Print
Mother Nature is Not Our Friend
by Sam Harris
Reposted from:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html
(see more responses to the year-end "WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT?" question at this link as well)
Like many people, I once trusted in the wisdom of Nature. I imagined that there were real boundaries between the natural and the artificial, between one species and another, and thought that, with the advent of genetic engineering, we would be tinkering with life at our peril. I now believe that this romantic view of Nature is a stultifying and dangerous mythology.
Every 100 million years or so, an asteroid or comet the size of a mountain smashes into the earth, killing nearly everything that lives. If ever we needed proof of Nature's indifference to the welfare of complex organisms such as ourselves, there it is. The history of life on this planet has been one of merciless destruction and blind, lurching renewal.
The fossil record suggests that individual species survive, on average, between one and ten million years. The concept of a "species" is misleading, however, and it tempts us to think that we, as homo sapiens, have arrived at some well-defined position in the natural order. The term "species" merely designates a population of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; it cannot be aptly applied to the boundaries between species (to what are often called "intermediate" or "transitional" forms). There was, for instance, no first member of the human species, and there are no canonical members now. Life is a continuous flux. Our nonhuman ancestors bred, generation after generation, and incrementally begat what we now deem to be the species homo sapiens — ourselves. There is nothing about our ancestral line or about our current biology that dictates how we will evolve in the future. Nothing in the natural order demands that our descendants resemble us in any particular way. Very likely, they will not resemble us. We will almost certainly transform ourselves, likely beyond recognition, in the generations to come.
Will this be a good thing? The question presupposes that we have a viable alternative. But what is the alternative to our taking charge of our biological destiny? Might we be better off just leaving things to the wisdom of Nature? I once believed this. But we know that Nature has no concern for individuals or for species. Those that survive do so despite Her indifference. While the process of natural selection has sculpted our genome to its present state, it has not acted to maximize human happiness; nor has it necessarily conferred any advantage upon us beyond the capacity raise the next generation to child-bearing age. In fact, there may be nothing about human life after the age of forty (the average lifespan until the 20th century) that has been selected by evolution at all. And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene.
But our environment and our needs — to say nothing of our desires — have changed radically in the meantime. We are in many respects ill-suited to the task of building a global civilization. This is not a surprise. From the point of view of evolution, much of human culture, along with its cognitive and emotional underpinnings, must be epiphenomenal. Nature cannot "see" most of what we are doing, or hope to do, and has done nothing to prepare us for many of the challenges we now face.
These concerns cannot be waved aside with adages like, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are innumerable perspectives from which our current state of functioning can be aptly described as "broke." Speaking personally, it seems to me that everything I do picks out some point on a spectrum of disability: I was always decent at math, for instance, but this is simply to say that I am like a great mathematician who has been gored in the head by a bull; my musical ability resembles that of a Mozart or a Bach, it is true, though after a near fatal incident on skis; if Tiger Woods awoke from surgery to find that he now possessed (or was possessed by) my golf-swing, rest assured that a crushing lawsuit for medical malpractice would be in the offing.
Considering humanity as a whole, there is nothing about natural selection that suggests our optimal design. We are probably not even optimized for the Paleolithic, much less for life in the 21st century. And yet, we are now acquiring the tools that will enable us to attempt our own optimization. Many people think this project is fraught with risk. But is it riskier than doing nothing? There may be current threats to civilization that we cannot even perceive, much less resolve, at our current level of intelligence. Could any rational strategy be more dangerous than following the whims of Nature? This is not to say that our growing capacity to meddle with the human genome couldn't present some moments of Faustian over-reach. But our fears on this front must be tempered by a sober understanding of how we got here. Mother Nature is not now, nor has she ever been, looking out for us.
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html
(see more responses to the year-end "WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT?" question at this link as well)
Like many people, I once trusted in the wisdom of Nature. I imagined that there were real boundaries between the natural and the artificial, between one species and another, and thought that, with the advent of genetic engineering, we would be tinkering with life at our peril. I now believe that this romantic view of Nature is a stultifying and dangerous mythology.
Every 100 million years or so, an asteroid or comet the size of a mountain smashes into the earth, killing nearly everything that lives. If ever we needed proof of Nature's indifference to the welfare of complex organisms such as ourselves, there it is. The history of life on this planet has been one of merciless destruction and blind, lurching renewal.
The fossil record suggests that individual species survive, on average, between one and ten million years. The concept of a "species" is misleading, however, and it tempts us to think that we, as homo sapiens, have arrived at some well-defined position in the natural order. The term "species" merely designates a population of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring; it cannot be aptly applied to the boundaries between species (to what are often called "intermediate" or "transitional" forms). There was, for instance, no first member of the human species, and there are no canonical members now. Life is a continuous flux. Our nonhuman ancestors bred, generation after generation, and incrementally begat what we now deem to be the species homo sapiens — ourselves. There is nothing about our ancestral line or about our current biology that dictates how we will evolve in the future. Nothing in the natural order demands that our descendants resemble us in any particular way. Very likely, they will not resemble us. We will almost certainly transform ourselves, likely beyond recognition, in the generations to come.
Will this be a good thing? The question presupposes that we have a viable alternative. But what is the alternative to our taking charge of our biological destiny? Might we be better off just leaving things to the wisdom of Nature? I once believed this. But we know that Nature has no concern for individuals or for species. Those that survive do so despite Her indifference. While the process of natural selection has sculpted our genome to its present state, it has not acted to maximize human happiness; nor has it necessarily conferred any advantage upon us beyond the capacity raise the next generation to child-bearing age. In fact, there may be nothing about human life after the age of forty (the average lifespan until the 20th century) that has been selected by evolution at all. And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene.
But our environment and our needs — to say nothing of our desires — have changed radically in the meantime. We are in many respects ill-suited to the task of building a global civilization. This is not a surprise. From the point of view of evolution, much of human culture, along with its cognitive and emotional underpinnings, must be epiphenomenal. Nature cannot "see" most of what we are doing, or hope to do, and has done nothing to prepare us for many of the challenges we now face.
These concerns cannot be waved aside with adages like, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There are innumerable perspectives from which our current state of functioning can be aptly described as "broke." Speaking personally, it seems to me that everything I do picks out some point on a spectrum of disability: I was always decent at math, for instance, but this is simply to say that I am like a great mathematician who has been gored in the head by a bull; my musical ability resembles that of a Mozart or a Bach, it is true, though after a near fatal incident on skis; if Tiger Woods awoke from surgery to find that he now possessed (or was possessed by) my golf-swing, rest assured that a crushing lawsuit for medical malpractice would be in the offing.
Considering humanity as a whole, there is nothing about natural selection that suggests our optimal design. We are probably not even optimized for the Paleolithic, much less for life in the 21st century. And yet, we are now acquiring the tools that will enable us to attempt our own optimization. Many people think this project is fraught with risk. But is it riskier than doing nothing? There may be current threats to civilization that we cannot even perceive, much less resolve, at our current level of intelligence. Could any rational strategy be more dangerous than following the whims of Nature? This is not to say that our growing capacity to meddle with the human genome couldn't present some moments of Faustian over-reach. But our fears on this front must be tempered by a sober understanding of how we got here. Mother Nature is not now, nor has she ever been, looking out for us.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, January 1, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 345 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #105745 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 6:41 pm
*Lazily skims*Lemme guess, he's swung the pendulum from "trusting nature", to transhumanism.
Binary extremes, I don't trust 'em.
Other Comments by Diacanu
3. Comment #105747 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Oh, and if it ain't broke...*Smirk*
Other Comments by Diacanu
4. Comment #105749 by Serdan on January 1, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Diacanu, as Harris points out it is actually broke, so will you help fix it? Other Comments by Serdan
5. Comment #105750 by bluebird on January 1, 2008 at 6:53 pm
my musical ability resembles that of a...Bach
"If it 'aint Baroque, don't fix it"
Other Comments by bluebird
6. Comment #105751 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Serdan-as Harris points out it is actually broke,
By what standard?
Other Comments by Diacanu
7. Comment #105752 by Kytescall on January 1, 2008 at 6:56 pm
So long as this doesn't stoop to anti-environmentalism... Other Comments by Kytescall
8. Comment #105753 by Serdan on January 1, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Diacanu, my own subjective standard, necessarily. Though I would claim that most people can agree that sociopaths are "broke". Other Comments by Serdan
9. Comment #105754 by zdravko on January 1, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Brilliant article. I have always argued withpeople who say that our modern lifestyle
goes against nature. But our lives have stopped
being natural the moment we
acquired consciousness and started to
gain mastery over the material world? Without caesarian section and antibiotics
most of us would naturally not be living now.
A life saving intervention on the beach to
save a drowning tourist is quite unnatural as well.
people always assume that Natural must be good,
possibly because in
the food industry greedy producers
have been adding
"unnatural" chemicals and preservatives
that have turned out to be harmful.
If we eat these chemicals and preservatives
for another 10,000 generations our bodies would
adapt and then not eating them would have
to be considered unnatural.
Other Comments by zdravko
10. Comment #105755 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Serdan-my own subjective standard, necessarily.
Exactly.
Other Comments by Diacanu
11. Comment #105756 by Veronique on January 1, 2008 at 7:08 pm
2. Comment #105745 by Diacanu*Lazily skims*
Go over to Edge.org and have a skim through some of the other commenters. They are worth it. There are 15 pages and some of them will interest you. I have just spent the morning looking at them.
smiles
V
Other Comments by Veronique
12. Comment #105757 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 7:11 pm
zdravko-Okay, fine, but you still have a mountain of work cut out for you to persuade me that humanity has to re-scuplted into some new super being "fit", for "living in the 21st century world".
And who decides the criteria?
I'm hard pressed to think of a single human on the planet I trust with a choice that big.
Other Comments by Diacanu
13. Comment #105758 by Serdan on January 1, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Diacanu, exactly what? That something is subjective does not make it useless. Or do you think we should just disregard ethics? Other Comments by Serdan
14. Comment #105759 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Serdan-That something is subjective does not make it useless.
Now you're putting words in my mouth.
Other Comments by Diacanu
15. Comment #105760 by Serdan on January 1, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Diacanu, then correct me by answering the question. Other Comments by Serdan
16. Comment #105761 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Serdan-Diacanu, then correct me by answering the question.
Which one?
Other Comments by Diacanu
17. Comment #105762 by Serdan on January 1, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Diacanu, "exactly what?"What is it you think is obvious about the subjective nature of a standard? It seemed to me that you implied such subjectiveness meant we should disregard it, but that is apparently not the case.
Other Comments by Serdan
18. Comment #105763 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Serdan-The second and third sentences of post 12 answer that IMO.
Other Comments by Diacanu
19. Comment #105764 by robotaholic on January 1, 2008 at 7:28 pm
mabye lifes replication bomb will supernova before the next astroid like Richard Dawkins said in River out of Eden Other Comments by robotaholic
20. Comment #105768 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Many people think this project is fraught with risk. But is it riskier than doing nothing?That depends on many variables doesn't it? Are we sufficiently knowledgeable at this point to tinker with our biological future without f'ing it up irrevocably? Would another 100 years give us the answers or tell us that we are still another 100 years from competence? I don't know, perhaps some believe they do. One thing is certain some people will try to find out. Is it Richard Morgan who often talks here about thoughts and knowledge are one thing but acting on your thoughts and knowledge is another. It is true that mother nature isn't on our side, but she does not do the wrong thing for all the right reasons either. The best of intentions and all that sort of thing...
Other Comments by Radesq
21. Comment #105769 by gobbles on January 1, 2008 at 7:41 pm
The prospects of such modification would be incredible, but you have to understand the social and ethical implications of it, lets say it becomes legal for parents to use genetic engineering to produce their offspring to optimum levels of fitness. So then you would have part of the human population superiour to the other part in every way, which i don't think i need to explain why this would cause problems. But lets then assume that it becomes available to everyone in atleast all of the developed nations, still there would be an inequality to those in developing nations that need help the most and even in nations where it is available, there will be many parents who would refuse to impliment this on their children for religious and cultural reasons and so on.If there could be a solution to these social flaws, then i say go for it, but i just don't see how it could happen
Other Comments by gobbles
22. Comment #105770 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 7:46 pm
gobbles-lets say it becomes legal for parents to use genetic engineering to produce their offspring to optimum levels of fitness.
But again, who says what "fit", is?
Skinny blonde pretty people?
Yeah, then an ice age comes along, and their skinny asses freeze, and get skin cancer from snow glare cuz of their sensitive lily flesh.
No matter what, you're gonna end up with standardized people based on someone's subjective standards.
The so called beauty industry is enough to persuade me this is a bad idea.
Or am I the only one left on Earth whose sexual tastes don't run towards these plasticy bulemic android women they're calling models these days?
Other Comments by Diacanu
23. Comment #105771 by The_Stone on January 1, 2008 at 7:47 pm
As part of nature, all that we do is also part of nature, including genetic engineering. Its simply the next advancement, like placental birth, like self-chemical regulation, like the development of the animal brain. Any tool if it exists, will likely be used by someone somewhere to an advantage. Our cultural notions of morality are hardly relevant in preventing this, this will come down to how we have developed in evolution and our reaction to that process.
Preventing the deaths of the diseased was once considered against god, and against nature. This idea has been destroyed, we now expect science to usurp nature and death as a matter of fact. Why not use this next great tool to prevent suffering, enhance existence, and revolutionize life?
Other Comments by The_Stone
24. Comment #105772 by Mitchell Gilks on January 1, 2008 at 7:48 pm
The naturalistic fallacy. Perhaps the most common informal fallacy there is. I run into it constantly, and like (herhaps?) everyone I was once guilty of it myself. It is something that I really think needs to be pointed out before people realise it. Nature is really not our friend in any way. If you add up all the artifical things, and all the natural things, and decide by ratio which seems more inclined to benefit us, and which doesn't. I think the answer would be quite obvious.I also am concerned with the arbitrariness of things like eugenics, however I really don't think that is what sam was refering to. As discussion on beyond belief enlightenment 2.0. It will not be long before there will be "upgrades" so to speak for people. To improve your memory, cognition. Mathematical skills. Perhaps strength, reaction time, and so forth.
Even some genetic manipulation would not be arbitrary or based on someone's subjective standards. If someday we do habitate other worlds, it would be prudent, if not necessary to modify our genetics and biology to better suit our new invironment.
As for trying to breed the "perfect" human, that's nonsense. We could only possibly breed for "better" humans, given external and objectively derived criteria. Otherwise, no one can say what is better and what isn't. If someone says that blonde and blue eyes are better, I would have to respond "for what?" or "at what?"
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
25. Comment #105773 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Well, I'm not arguing it from an "against nature", standpoint.I just look around me at the people who want to do this thing, and find myself deeply unimpressed by the sort of bullshit they're going to inevitably select for.
Shit, I'm already deeply unimpressed by the qualifications people pick their natural breeding partners for.
Corporate DNA? Fashion DNA?
That's the mentality you're going to get sticking their dick into this pie y'know.
Glad I won't live to see it.
What a fucking mess it'll be.
Other Comments by Diacanu
26. Comment #105775 by gobbles on January 1, 2008 at 7:59 pm
- DiacanuBut again, who says what "fit", is?
I think we can draw the line at children being born blind, having down syndrome, mental retardation etc... there are many things that people can agree humans would be better off without.
I think sciences like gene therapy would be more appropriate for the societies we live in, but it could be limited in contrast to changes at conception.
Other Comments by gobbles
27. Comment #105776 by BMMcArdle on January 1, 2008 at 8:04 pm
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.Other Comments by BMMcArdle
28. Comment #105777 by Mitchell Gilks on January 1, 2008 at 8:04 pm
It is also important to point out that it won't be long before humans will be creating life. Engineering biological machines for various tasks. Including but not limited to creating fuels from water by means of matabolic processes. I expect to see this happen before I die. We have succeeded in creating artifical cells.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
29. Comment #105778 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:05 pm
gobbles-Ah, yeah, tug our heartstrings with the crippled kids.
But, you won't be fixing them, their embryos will be weeded out.
So, there goes that ploy.
Try again.
Other Comments by Diacanu
30. Comment #105779 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Mitchell Gilks-Bacteria I got no problem with.
But we're ages away from being wise enough to play with well...ourselves.
D'oh!
Other Comments by Diacanu
31. Comment #105780 by Radesq on January 1, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Diacanu: What you've just said gives me an idea!Seacrest out!
Other Comments by Radesq
32. Comment #105781 by dhweaver on January 1, 2008 at 8:11 pm
To answer Forest Gump's question: We are all floating "accidental like" a feather in the wind, and the wind doesn't give a damn where she blows us. That's not the scary part though. Man has created a new wind for the feather's course to be manipulated by. At least the old wind was proven to sustain life for 100+ million years. Other Comments by dhweaver
33. Comment #105782 by Mitchell Gilks on January 1, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Diacanu, I don't see why anyone has to convince you that it is good or bad. Or useful, it seems that it is largely considered useful, and will almost certainly happen regardless of what you or I may think. Also, it will happen almost certainly after we are dead, or at least when we are quite old.So I guess my question is "try again"? What is the point in trying at all?
If you think that all genetic modification is absolutely wrong, in all situations and circumstances, along with post developmental human modications, then give reason why...other than that you are an untrusting individual.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
34. Comment #105784 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Mitchell Gilks-and will almost certainly happen regardless of what you or I may think
Yeah, you're right.
It's pretty much curtains for anything I ever gave a shit about.
Humanity is going to mutate itself into something unrecognizable, so I have no emotional investment in the futurity of...fishmen, or nanite clouds, or whatever the fuck they're gonna be.
Other Comments by Diacanu
35. Comment #105785 by gobbles on January 1, 2008 at 8:20 pm
-Diacanui don't see where you're coming from, are you saying that it isn't possible to repair such genetic abnormalities (such as down syndrome) or are you saying that we just won't bother? Down Syndrome is caused by the presence of replicated part of the 21st genome. I'm not an expert but future genetic engineering should be able to fix this, so why would an abortion be neccessary?
Other Comments by gobbles
36. Comment #105786 by Mitchell Gilks on January 1, 2008 at 8:21 pm
What's it matter? If it's better for whatever we're doing now, then isn't that all that matters? What's wrong with fishmen? Kevin Costner didn't look all that bad... Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
37. Comment #105787 by eric.malitz on January 1, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Just wanted to point out that saying the obvious-that nature isn't our 'friend'- isn't the same as saying nature is our enemy. For anyone who actually cares about the nature around us, you can only acknowledge that humans are the most destructive species ever. In that regard, I think its important we save what nature we have left, and try to reverse some of the damage.Diacanu- I agree when you said that you're glad you won't be around to see whats going to happen with this world (if thats what you meant), because I certainly feel the same. I consider myself an 'environmentalist' (even if I don't do as much as I'd like to do with my limited income and knowledge about it) but I am very skeptical about the future of the environment for most 'large' species of animals, for most species overall.
Anyway I agree with the assertions in the article, but I just wanted to point out that anyone who cares remotely about the natural world shouldn't go the 'other way' on this issue.
Other Comments by eric.malitz
38. Comment #105788 by Serdan on January 1, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Diacanu, so you don't think it would be a good idea to enforce some arbitrary standard? I agree. What I don't agree with is your objections to even making the technology available.We have been fixing what is broke for centuries. I wear glasses myself. But it seems that when it comes to more advanced biological enhancements you no longer think it's a good idea. Why not? It's just the next step in our technological advancement.
Other Comments by Serdan
39. Comment #105790 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Mitchell Gilks-Waterworld?? You're pulling Waterworld on me??
Ugh. *Facepalm*
Like I said, glad I'll be dead.
Other Comments by Diacanu
40. Comment #105791 by Damien White on January 1, 2008 at 8:32 pm
How is the artificial modification of the human genome any less damaging to the process of evolution than the development of antibiotics?Humans are the first species to alter the evolutionary pressures on them by artificial means. To continue the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme, our ancestors smashed through that particular glass ceiling millennia ago when they found that pinching wounds together stopped the blood from leaking out. From there it was a short step to tourniquets, bandages, sterilisation and modern medical practice.
Humans have long stepped beyond evolution at the behest of mother nature (at least up to the point of the massive cataclysms that Sam Harris talks about). We wear clothes and build shelters to keep out the cold. We take medicines to ward off disease that would otherwise kill us. The logical result of this is that we tinker with our genetic makeup indirectly, so why shouldn't we tinker directly? The only opposition to that is the eugenic scaremongers who somehow prophesy with disarming clarity that we're all going to end up Nazi Supermen. For some reason people feel that genetic modification goes hand-in-hand with fascism.
Then again, many people think that fascism marches hand-in-hand with atheism too. If we can see the logic gap in one statement, can't we see it in the other?
Other Comments by Damien White
41. Comment #105792 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Serdan-What I don't agree with is your objections to even making the technology available.
Academic since it'll likely happen anyway.
Other Comments by Diacanu
42. Comment #105793 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Damien White-For some reason people feel that genetic modification goes hand-in-hand with fascism.
Not once did I utter the "F" word.
I studiously avoided it.
It's too easy, when there's a rainbow color wheel of other flavors of human stupidity to work with.
Other Comments by Diacanu
43. Comment #105794 by Serdan on January 1, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Diacanu, well yeah, so what? I enjoy debate for the sake of debate. If you don't, we can just leave it at that. Other Comments by Serdan
44. Comment #105795 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm
It's pointless to debate this particular topic with Diacanu. He has a particularly strong emotional attachment to the way humans have existed for so many centuries, that's all. It's a subjective preference, so there's nothing to debate. Other Comments by Janus
45. Comment #105796 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Serdan-Well, okay, if I had my way it'd be put in a vault until our moronic culture evolves some more.
Giving gene manipulation to early 21st century humanity is like giving the atom bomb to Ghengis Khan, IMO.
Or hell, ANYTHING to quakers.
Fucking quakers.
I hate them so much.
Other Comments by Diacanu
46. Comment #105797 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Janus-He has a particularly strong emotional attachment to the way humans have existed for so many centuries,
More with the putting words in my mouth.
How lazy.
Other Comments by Diacanu
47. Comment #105799 by Sigmund on January 1, 2008 at 8:46 pm
"And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene."I'm afraid Sam is very much out of date with his human genetics. There are many, many other genetic loci that have been subject to selection, lactose intolerance is just the best known.
Other Comments by Sigmund
48. Comment #105801 by Janus on January 1, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Diacanu,If you don't want me to put words in your mouth, you should say something of substance. You've made 18 posts in this thread. EIGHTEEN POSTS, and you haven't stated your opinion clearly in any one of them. Are you embarrassed? Ashamed of your beliefs? Or are you just choosing to remain ambiguous for the hell of it?
Yes, technology is dangerous and humanity might not be "wise" enough to handle what will be invented in the next few decades. Any idiot knows that much, or thinks he does. Is that all you want to say?
Other Comments by Janus
49. Comment #105802 by Diacanu on January 1, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Janus-you should say something of substance.
Supply a demonstration.
Other Comments by Diacanu
50. Comment #105803 by AshtonBlack on January 1, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Greetings,I "kind of" agree with Diacanu on this subject.
The subjective decision as to "what is fit" is more likely to be made by those that control the patents for the gene in question and that leads to "what is most profitable", be it large research universities or drug companies.
I wouldn't trust any "for profit" outfit to make a decision of that magnitude, to have MY best interests at heart.
Other Comments by AshtonBlack
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #105744 by Serdan on January 1, 2008 at 6:29 pm
More people need to realize the simple fact that the world is utterly indifferent to our survival. The idea that we are somehow special in any objective sense is not only blindly selfish in the extreme, but ultimately foolish and destructive.
Other Comments by Serdan