NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/k12/ed/science/1741

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 3.7 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!IASTATE.EDU!danwell
From: [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Applied Genetics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
References:  <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:13:45 GMT
Lines: 63

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Sara Pressly) writes:
> My Biology II class recently finished studying applied genetics,
> the manipulation of the hereditary characteristics of an organisms
> to improve or create specific traits in an offspring.  Essentially
> applied genetics is human beings playing God.

   Isn't changing the course of a river with a dam a form of playing
God?  The problem with objecting to people playing God is that almost
any large group of people learns how to play God pretty quickly.  Think
about the armies of Sargon in Sumeria 3000+ years ago.  They were deciding
who would live and die.  They were deciding which civilization would live
or die.  Clearly they were taking over God's work for him.

   In my view, given that there are so many ways of playing God which
can do harm or good, what we need is a crash project to figure out how to
play God resposibily and effectively instead of constantly getting caught
with out pants down.  Look at global warming: we used our God-like powers
to modify the weather, but we did a really incompetent job, cause we don't
know quite how we modified it.

> I have mixed
> feelings about applied genetics.  First of all, I do not think that
> any human being has the right to create a species or to improve a
> species, especially when they majority do it for money, as in the
> livestock industry.

   Where do such rights come from?

> Then again by scientist playing God, a lot of
> could be birth defects have been corrected while the baby is still
> developing.  I also know that applied genetics has help find cures
> for certain terminal disease, and possible may come up with a cure
> for cancer.  Even though good things come from this genetic
> manipulation, I still think that only Mother Nature herself should
> be able to create new species, or improve them through evolution.

   Why?  You appear to be stating a religious belief, which is certianly
your right, but it would be nice to know why you think only Mother Nature
should be permitted to make these changes.  Suppose that mother nature
tried to exterminate all Buffalo by evolving a new virus (it could happen).
Would it be wrong to step in and try to save them?

> I was wondering how others felt about applied genetics, and if they
> feel that human should be able to take on the role as God.

   You're asking a late question there.  Human being have already taken
on the role of God in a lot of areas.  What are we going to do about it?
BUT, to answer your question: yes.  People should take over the role of
God.  God, for example, alows children to starve to death.  If I can
help feed those children I'm willing to play God.  Applied genetics will
help feed those children without so many pesticides and with less fertilizer
so the environment will get less damaged while we feed the children.

   In my view, God left us the possibility of "playing God" so that we
could learn and grow while solving the problems He put in the world.
If we screw up and kill ourselves, He no doubt has other resources so
we should do out level best to learn about the world without comitting
planetary suicide.  Disclaimer: this is a very nondenominational notion
of God I'm using here.

Dan
[e-mail]