That's bloody well not what I meant, and you should know it. :-)
What I'm getting at is the unfortunate tendency in our society to
think of everything science has achieved in the most recent, say,
thirty years, as "unnatural" and of everything else as "natural".
Why isn't gene therapy "healthcare"? Because it's too new.
I'm not saying that this is how _you_ think, just that it's
a trend that worries me. The luddites are coming closer..
> > I wonder a little what you mean by this.. Do you mean that we
> > should use things like retroviruses to remove genes that are
> > proven to be lethal or cause severe handicaps and diseases? Or
> > do you suggest that we eradicate every gene that the current
> > society thinks is "bad" and replace them with genes we think
> > are "good"?
>
> The former, and defiantly NOT the latter. I would also consider a
> voluntary program of selective birth control.
Err.. I'm not sure what you're getting at.. we already have birth
control that can be selected for use or not. Do you mean selective
abortions based on the genetics of the foetus? And how far were you
willing to take it? In Sweden there is right now a debate about
mothers who abort their children because they are female. It's not
that common, but it does happen. Who would control the "selection"?
> > What if the gene-complex that causes short-sightedness recombined
> > with a future gene that seemingly causes a form of skin disease,
> > induces telepathic abilities?
>
> And what if such things kill us all?
Not very likely. Lethal genes don't survive to "kill us all". Those
who get them die and don't pass them on. I don't think that mutation
in _our_ genes are much of a threat to us.. look to the viruses (and
I don't mean CoV :) for that threat. One "good" mutation in the virus
gene pool, and you could be looking at a 90% extermination of mankind.
> I'd sooner advocate a program of "extending" our phenotype
> (either through
> technology or genetic engineering) than wait around until
> random mutations
> chance upon something good...
No reason for not doing both..
> And oh, while I think of it, fertility drugs really worry me
> from a genetic
> standpoint -- just think about the long term consequences of
> making the
> species dependent on THAT type of drug!
Yes, that _is_ something of a problem. Or is it? Isn't a
decreased nativity exactly what we need right now? We _will_
be having a portion of the population (mostly in the western
world) who can't procreate without artificial means. The
question is how large it will become. I think that recombination
of "anti-fertility" genes wíll make even fertility drugs useless
in many cases.
Then there's a difference between those who are unable to
procreate for genetic reasons, ando those who can't because
of some disease or other. I think that the latter is the more
common reason. In the former I don't think that the fertility
drugs of today have any effect in most cases.
-Andreas Engstrom
(Great Randomness)