XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Few doubt that it is possible. There seems to be a consensus that it can be done. But conflict reigns about whether we should do this and why. I'm of the thinking that the "why" should always try to be answered before the "what" and "how". If there's good reason to do it, then I say move forward cautiously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Few doubt that it is possible. There seems to be a consensus that it can be done. But conflict reigns about whether we should do this and why. I'm of the thinking that the "why" should always try to be answered before the "what" and "how". If there's good reason to do it, then I say move forward cautiously. This seems to be the consensus of many of us CJ, thanks. There are some good reasons to make the attempt. First, we will probably learn a great deal in the effort. Second, if we are successful then new abilities will be available to us. But many of us are wary of some of the dangers and potential abuses. Creating entirely novel organisms may pose dangers greater than even genetically modified organisms. So many of us are thinking that, yes, we should make the attempt, but that we should proceed with caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Hence my assertion that life, if they're creating life, they should make it for an environment that, if it got into ours it would either explode, fry, or freeze... I'm not qualified to say why or why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 I'm not qualified to say why or why not? And why not Gramps? You seem to be a man of intelligence, conscience, and capabilty. I am mainly interested in whether we should or should not try to do this and your reasoning for saying so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Welcome... I personally think there is sufficient of a smoking gun to suggest that life did not emerge in the Goldilocks zone of our star... Life is, generally, an energy inefficient system (the level of waste in evolutionary systems), thus an environment where there is a lot of available energy (heat, light, chemical, pressure...) would perhaps be more conducive to making new life. Look at the black smoker colonies... the assumption is that things adapted to go there, rather than, perhaps, crawled away from the mineral rich, hot, high pressure, darkness of life's first toe hold, the 'seed' having arrived in a big hot rock from the days before the sun had ignited... Fascinating theory, Gramps, but one problem I have with it: Are there any genera of life present in the black smoker vicinity not represented elsewhere? If not, I would think this seems to indicate life migrated to the black smokers, rather than away from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Who knows? The things around black smokers have been known about for 20 some years... I doubt there's been much serious taxonomic study of what's there... hell, we don't know what lives in the Korean jungle, let alone the inaccessible deeps... also, the lack of unique flora and fauna doesn't preclude origins down there... unless we get some fossil record (unlikely to exist, simply due to the level of geological activity, especially due to the volcanic activity associated with black smokers) why can't that which left return and wipe out what's there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I'm not qualified to say why or why not? And why not Gramps? You seem to be a man of intelligence, conscience, and capabilty. I am mainly interested in whether we should or should not try to do this and your reasoning for saying so. Personal opinion... of course we should do it. IF we didn't risk things we'd still be grubbing in the Great Rift valley and have a life expectancy of 22. If it wipes us out... No big deal. Humanity isn't that important in the Great Scale of Things... no one species is. Unless one subscribes to some 'interested' creator... which I don't. May as well be damned for action as inaction. The key to gates of Heaven may well also open the door to Hell, but one doesn't get to the top of the food chain by playing safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Personal opinion... of course we should do it. IF we didn't risk things we'd still be grubbing in the Great Rift valley and have a life expectancy of 22. If it wipes us out... No big deal. Humanity isn't that important in the Great Scale of Things... no one species is. Unless one subscribes to some 'interested' creator... which I don't. May as well be damned for action as inaction. The key to gates of Heaven may well also open the door to Hell, but one doesn't get to the top of the food chain by playing safe. Okay, dutifully noted Gramps. Yeah, some that I have talked to about this have said that the should not stance is the fraidy cat position. Some have said that a discussion of whether we should or should not is moot because it's going to happen anyway. I do think however that if we try and do it then we shouldn't be stupid about it. I am in favor of preserving mankind. I think it would be horrible to wipe out vast numbers of terrestrial species and replacing them with some engineered mono-culture. Of course such fears may be baseless. It may be that the first fabricated organisms will be so feeble as to present no dangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Personal opinion... of course we should do it. IF we didn't risk things we'd still be grubbing in the Great Rift valley and have a life expectancy of 22. If it wipes us out... No big deal. Humanity isn't that important in the Great Scale of Things... no one species is. Unless one subscribes to some 'interested' creator... which I don't. May as well be damned for action as inaction. The key to gates of Heaven may well also open the door to Hell, but one doesn't get to the top of the food chain by playing safe. Okay, dutifully noted Gramps. Yeah, some that I have talked to about this have said that the should not stance is the fraidy cat position. Some have said that a discussion of whether we should or should not is moot because it's going to happen anyway. I do think however that if we try and do it then we shouldn't be stupid about it. I am in favor of preserving mankind. I think it would be horrible to wipe out vast numbers of terrestrial species and replacing them with some engineered mono-culture. Of course such fears may be baseless. It may be that the first fabricated organisms will be so feeble as to present no dangers. Define 'stupidity'... after all, for that that would supplant us, it's not a stupid act. Just the act of a species that has run it's course. I'd like to think we'd reach the stars. Based on observation, I find the concept as unlikely at best. On topic; rather than relying on 'feeble' (why make a second class product) I'd still favour the inimical environment... thus we have nothing they want and they have nothing we want... assuming that one of the early products is intelligent, or has potential of same. Last thing we want is a competitor... but creating something 'feeble'? May as well not bother... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 2, 2007 Author Share Posted June 2, 2007 Define 'stupidity'... I think it would be stupid to release newly fabricated organisms into an open environment for instance. On topic; rather than relying on 'feeble' (why make a second class product) I'd still favour the inimical environment... thus we have nothing they want and they have nothing we want... I like the idea of the inimical environment. That sounds like an excellent way to reduce the potential dangers. As far as "feeble" goes, I find it unlikely that our first attempts at creating life will result in a super organism. Terrestrial organisms have been competing for 3.5 billion years. We are all excellent organisms in my estimation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Just because it's unlikely that our first effort would overly robust doesn't mean that it couldn't find a niche that it could adapt from into something we can't share a world with... One of my favourite sayings is never place a dollar on a horse named 'Hope' or a dog named 'Destiny' since neither of them perform when you need em to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 One of my favourite sayings is never place a dollar on a horse named 'Hope' or a dog named 'Destiny' since neither of them perform when you need em to... And yet, I am still a very practical person Gramps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts