Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (33621)	4/3/1999 11:24:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

> I think you are missing the thrust of the argument. You don't mess with the adaptive apparatus unless you know the consequences. And the consequences of genetic engineering can be disastrous in case of mistakes.< Chuzzlewit, I'm on top of that. I recognize that the adaptive, indeed the genetic archiving machinery is a finely-balanced mechanism. That's why I would counsel an ethical genomancer to become sovereignly proficient in reading and writing bacteria before going anywhere else. A bacterial mistake can always be dumped in a vat of Uni-Kill without a crisis of conscience. Granted, the hazard exists that the biological equivalent of the bored Melissa geek might try a new and improved hemorrhagic fever bug ... but I expect the defenses to evolve as fast as the weapons. And weaponry is not the real use of good gene science (this distinguishes it from sudden fission). >the structure of the genetic material does not allow for structural scanning of meaning. In other words, you need to decode the codons to decide what the primary structure of the resultant protein molecule will do. There is simply no way around this. < Exactly. Agreed 100%. There will be no quick fix. This is what I meant by calling current genetic science primitive. The correlation of code to genetic meaning will be a Herculean task (the stables come to mind, and these are built in arid country). This'll take the requisite centuries, even with the expected huge increments in information science, automated chemistry etc. I guess what we have is not a difference of philosophy scientifically, but at a different, more immediately human level. We both see the sheer size of the task in truly understanding the biological machinery of even E Coli. But while you doubt that this vision will ever be attained, I see it as inevitable. We see the mountain in the haze ... one day we will climb it. And one day long after that we will build a resort there. It is our nature. My opinion ... my vision, for better or worse. You or I won't see this done. Perhaps our grandchildren will be the beneficiaries of the first halting steps toward such science. In the meantime ... there is much to be said for "unnatural" selection by breeding, at least for species below the apes. I do not desire deliberate breeding of humans. It bears the moral stigma of eugenics and its associated ethical baggage. But more importantly (at least in my fevered skull) soon enough we will have more direct methods that will allow informed consent.