H5N1 Virus, Atomic Weapons, Genetic Modification

>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.