[acc-list] Post-Darwinian Conflict]

> ===
> Please read my comments again Xenophile. I wasn't attempting to paint
> transgenomics or nanobiotech as totally evil. If you consider the full

True. Sorry 'bout that; I tend to have a hair-trigger about such things.

> implications of rampant scientific hubris in these areas you can see
> my point isn't without merit, and there exists awful possibilities for
> misuse.

Absolutely. But really, there's plenty of ways to screw up the world
already, and more technological pawer would at most make the process
faster. Or not; I'm not sure. Anyway, there's at least as much
potentioal for good as for bad.

> Post Darwinian theory seems to be tending to a model of evolution in
> the universe that is inclusive of the possibility of a 'planning
> intelligence'.

Kind of like what farmers have done for the last 11,000 years.

> When science abrogates to itself the right to dabble in that area
> without regard to the concerns of the 'Luddite' masses, why the
> surprise when tensions and conflicts arise?

Well, OK, I guess we have to accept that there will always be somebody
trying to say "This far, but no farther." Of course, "this far" is
whatever they grew up with, while "farther" is what their
grandchildren will grow up with. But that's a PR sort of thing, not a
tech problem in and of itself.

> My concern is this research is leading ultimately to creating human
> immortality,

I certainly hope so.

> and will IMHO lead to some serious conflicts in the future.

Probably. But then, all the anti-immortals will eventually get old
and die, so the rest of us should be able to put up with them for a
few decades. Did you notice that the artical spcifically stipulated
that humanity has to stay on Earth?