Re: Genetic engineering
- From: "whitesickle@xxxxxxx" <whitesickle@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:07:17 -0500 (EST)
Tim Tyler wrote:
Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
> I don't have any moral objection to genetic engineering.
> I think it is a poor alternative to natural selection
> because the latter automatically takes account of all
> correlated effects in the present environment, while
> the former does not.
IMO, genetic engineering is best seen as representing
new types of mutation and recombination.
Instead of mutation being random, genetic engineering
additionally permits directed mutations - ones which
are guided by intelligent agents.
At the moment, the biggest impact of genetic engineering
is cross-species recombination.
Genetic engineering puts all the genomes of the species
on the planet into the same big melting pot. No longer
are genetic inventions by one species confined to its
members: now /all/ the organisms on the planet are in
a position to benefit.
Genetic engineering is not really an alternative to
selection. Normally, selection still gets to act on
its products - e.g. a genetically engineered crop that
is plagued with pathogens does not stay on the market
any longer than a conventionally-produced one which
exhibits the same problem.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.
In the case you present selection is operating but with "intelligent
design" and not natural selection. As you you yourself have admitted
when genetic engineering of humans does happen natural selection will
continue to operate and coexist with genetic engineering. It will be
much further down the evolutionary path when natural selection no
longer operates on people. One of my greatest concerns is if our
knowledge and technology progresses and genetic engineering is
subordinated to the processes of natural selection. You give cavemen
the knowledge and technology of genetic engineering and the results
could be rather nasty. It is not so much the genetic engineering that
is the problem but rather how the social, economic, and political
elements respond to it. For example, in some countries genetic
engineering of humans could be mandatory and draconian. In others
voluntary and democratic. I would imagine that whatever country first
does genetic engineering with humans this will set off a race among
those countries which have the means and ability to do the same but
haven't for various reasons.
You state, "Instead of mutation being random, genetic engineering
additionally permits directed mutations - ones which are guided by
intelligent agents." Hypothetically, what would "we" select through
directed mutations which natural selection hasn't provided? I can think
of many but I would like your opinion.
You mentioned once in the future bigger brains and bigger genitals
would be selected for. My question is would those genetically
engineered to have bigger brains also have bigger genitals or would
those with bigger genitals have smaller brains. I mentioned the "bigger
brain" hypothesis to someone and they told me much of the human brain
is taken up with motor functions. This doesn't seem to suggest a bigger
brain necessarily results in more intelligence. For example, a
stationary genetically engineered human creature in a space craft
theoretically could have less brain mass. It's brain would be freed up.
Michael Ragland
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Programming/Modelling of Evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Evolutionary biology: To work or not to work
- Previous by thread: Earth's early haze
- Next by thread: The Idle Shall Inherit the Earth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
