H5N1 Virus, Atomic Weapons, Genetic Modification. Can you find a connection between these three? Believe it or not there is a connection.

One of the best entertainments provided these days is the news of one country or the other trying to go nuclear. All hell is let loose, with threats and counter threats, bunker bursting bombs and what not.

But this is nothing compared with the entertainment that will be provided in another ten years or so as the biotechnology industry matures and as tens of thousands of young men and women in every backwater of every country achieve the godlike knowledge of knowing how to meddle with life forms. Nuclear Weapons are difficult to make as fissile material cannot be obtained easily. But not so pathogens, which are available everywhere and which can be deliberately modified by people clever enough to know how. And will there be people who will be sinister enough to do this? You bet! See how the internet is frequently brought to its knees by Virus of another kind.

And if not biological weapons, there will be enough nuisance created by scientists of all varieties having a go at creating new kinds of life forms, just from curiosity or to make a fast buck or in a misguided attempt to win the Noble Prize. Unfortunately the very nature of genes makes it possible to create infinite mischief. Even if a thousand new and exotic kinds of life forms were created in the lab everyday, one would not run out of fresh ideas in a million years!! And let us not forget that skills are transferable. There is some kind of informal ban at the moment when it comes to experimenting with human genes. But genes are genes, whether human, animal or belonging to plants. If you can mess up with the one, you can mess up with the other.

There is a phrase known as opening 'the Pandora's box'. It has its origins in Greek mythology, where Pandora ( the world's first woman) opens a box in which God Jupiter, in vile anger, had filled with all the vices, diseases, sorrows and crimes with which humans were to be subsequently afflicted - before that humans lead an idealic life. Pandora out of feminine curiosity was unlucky enough to open the box. If at all a situation can be termed as opening the Pandora's box, recombinant DNA technology can be termed thus.

Personally I would gladly live in a world full of Nuclear Weapons rather than chance it in a world where everyone is meddling with life forms.

IS THERE A WAY OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT?

Yes.

1. Recognize that it is highly immoral to alter in an unnatural way the DNA of any life form on Plant Earth. Life forms on Earth relate to one another in complex ways. We do not have the complete blue prints. Since we are not the creators of the original life forms we have no authority to alter them.

2. Biotechnology is an all encompassing term. Distinguish between the safe kinds of biotechnology such as tissue culture etc and recombinant DNA technologies. Give the dangerous kind a different name.

3. Severely restrict teaching of recombinant DNA technologies.

4. All labs which deal with such technologies must be registered with the International DNA labs commission (IDLC), similar to the International Atomic Energy Commission. These must have stricter supervision than that followed by the IAEC.

5. Preferably call for a moratorium on all DNA transfer technologies for a hundred years. The Earth wont stop spinning if we do so!

6. Get all interested parties and world wide governments to invest in Space Habs in orbit around the Moon where DNA transfer research of all kinds will be permitted. Biotechnologies of all kinds hold great promise as we move out of planet Earth and set up human habitations on Mars, Moon and in giant space colonies put in orbit around the Sun. The rider is, we don't want these technologies on Planet Earth. Planet Earth is just one Space Hab, if you smoke a Bidi in India the smoke from it will drift all the way to USA. There is absolutely no isolation. Planet Earth, which is precious for us all, is not the right place for experimentation and propagation of such technologies.

With Fear and Hope
Selvaraj

On 2/15/06, sraj wrote:
(...)
> But this is nothing compared with the entertainment that will be provided in another ten years or so as the biotechnology industry matures and as tens of thousands of young men and women in every backwater of every country achieve the godlike knowledge of knowing how to meddle with life forms. Nuclear Weapons are difficult to make as fissile material cannot be obtained easily. But not so pathogens, which are available everywhere and which can be deliberately modified by people clever enough to know how. And will there be people who will be sinister enough to do this? You bet! See how the internet is frequently brought to its knees by Virus of another kind.

I have heard before that idea that people will buy the "Genetic
Engineer Kit" at the toy section of department stores, go home and
create centaurs or Humanity-wiping virus. Personally, I am kind of
skeptic that the process will ever come to that level of automatism
and simplicity - successful development of genetically altered
organisms is a very delicate (and finicky) process that currently
takes years of time, the work of ultra-highly qualified professionals
and more often than not great investments of money.

However, even if the "Genetic Engineer Kit" ever comes to reality, and
if it will be really so easy for kids with no sense of moral
whatsoever to develop Humanity-wiping virus (hopefully they will kill
themselves in the process and the virus will never leave their
bedrooms ;-), I don't see why it won't be quite easy also for "genetic
security" professionals to develop genetic "patches" that will prevent
Humanity-wiping - in the same way that Internet and software companies
do nowadays regarding computer viruses.

> And if not biological weapons, there will be enough nuisance created by scientists of all varieties having a go at creating new kinds of life forms, just from curiosity or to make a fast buck or in a misguided attempt to win the Noble Prize. Unfortunately the very nature of genes makes it possible to create infinite mischief. Even if a thousand new and exotic kinds of life forms were created in the lab everyday, one would not run out of fresh ideas in a million years!!

You are talking about the future, but in fact genetically engineered
food has been part of our diet, or that of our animals, for the past
10 years or more, in many, many countries.

> And let us not forget that skills are transferable. There is some kind of informal ban at the moment when it comes to experimenting with human genes. But genes are genes, whether human, animal or belonging to plants. If you can mess up with the one, you can mess up with the other.
(...)

Again, experimentation on human genes is already a reality. There is
much research on how to detect, prevent or cure human genetic diseases
by acting on the genes themselves - sometimes by modifying them.

Why didn't these luddites freak out over humans playing with genes back when
it first started--about 2000 BC? Selective breeding of plants and animals
dates back that far, and that is genetic engineering too. Genes are
mutable--we wouldn't be having the debates over teaching evolution in public
schools if genetic material was set in concrete. The watershed event in the
history of human impact on microbial DNA has been not genomics but
antibiotics. By changing the natural habitat of bacteria, we have created a
few frankenstein bacteria, but we've also saved millions of lives. And
we're dealing with the frankensteins the way we always do, with knowledge
and research.

I don't consider the risk of malicious genetic engineering to be any greater
than the present risks of explosives, rapid-fire assault weapons or chemical
weapons, all of which are available to determined high school kids with a
death wish. The solution to all of these is not banishing the
technology--that has proven unworkable already anyway. It's better
parenting, better diplomacy, teaching tolerance, and a little stronger dose
of non-violence in all things.

Brad W

>From sraj
>... Recognize that it is highly immoral to alter in
>an unnatural way the DNA of any life form on Plant Earth.

As Brad wrote, this has been going on for thousands of years. A
tongue-in-cheek comment by one of my favorite authors says that much
of our current global problems may be nature getting back at us for
turning the noble and superbly adapted wolf into things like the
Chihuahua and Pekingese...

>... Since we are not the creators of the original life
>forms we have no authority to alter them.

Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's possible within the
laws governing this physical world. Our "authority" comes from the
fact that Great Elvis, the King of the ETs (or pick your heavenly
authority figure) hasn't come down and in no uncertain terms forbade
us from doing anything that's possible in this universe. "Visions" of
the Virgin mary and aliens have visited people to warn us, and
individuals have come up with their own ethical admonishments, but
not anything provable and authoritative, nothing palatable to all,
nothing consistent with history and empirical fact.

Brad Walsh wrote
> The solution to all of these is not banishing the
>technology--that has proven unworkable...

This is an important point. It stems from the basic law that
prohibition never works. If you make a law banning something, you
only drive it underground and drive its value up.
Unless there is a worldwide agency with complete access to any
facility which may do harmful science, any agreements we make now
only affect those who are not inclined to break the laws.
This is too big to contemplate: how many police and inspectors would
our multinational agency need? What kind of authoritative force must
it be endowed with to assure adherence? No industrial chemical
facility on the planet could have private property rights against
immediate surprise search.
Even a complete unanimous and binding edict from the UN security
council couldn't possibly be anything more than an ineffectual "feel-
good" motion.

> It's better parenting, better diplomacy, teaching
>tolerance, and a little stronger dose of non-violence
>in all things.

I'm not saying that the concerns and recommendations made by Sraj are
useless, but just how could we do anything about it? Brad's
suggestions are good, but may sound like making the next step in
human evolution happen.
About all we can do is better diplomacy and education. Don't outlaw
a technology, outlaw inflicting unjust harm by anyone, by any means,
and make a more fair and just international situation so making war
is the least profitable way out for anyone.
Like nuclear weapons, our best insurance against biological and
chemical weapons is to make them and unilateral warfare uneconomical
and unattractive.

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sraj

> If I take tomato DNA, and change it - introduce a strand from a monkey
at one position, a strand from a cactus plant in
> another position - assume also that I am a third rate scientist, but a
first rate marketing professional, so I market
> the seed and export it all over the world, how would you like it. The
seed cover will of course have the usual pic of a
> pretty dame, with her white teeth sinking into the stuff. The package
will not say that the seeds are genetically
> modified, since the USA government does not believe in labeling
genetically modified seeds....

I can give you a worse scenario than that. There are some unscrupulous
types who would like to take asteroids and tracts of land on the moon
and Mars and make extensive modifications to their form and structure,
doing things like screening out the totally natural cosmic background
radiation, contaminating the pure vacuum with pressurized nitrogen,
oxygen and water vapor, and making all manner of misguided changes to
the physical conditions. And I'm sure there'll be all manner of clever
marketing to make homes in these highly-engineered places look appealing
and inviting.

Oh, but wait, you're in favor of space settlement?

My point? My point is where do you draw the line? Humanity has been
using its technology to modify things ever since we started with the
immediate environs of our own bodies when we began draping them with
bear skins. We have always changed things to meet our needs or desires.
I don't see a big difference.

Now, are there perils associated with self-replicating systems which
don't exist for systems which don't self-replicate? Absolutely. But I
don't see a reason to argue that manipulating DNA is morally different
from any of the other manipulations we make to nature every day. It's
been the key to our success and continued survival.

Regards,

Mike Combs

> Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's possible within the
> laws governing this physical world.

That sounds too much like a might-makes-right principle for my
tastes. The fact that it's possible tells us nothing about whether
it's morally acceptable. (It is, btw.)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "John Frazer"
>
> From sraj
> >... Recognize that it is highly immoral to alter in
> >an unnatural way the DNA of any life form on Plant Earth.
>
> As Brad wrote, this has been going on for thousands of years. A
> tongue-in-cheek comment by one of my favorite authors says that
much
> of our current global problems may be nature getting back at us
for
> turning the noble and superbly adapted wolf into things like the
> Chihuahua and Pekingese...
>
> >... Since we are not the creators of the original life
> >forms we have no authority to alter them.
>
> Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's possible within the
> laws governing this physical world. Our "authority" comes from the
> fact that Great Elvis, the King of the ETs (or pick your heavenly
> authority figure) hasn't come down and in no uncertain terms
forbade
> us from doing anything that's possible in this universe. "Visions"
of
> the Virgin mary and aliens have visited people to warn us, and
> individuals have come up with their own ethical admonishments, but
> not anything provable and authoritative, nothing palatable to all,
> nothing consistent with history and empirical fact.
>
> Brad Walsh wrote
> > The solution to all of these is not banishing the
> >technology--that has proven unworkable...
>
> This is an important point. It stems from the basic law that
> prohibition never works. If you make a law banning something, you
> only drive it underground and drive its value up.
> Unless there is a worldwide agency with complete access to any
> facility which may do harmful science, any agreements we make now
> only affect those who are not inclined to break the laws.
> This is too big to contemplate: how many police and inspectors
would
> our multinational agency need? What kind of authoritative force
must
> it be endowed with to assure adherence? No industrial chemical
> facility on the planet could have private property rights against
> immediate surprise search.
> Even a complete unanimous and binding edict from the UN security
> council couldn't possibly be anything more than an
ineffectual "feel-
> good" motion.
>
> > It's better parenting, better diplomacy, teaching
> >tolerance, and a little stronger dose of non-violence
> >in all things.
>
> I'm not saying that the concerns and recommendations made by Sraj
are
> useless, but just how could we do anything about it? Brad's
> suggestions are good, but may sound like making the next step in
> human evolution happen.
> About all we can do is better diplomacy and education. Don't
outlaw
> a technology, outlaw inflicting unjust harm by anyone, by any
means,
> and make a more fair and just international situation so making
war
> is the least profitable way out for anyone.
> Like nuclear weapons, our best insurance against biological and
> chemical weapons is to make them and unilateral warfare
uneconomical

On 2/17/06, sraj wrote:
(...)
> What went on earlier was selective breeding. Early man did not have the
> technology to get into the DNA of any living thing and change strands of it.
(...)

In fact he didn't, but anyway Horizontal Transference - exchanging of
DNA pieces between two different species by a virus able to infect
both - is a possibility in Nature (http://tinyurl.com/e3q7d). It is a
*natural* means of producing transgenic beings. Early men selecting
interesting living forms could as well be selecting the results of
Horizontal Transference along with normal mutations. And of course
before men ever existed Nature itself was producing transgenic
creatures in a completely uncontrolled way.

Mike

I would once again beg to disagree. Moon and the rest of the stuff out there
are not living things. Life forms on Earth which have evolved over 3.5
Billion years is a miracle. You are, as a human being, much more of a
miracle than the Moon is - infinitely more complex than the moon .... In
case you are wondering, I am not basically religious by nature.

........ My point is where do you draw the line? .....

I think it is very easy to draw the line.

... don't see a reason to argue that manipulating DNA is morally different
from any of the other manipulations we make to nature every day. *It's been
the key to our success and continued survival* .........

That is still to be seen. Already there are deep questions about genetically
modified seeds in field trials and we will have to see how these bear up
when the insects they are designed to protect against gain immunity. Lot of
suicides amongst farmers in India have been attributed to BtCotton seeds,
which are genetically modified and sold to farmers by American seed
companies at very high cost. Normally a farmer will choose from a basket of
seeds, depending on local conditions. Strong marketing tactics is used by
companies to sell these seeds. Lets not confuse manipulating DNA at the
molecular level - which many people are against -
with normal breeding. This is a completely new phenomenon - there is no
historical precedence.

.... But I don't see a reason to argue that manipulating DNA is morally
different from any of the other manipulations we make to nature every day
........

I don't agree with this. When we come to the level of DNA, we are talking of
something which could be a 100 times more complex than anything else we have
handled. Things could seriously get out of hand. And we have not shown
ourselves particularly adept at handling many things - track records which
could inspire confidence. We also owe it to future generations not to alter
the basic nature of life on the planet, life which Nature has created. It is
also poor science. You never mess-up with the original sample.

Regards
Selvaraj

Something I posted at another site. There is immense possiblity that Nature
acts in an intelligent way in Evolution. This will make selective change in
DNA structure even more questionable.

............................

On Intelligent Design

Friends,

You may be aware of the interesting controversy created by the new theory of
'Intelligent Design': Proponents of this theory feel that it should be
taught in schools in USA as a counterpoint to Darwin's theory of Evolution -
based on Random Variation and Natural Selection.

For those of you who are new to this controversy, here is the background:

The 'Intelligent Design' concept is promoted by The Discovery Institute, a
Seattle based think tank. The two major proponents of this theory are
Michael J. Behe, a professor of Biological sciences and William A. Dombski,
who has a Ph.D in mathematics. Michel J. Behe argues from the angle of
'irreduceable complexity'. Say you are talking of a motor car, you need all
the components - wheels, engine, clutch, brakes, steering wheel - for the
motor car to function. You cannot in the Darwinian sense first evolve a
clutch, then evolve brakes, etc, since these individual assemblies would
have no function individually. You need to have them all at the same time.

William A. Dombski argues that let us say a radio astronomer receives radio
signals which represent the first 1000 prime numbers, then it will indicate
that some intelligent being is sending them. Such an ordered sequence cannot
occur by chance - may be the first 3 prime numbers, but not 1000 of them!
Natural systems are so complex he argues that they could not have evolved by
Darwinian combination of random variation and natural selection (alone?).

So, they reason, there has to be a concept of 'Intelligent Design', without
which such complexity as we notice in Nature cannot be possible. And if
there is 'Intelligent Design', should not there be a Designer? God?

Comments:

My only objection to the concept of 'Intelligent Design' is why assume
Nature is stupid? Why not assume that Nature is Intelligent and try to prove
that. Then the proposition changes from proving 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' to
proving 'NATURE IS INTELLIGENT' a much more interesting proposition.

All life forms have the basic requirements for intelligence, there is some
form of nervous system (brain), feedback mechanisms to sense the
environment, means to interact with it, and a strong desire to survive and
to procreate. A powerful combination that could help an organism to
influence its own evolution in some way. The present theories assert this is
not possible, but then perhaps something is being overlooked.

Just observe the evolution of humans from common ancestors of humans and
chimpanzees over a period of five million years. Lets say that there is a
new generation every 20 years, then you would have to create a human like
us, different from Chimpanzees with 250,000 trials. Seems very little don't
you think? And if you were to argue that nothing much is likely to happen
over say 100 years then the number of trials reduces to just 50,000.

Lets shift our gaze to a beehive, a complex and well engineered system; and
a very well integrated and functional social system too. A dispassionate
non-human judge would not hesitate to give a beehive an A+, but would we
humans, our towns and cities and our social systems deserve more than a C -
? The concept that 'Nature is Intellligent' is very persuasive.

This is not to say Darwin was wrong. Just that multiple forces could be at
play.

*******************************

From: "Combs, Mike"
To:
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: H5N1 Virus, Atomic Weapons,Genetic
Modification

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:

> 1. Recognize that it is highly immoral to alter in an unnatural way
> the DNA of any life form on Plant Earth.

This is a highly normative position, just like Muslims saying that
Mohammed shouldn't be portrayed. Fine for them, but not for me at all.
You may hold to this Gaian philosophy but I think there is nothing at
all immoral about working with DNA, and I don't distinguish between
natural and unnatural mechanisms.

> Life forms on Earth relate to one another in complex ways. We do not
> have the complete blue prints.

It appears to me that you're holding to very platonic ideals of what
lifeforms are, that the interrelationships are static and not dynamic,
and that what once was will always be.

Not so in the least. Life adapts through selection pressure, drift,
and along clines. What is the blueprint for H. Sapien? How do you
account for the fact that 100% of Zambians are lactose intolerant
compared to 2% of Danes? Or that many sub-saharan Africans and New
World Indian populations lack the ASPM allele, which is a determinant
of brain size, while it is present in the majority of EurAsians?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16151010&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

How are these natural variants any different than engineered variants?

> Since we are not the creators of the original life forms we have no
> authority to alter them.

Another loaded question. Anologue - since we are not the creators of
the original material of the earth, we have no authority to alter the
iron, coal, copper etc for our own use.

What you're arguing here is akin to religious dictates. You start with
many unsupported premises and build to the conclusion that you favor.

TangoMan

would have to agree that genetically modified seeds have no real
place in space - what is required is the open pollinated stock that
will replicate itself well and can be used wherever man goes - not
stuff that is hybrid and you have to go back to a source for more
seeds every so often or even worse - seeds that are genetically
programmed ( modified ) as to be non replicating - these will be a
disaster on the planet and a death sentence in space.

> That is still to be seen. Already there are deep questions about
genetically
> modified seeds in field trials and we will have to see how these
bear up
> when the insects they are designed to protect against gain
immunity. Lot of
> suicides amongst farmers in India have been attributed to BtCotton
seeds,
> which are genetically modified and sold to farmers by American seed
> companies at very high cost. Normally a farmer will choose from a
basket of
> seeds, depending on local conditions. Strong marketing tactics is
used by
> companies to sell these seeds. Lets not confuse manipulating DNA
at the
> molecular level - which many people are against -
> with normal breeding. This is a completely new phenomenon - there
is no

Hello, this is my first post, and, rather than get into introductions,
I'd prefer to just wade in.

levi1_ca wrote:
> would have to agree that genetically modified seeds have no real
place in space - what is required is the open pollinated stock that
will replicate itself well and can be used wherever man goes <

I agree that genetically unmodified seeds would be safer. I would have
to question whether genetically modified seeds couldn't be, or aren't
even now, open pollinated, considering the unfortunate success of GM
corn pollen for crossing property lines.

I prefer using stock which has proven itself in our environment over
tens of thousands of years rather than tens of months. Nature has
managed to provide enough genetic variety in its progeny to prevent
the sort of massive infestation that plagues the modern farmer or
plantation owner when one species of bug manages to crack the code on
the protective strategy of his monoculture crop.

Our species tries to simplify the solution, whereas the process of
nature (including our own nature) is to mix things up genetically,
ensuring that some individuals survive an outbreak.

Mike Combs wrote:
> But I don't see a reason to argue that manipulating DNA is morally
different from any of the other manipulations we make to nature every
day. It's been the key to our success and continued survival. <

Morally different? I can't say. Inadviseable? Probably.

Lucio de Souza Coelho wrote:
> It is a *natural* means of producing transgenic beings. Early men
selecting interesting living forms could as well be selecting the
results of Horizontal Transference along with normal mutations. And of
course before men ever existed Nature itself was producing transgenic
creatures in a completely uncontrolled way. <

There is a vast difference between selecting for a bruise-free tomato
and transplanting a gene from a human into a tomato. This sort of
thing does not happen outside the lab, to my knowledge.

Mike Combs wrote:
> My point? My point is where do you draw the line? <

How much manipulation is justifiable manipulation? Good question. How
much do we want and need to settle space? I believe we have no choice
but to get ourselves off-planet to change our perspective, to increase
our prospects, and to protect our home planet before something smacks
into it. Time is of the essence.

Can we afford to wait to transplant vegetation until the new
environment is within the plant's survivable range? Or could we, even
now, be pushing plants and animals of the micro and macro sort toward
survival in a low-pressure environment, using existing husbandry
methods? It may require a genetically modified organism to tip the
balance between survival and death. That organism may even be a human.

The price of settling space could very well be changing ourselves (our
children) to match the conditions. Gills and fins for water planets,
modified digestive systems (or at least modified intestinal flora) for
unpalatable foods, hardened skins for UV protection -- all of these
may even be necessary on Earth, at the rate we're going.

We'd like to think that we can do incredible things without having to
change, but change is inevitable. We can let it happen or we can
direct it.

On 2/20/06, msandsberry wrote:
(...)
> There is a vast difference between selecting for a bruise-free tomato
> and transplanting a gene from a human into a tomato. This sort of
> thing does not happen outside the lab, to my knowledge.
(...)

Horizontal transference *is* a natural means transplantation of genes
from one species to another. The notion that transgenic beings can
only appear by artificial manipulation is a myth.

As far as I know there are no know examples of human genes
transplanted to tomatoes (as in your example) by means of horizontal
transference, but examples of genes of fungae in plants, and vice
versa, are quite well known. You may follow the link that I supplied
in the earlier message to now more about this subject.

You seem to have missed the point of the group. Settling planets is not our
focus, and we need to move public thinking away from this counterproductive
assumption. The point is to construct nearly-ideal environments for
whatever life it is we wish to support, not the other way around. Large
scale transgenesis, like terraforming, is a dead end, when free-orbit closed
ecologies are within the reach of this or the next generation.

On 2/20/06, msandsberry wrote:

Alexander Roderick wrote:
> You seem to have missed the point of the group. Settling planets is
not our focus, and we need to move public thinking away from this
counterproductive assumption. <

You're quite right, I apologize. I may have gotten into one too
many talk groups lately.
In that light, it is likely that genetic change will occur in our
own and our companion species in any environment built in space. We
may try to duplicate Earth conditions of gravity and atmosphere, but
selection will still occur in terms of reactions of the middle ear to
coriolis force, reaction to microgravity, claustrophobia, acceptance
of a small-town atmosphere until the truly huge environments can be
built, aggressive tendencies. Isolation, if it occurs, will incur gene
drift. Change will occur, and future generations may choose to direct
it. I'm not suggesting we start now.

I expect there will be genetically modified plants in space, at
least if plant-based agriculture turns out to be better than
something in a vat.

But you seem to assume that all genetically modified plants are
sterile hybrids or Terminator varieties, and that's just not so.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "levi1_ca"
>
> would have to agree that genetically modified seeds have no real
> place in space - what is required is the open pollinated stock
that
> will replicate itself well and can be used wherever man goes -
not
> stuff that is hybrid and you have to go back to a source for more
> seeds every so often or even worse - seeds that are genetically
> programmed ( modified ) as to be non replicating - these will be a
> disaster on the planet and a death sentence in space.
>
> > That is still to be seen. Already there are deep questions about
> genetically
> > modified seeds in field trials and we will have to see how these
> bear up
> > when the insects they are designed to protect against gain
> immunity. Lot of
> > suicides amongst farmers in India have been attributed to
BtCotton
> seeds,
> > which are genetically modified and sold to farmers by American
seed
> > companies at very high cost. Normally a farmer will choose from
a
> basket of
> > seeds, depending on local conditions. Strong marketing tactics
is
> used by
> > companies to sell these seeds. Lets not confuse manipulating DNA
> at the
> > molecular level - which many people are against -
> > with normal breeding. This is a completely new phenomenon -
there

> This is a highly normative position ...

Nothing wrong with being normative. It's just that it's wrong.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>
> > 1. Recognize that it is highly immoral to alter in an unnatural
way
> > the DNA of any life form on Plant Earth.
>
> This is a highly normative position, just like Muslims saying that
> Mohammed shouldn't be portrayed. Fine for them, but not for me at
all.
> You may hold to this Gaian philosophy but I think there is nothing
at
> all immoral about working with DNA, and I don't distinguish between
> natural and unnatural mechanisms.
>
> > Life forms on Earth relate to one another in complex ways. We do
not
> > have the complete blue prints.
>
> It appears to me that you're holding to very platonic ideals of
what
> lifeforms are, that the interrelationships are static and not
dynamic,
> and that what once was will always be.
>
> Not so in the least. Life adapts through selection pressure, drift,
> and along clines. What is the blueprint for H. Sapien? How do you
> account for the fact that 100% of Zambians are lactose intolerant
> compared to 2% of Danes? Or that many sub-saharan Africans and New
> World Indian populations lack the ASPM allele, which is a
determinant
> of brain size, while it is present in the majority of EurAsians?
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16151010&query_hl=1&it
ool=pubmed_docsum
>
> How are these natural variants any different than engineered
variants?
>
> > Since we are not the creators of the original life forms we have
no
> > authority to alter them.
>
> Another loaded question. Anologue - since we are not the creators
of
> the original material of the earth, we have no authority to alter
the
> iron, coal, copper etc for our own use.
>
> What you're arguing here is akin to religious dictates. You start
with
> many unsupported premises and build to the conclusion that you
favor.

I suggest we stop playing with fire. Even though
cooked food tastes better and is safer to eat in many
cases, it is not natural.

Staying warm in cold weather is also not natural.
Fire is still one of the leading causes of death among
humans.

There are some things that are just morally wrong
because it is not natural. Here is my short list:

1) Farming. Things should grow naturally not the way
man wants them to.
2) Digital photography.
3) Penicillin.
4) Electric guitars.
5) Airplanes
6) Computers
7) Space colonies.
8) Genetic engineering
9) Particle accelerators.
10 Censoring the Rolling Stones at football games.

--- Dan Wylie-Sears wrote:

> > This is a highly normative position ...
>
> Nothing wrong with being normative. It's just that
> it's wrong.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com,
> "victoriatangoman"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj
> wrote:
> >
> > > 1. Recognize that it is highly immoral to alter
> in an unnatural
> way
> > > the DNA of any life form on Plant Earth.
> >
> > This is a highly normative position, just like
> Muslims saying that
> > Mohammed shouldn't be portrayed. Fine for them,
> but not for me at
> all.
> > You may hold to this Gaian philosophy but I think
> there is nothing
> at
> > all immoral about working with DNA, and I don't
> distinguish between
> > natural and unnatural mechanisms.
> >
> > > Life forms on Earth relate to one another in
> complex ways. We do
> not
> > > have the complete blue prints.
> >
> > It appears to me that you're holding to very
> platonic ideals of
> what
> > lifeforms are, that the interrelationships are
> static and not
> dynamic,
> > and that what once was will always be.
> >
> > Not so in the least. Life adapts through selection
> pressure, drift,
> > and along clines. What is the blueprint for H.
> Sapien? How do you
> > account for the fact that 100% of Zambians are
> lactose intolerant
> > compared to 2% of Danes? Or that many sub-saharan
> Africans and New
> > World Indian populations lack the ASPM allele,
> which is a
> determinant
> > of brain size, while it is present in the majority
> of EurAsians?
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
>
cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids151010&query_hl=1&it

I wrote
>> Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's
>>possible within the laws governing this physical
>>world.

Dan Wylie-Sears replied
> That sounds too much like a might-makes-right
>principle for my tastes.

I was thinking more like the "opposable thumbs-makes-right" (or
capacity for analytical thinking) principle, but it's another way of
saying the same thing, I guess.

> The fact that it's possible tells us nothing about
>whether it's morally acceptable. (It is, btw.)

So, many of us think that a lot of the presently controversial things
are OK, but how to clearly delineate our thnking which leads us to it?

Should the last remaining cultures of smallpox be exterminated, or
should they be kept for biodiversity and science?

Suggested (off the top of my head for now) talking points:

** Things which may be used for good or evil aren't necessarily
either one. It's the intent of the aplication which matters. Whether
it's atomic power, gene engineering, or altering an asteroid
fragment's trajectory to bring it to HEEO; what is the intent, and is
it reasonably certain that its safe from irresponsible diversion to
evil?

** The simple fact that it's possible to divert something to evil
intentions isn't sufficient cause to utterly ban the thing (besides
the -seeming?- impossibility of banning anything).

** Is attempting assurances of safety and only-good-use possible? Is
banning and eliminating anything (with strong tendencies to be used
for evil and very little plausible good uses) possible?

> ** Things which may be used for good or evil aren't necessarily
> either one. It's the intent of the aplication which matters.

Intent does matter, but it's not the only thing that matters.
Negligence (foreseeably harmful action without intent to harm) isn't
what I would call evil, but it sure isn't good. The next sentence
partially addresses that, but the harm need not result
from "diversion to evil": it can just be accident, an excess of the
kind of risk present to a lesser degree in anything one does.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "John Frazer"
>
> I wrote
> >> Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's
> >>possible within the laws governing this physical
> >>world.
>
> Dan Wylie-Sears replied
> > That sounds too much like a might-makes-right
> >principle for my tastes.
>
> I was thinking more like the "opposable thumbs-makes-right" (or
> capacity for analytical thinking) principle, but it's another way
of
> saying the same thing, I guess.
>
> > The fact that it's possible tells us nothing about
> >whether it's morally acceptable. (It is, btw.)
>
> So, many of us think that a lot of the presently controversial
things
> are OK, but how to clearly delineate our thnking which leads us to
it?
>
> Should the last remaining cultures of smallpox be exterminated, or
> should they be kept for biodiversity and science?
>
> Suggested (off the top of my head for now) talking points:
>
> ** Things which may be used for good or evil aren't necessarily
> either one. It's the intent of the aplication which matters.
Whether
> it's atomic power, gene engineering, or altering an asteroid
> fragment's trajectory to bring it to HEEO; what is the intent, and
is
> it reasonably certain that its safe from irresponsible diversion
to
> evil?
>
> ** The simple fact that it's possible to divert something to evil
> intentions isn't sufficient cause to utterly ban the thing
(besides
> the -seeming?- impossibility of banning anything).
>
> ** Is attempting assurances of safety and only-good-use possible?
Is
> banning and eliminating anything (with strong tendencies to be
used