happen" can be applied to literally every other branch of science and that didn't stop us from advancing in them, so why should this be an exception

Because a chemical spill can be cleaned up. Radiation can be reduced or cleaned up. A computer virus can be rooted out and eliminated. A mistake with genetic engineering can devastate and have the potential to never undo. Some things should be left alone because the risk is to high or to unethical.

Radiation can be "cleaned up"? Really?

I think from disasters like that release radiactive particles, and if you get unlucky you might inhale one of those to your lungs and die within few years from that.
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2bvm02/how_is_radiation_cleaned_up_after_a_major_nuclear/

Those all bags are full of contaminated soil at japan. (They are "cleaning up" radiation or atleast some of it)

[spawningmink]

i guess we are already playing god, because if you look now we are creating tings that shouldn't be possible

[GenghisKhan44]

i guess we are already playing god, because if you look now we are creating tings that shouldn't be possible

What poppycock. One could argue that God, in killing animals to give Adam and Eve hides to clothe themselves, was doing something "unthinkable" - killing some of His own creation. (Off-topic: I am not a young earth creationist; I subscribe to theistic evolution.)

It's the nature of men to put the Earth and its resources under their rule and manipulate them. It's how the Agricultural Revolution transformed the world, how civilisation developed, how Kingdoms and Empires rise and fall. Saying we should not manipulate the genes of plants and irrational animals to make them more useful is like saying we shouldn't have domesticated dogs, cattle, or chickens, or that we should not have cultivated barley, wheat, sorghum, and other plants that people can actually eat.

That said, we should be cautious. We want to avoid turning the whole world into Chernobyl, or the like.

The "Don't play god" argument isn't an argument, and the "you don't know what can happen" can be applied to literally every other branch of science and that didn't stop us from advancing in them, so why should this be an exception

Very true. We should only refuse to "research" something that would actually be a violation of the moral law. Which is why, for example, we don't do experiments on humans beings (anymore anymore anymore) until they've been proven safe with other animals with genetic similarities to us, like mice.

Which, to put it shortly, is why I am horrified with some of the anthropocentric societal experiments being pushed today, but couldn't give a fuck whether I eat vat meat.

[Massa]

i guess we are already playing god, because if you look now we are creating tings that shouldn't be possible

Do you have actual input here or something?

Sevenless is correct. The most that will come of this is creating proteins that we can easily predict the effects of. Proteins aren't magical, just confusing.

You won't shape life. You're not going to create a unicorn.

The proteins created however can act as smart bombs in your body, provided they aren't toxic or harmful elsewhere.

I'd also listen to mgvulik or what ever his name is, he has a decent head.

[venatorvenator]

To address some points from several posts:

No, there really are discussions on the ethics of microbial extinction, for example through disease eradication. We are making life extinct through our medicine system, you know.

Almost all of our food is genetically altered by selective farming or breeding. The agricultural revolution we had 10,000 years ago was us, for good or worse, meddling with the order of things. Whether all that genetic manipulation happened directly or indirectly isn't very relevant to the risk argument: we have made species extinct and permanently altered life and weather in the planet by way of our agricultural interventions during the past millenia; societies have conquered others due to superior plant genes, and diseases were used to destroy major civilisations. Entire ecosystems collapsed because of our ancestors, and a bunch of new diseases appeared because of our selective breeding and farming.

Risks have to be weighted according to specific ethical theories, not opinion. For policy making utilitarianism is preferred. While risks and damage of GE are high, the risk and damage of social collapse or humanity's extinction is much higher; so when put in a balance the benefits outweigh the damage, depending on which ethicist is making the calculus. More people could benefit from genetic engineering than without it.

The problem is that as it is and with our current tech the planet cannot sustain humanity's growth, and also that accessible genetic engineering is inevitable (for terrorists too). We won't be able to stop wars, terrorists, or forcibly control fertility. Genetic engineering has the potential of giving our species some extra centuries to live. And Someone is certainly going to do it, it's best if we do it too, since not all scientific superpowers are peaceful and friendly.

And this discussion is a very old cliche of our Western culture, it appears in many forms throughout history - humans eating from the tree of knowledge in christianism, prometheus teaching us how to make fire (humanity should not have such power, say the gods), etc.

All technicalities aside though, who wouldn't want more babies like this pomato tree here?

You won't shape life.

What about craig venter?

[mvgulik]

*decides to sit back and wait until: there is some more use of science related reverence links, yes/no believers run out of steam, or topic gets locked.*

*Ponders about the fact that computer programs still come with unintentional side effect (bug's in layman's terms), and there active use as alternative cyber-spy or saboteur. (where still a long way off, but the root problem don't seems to grow up.)*

[borka]

No - i'd better like to get my theoretical knowledge of dirty bombs on a practical experimental level - why crawl when you can run

the problem is that even harmless experiments are dooropeners for the worse stuff

[Kaios]

yes/no believers

What do you even mean by that?

[venatorvenator]

*decides to sit back and wait until: there is some more use of science related reverence links, yes/no believers run out of steam, or topic gets locked.*

http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/probing-the-improbable.pdf
http://embor.embopress.org/content/13/7/584

The links have further links.

[MagicManICT]

a way to make myself start producing insulin again.

That may not be far off with or without genetic engineering. I'd have to dig up some links I recall reading recently on diabetes treatments and potential cures. Be glad to send them to you PM or just post here if I can find them again. Otherwise, yes, this could be one definite goal. (It was something about "rebooting" the pancreas or something like that. Might have had something to do with stem cell research.)

i guess we are already playing god, because if you look now we are creating tings that shouldn't be possible

If we can invent it, it is most obviously possible, and I'd say highly probably that any other intelligent species has or will recreate such a thing again. (Note: wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not... figured I'd answer it with some seriousness.)