Konspiracy Korner
The elephant in the room regarding green technology

"Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled."  Deuteronomy 22:9 (NIV).

If you have ever eaten a grapefruit, you are eating a hybrid.  A grapefruit is a cross between an orange and a Pomelo.  According to Wikipedia, it was discovered in 1750.  A naturally occuring grapefruit hybrid has pink flesh.  The grapefruit you buy in the grocery store does not.  About 90 years ago, farmers began genetically modifying crops by zapping them with x-rays.  Plants, after being scrambled by x-rays, produce mutations, some of which are desirable.  This is how Ruby Red grapefruits were made and patented. 

Nowadays, plant mutation has gone far past the ornamental. Plants are genetically modified to fight disease, drought, insects, salt and other various plant problems to produce higher yields and feed more people.  Is this a good thing?  I don't know.  The Levitical law has a flat prohibition on it.  I personally believe in the Bible but am unsure whether this is a ceremonial law meant to remind a person not to defile himself with sin, or whether God has claimed exclusive dominion over genetic manipulation.  Or maybe, this is a safety law.  Perhaps genetic modification is dangerous, and the next superplague is hiding away in some soybeans somewhere until it is cross pollinated and x-rayed. Its been several thousand years since the law was given at Mount Sinai, but we just now agree that pigs are unclean animals and should not be eaten.  Pork carries diseases, gives you cancer, clogs your arteries and so forth.  This is not a spiritual point, its just good health.

Doc, in his new Konspiracy Korner series, links us to a guy I had never heard of named Freeman Dyson.  Dyson is reported to be really smart, and he is concerned about the future of cross breeding, or what he calls "green technology".  He believes that cross breeding experiments are culminating toward one thing.  Thusly:

"If we allow a free market in human genes, wealthy parents will be able to buy what they consider superior genes for their babies. This could cause a splitting of humanity into hereditary castes. Within a few generations, the children of rich and poor could become separate species."

That is, Dyson believes that people will manipulate their genes more than trying to impregnate a supermodel.  He believes that people will be able to add desirable characteristics to their genes, and make super children. 

The first place this may crop up is in cancer therapy.  Cancer is when a cell becomes damaged and multiplies out of control.  Mammals have a cancer fighting gene called TP53.  It works by isolating and killing rogue cells.  Humans and cancer prone animals like dogs and cats have two TP53 genes.  Elephants have twenty TP53 genes.  Elephant cancer rates are less than 5 percent, despite having lots more cells than people or dogs.

Why are elephants superior at preventing cancer?  First, there is more elephant TP53, Second, it works more efficiently.  Elephant TP53 kills rogue cells much more quickly than human TP53.  Human TP53 gives suspect cells a comparatively long leash to fix themselves.  Elephant TP53 kills rogue cells on sight.  The elephant setup is better.

It is believed that large whales have a similarly excellent cancer prevention system, but whales do not give up their blood very easily, so studying them is difficult.  

Cancer raises several philosophical questions:  1. Humans could be designed to be much more durable than they are.  Why? Biologically,elephants and some whales take two full years of gestation, so naturally these animals should have utmost longevity to compensate.  Elephants live to about 60 or 70, usually succumbing to tooth decay (be thankful for dentures), while some large whales (who don't have teeth) live to 150 years or so.  It is somewhat alarming to learn that humans, in some ways, are not the preeminent mammals.  2. Is it wrong to splice elephant TP53 onto a human, or in the alternative to change human TP53 to behave like an elephant's TP53 by killing precancerous cells sooner?  3.  Is a person thus modified as super cancer resistant still a human, or has he become designer man?  Would such a man be an abomination, or just fixing his pitiable state, like fitting an older person for dentures?  To put it another way, what is wrong with trying to improve your health? 

Also, if genetic modification is bad, is it equally bad to fix humans with more and more advanced prosthetics?  What if a person was the proverbial brain in a jar, or at least in the Darth Vader state of being more machine now than human?  If advanced prosthetics are different than genetic modification, how so? 

Comments

1

Frank Herbert, hardly a religious person, saw disaster in this general territory, man 'playing God.' 

According to Gen. 11 and the Tower of Babel, it was an undesirable situation for man if "Nothing will be restrained from them, which they imagine to do."

....

Point 1:  it's my (highly questionable) bottom line, on tech, that the closer man gets to 'playing God' the closer he may get to an unspeakably evil world, like The Matrix or somesuch.  

That's not my dogma, it's not my political agenda; you all have known me for 20 years and probably never heard me propose that.  It's merely my suspicion.

...

Point 2:  consider that the world's scientists have only (for about 150 years or so) been able to collaborate worldwide -- the way they would have been able to do since Gen. 11 if the languages weren't scrambled.

So it COULD be that once you hit the "geometric expansion" point on the tech curve, the Earth only has a few hundred years to "live" before God pulls the curtain down.  In that scenario, Gen. 11 was calibrated to give the Earth an extra 5,000-10,000 years.

....

Just thinking out loud, nothing more.  Outstanding thoughts Mojo :- )

2

It's inevitable, isn't it? Maybe not whale dna being spliced into humans but splicing a new chomosome-21 into a fetus with Downs syndrome? That kind of thing is going to happen. I doubt it will even be all that controversial with the general public. That's where it will start. Then things will get interesting - when we are faced with the option not only to to cure disease or birth defect but to select traits. Slippery slope, that. Maybe the US will ban that sort of thing but I doubt China will. Then we face the prospect of people going outside the country for genetic fetal manipulation. We live in interesting times! 

3

There has long been a free market in human genes;  it has been called marriage.  People have (essentially) always employed some individual genetic engineering when choosing spouses.  Humor, disposition, work ethic, race, athletic ability, intellectual ability, appearance, mental stability, etc, have been used when one selects a potential mate, and all have some genetic link. 

In 1955, my mom, a college graduate, (who would become Oregon's Teacher of the Year in '80) would marry a guy who dropped out of school in the 6th grade (helping support his mom and younger siblings during the Great Depression, he went to work on a farm for $20 a month and one Sunday off).  Oh, he was a pretty handsome and debonair guy (despite being a logger at that time, well before any inkling of future professional success), but she also knew he was stable, hard working, caring, highly intelligent, would be a gread dad, etc.  She had been wooed by other pretty good guys, but she was choosing him, among the free market of genes, for the life he would live and share and the kids he would sire.  She suspected they would have some of the characteristics that he had, ones she thought important.  I hope my brother and I got some of the right ones.   She and I once talked about this.

Hey, today we can go even further and shape cancer therapy to particular genetic variants. 

Which takes me back to my own genetic free market choices.  Of the multitude of young lovelies I once squired around, the only one I ask to marry me was the one who would pass on some characteristics I valued, many of them with genetic links (intellegence, etc)(Oh...and I was fairly n love).  I did that with the knowledge that both her grandmother and mother had had radical masectomies as a result of breast cancer.  I was choosing a weak set of genetics (in the breast cancer area) were I to happen to have daughters.  Turns out I have two pretty perfect ones but they may well have inherited some risky genetic quirks.  Were we able to identify those risky genes while Bailey and Blair were still in the womb, and then safely erase them.......well I would have been all for that.  It would be a great good, used correctly.  Ask any daddy. Dyson got that one wrong.

And, in many ways, "hereditary castes", may well exist currently.  One must be careful how they use the phase "caste" here.  If one means (such as in Hindu India) that members of a certain caste are UNDESERVING of the same rights as others, then one is well off base.  But if one means that heredity is shaping, both positively and negatively, certain groups of people (and here I do not mean race) then they are basically on point.

The children of single, low-job skill moms who were themselves children of single, low-job skill moms, are going to be at a cultural, emotional, economic and (perhaps) intellectual disadvantage in the free market of employment and advancement.  In the free market of potential husbands, they may well be at a disadvantage as well.  They may well already be part of a "hereditary" sub-caste (being careful how to use the phrase).  And they may not have the cultural, emotional, family-based and economic support to easily bust out.

Used correctly, genetic engineering can be a wonder (already it allows us to more efficiently feed the world).  Used incorrectly (think jack boots and Nazi's) and we recoil in horror.

The ethical/moral question about genetic engineering must also include the ethical/moral question of not eradicating breast cancer (for example), if one had the means at hand. 

Proceed, but with great caution.

Moe

4

Messing around with our genetic code seems like a bad idea in general. It is a system both ancient and complex. Two quotes from Tolkien come to mind. "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom" and "Perilous to us all are the devices of an art deeper than we possess ourselves."

5

As Moe points out, picking a mate is a form of 'genetic engineering' - but the level of control which man has in this realm is very circumscribed.  He has not been able to wield this hammer in any effective way.  Even Hitler's attempts were feeble and a failure.  Mass genocide and master race theory has just never worked for the dictators.  Too much trouble, too little reward.

With the privilege of selecting a mate, God has given mankind a little plastic Fisher-Price toy that has been age-appropriate :- )

.....

If we could trust Man, as a community, to be responsible / benevolent / wise when it began to craft human bodies and minds to its liking, that would be one thing.  

My own trust of the science community is nowhere NEAR what it would need to be for me to support it ... all too many renegade scientists who will introduce a virulent primate virus into the human gene pool for the sake of winning a Nobel Prize...

6

My wife and I talked about this the other week. She favors Moe's position and I favor Grizz and Doc's. Good thoughts.

7

I'm going to continue reading the rest of your article, but I just have to say, before I do...about pork...I am not pursuaded that there is any real evidence that it is at all dangerous.  There is ZERO credible scientific evidence that pork causes cancer (in fact, it is not the meat, but the curing agents that are most likely to blame) or does any of the other things you mention.  If you believe the WHO's sudden "OMG PORK EVIL!" comments, then you (a) may not be aware that most of the WHO panel is made up of Frenchmen who want people to buy French products (they're more known for fowel and fish) and not products by other nations (beef from the US, Argentina, etc, pork from the US, England, Germany, etc) and (b) you may not also be aware of the desperate attempt to placate radical Islamists by commanding that people not write anything about eating pork in French and English literature.

I just think it's important to bring that up, because I don't like to see organizations with obvious political biases so successfully spread misinformation.

8

So, the current pork hysteria may be a manufactured smear conspiracy by Anti-American Frenchmen, and you haven't written it into a Konspiracy Korner yet?  This sounds like great offseason fodder.  Hope it comes before Christmas.

10

But based on what I've read, the bacon outrage is incredibly dense because the whole thing is that it increases the risk of cancer, but without really considering how much it does.

You can read more here... http://www.wired.com/2015/10/who-does-bacon-cause-cancer-sort-of-but-not...

tl;dr...

The IARC only identifies something as carcinogenic.
In the same category as bacon is booze, sunlight, asbestos and tobacco.
IARC DOESN'T do risk assessment.

11

They also mis-identified the source of the problem.  They found that people have a statistically significant increase in cancer risk (but the magnitude is TINY) when they eat things like bacon and sausage and cured red meat, but they don't seem to realize that it's the curing agents, not the meat itself that cause that tiny uptick in cancer risk.  Nor does the report really lay out just how TINY the icnrease is.

12

He mentioned that the study or a study only said somethng like 17% for red meat and 18% for cured meat, which on the grand scale of things isn't that much.

I'm looking for that article, but I haven't been able to track it down.

Also, it's not really the IARC study that's at fault.
It's all the sensationalist reporting on it and a juicy Buzzfeed title that made it pop.

13

...it suffices to say that I have, in my dystopian novel timeline, the development of dangerous genetic technologies that create genetic castes and other very serious affronts to human liberty and social order by 2090. :)  I would tend to agree that gene splicing needs to be carefully limited to treating known disorders in a limited-but-effective mindset or we risk total disaster.

14

If being gay or transgender is more Nature than Nurture, and we figure out precisely why, should we turn it off in the womb?  After all, if trans persons are subject to much more depression and violence than straight persons, perhaps it's in their best interest to do so.  They will still be healthy, you're just tweaking their happiness and safety factors.  It's not like they ever WERE trans and you've removed it from them - you're starting them out as "normal" people.

If you have a mixed-race child, why wouldn't you go in and tweak their melanin content to appear more white? Black is disadvantageous in careers and subject to more police violence, and in 2070 the only people who remain black in America are those who hold tightly to the idea of racial heritage or who can't afford for their kids to have gene therapy.

Those are very dangerous ideas to be toying with, as you create a perfect-gene hierarchy and raise the discrimination levels for those who don't or can't fit in.  I love the movie Gattaca. It resonates with me.  Moving toward the world of Gattaca seems fraught with danger.  I agree that's where we're heading, though.  And you thought sports parents were bad now - just wait til they can gripe about how much they spent to make little Johnny the perfect goalie and WHY ARE YOU TERRIBLE JOHNNY!?

Good times coming our way.

15

While I agree that this is dangerous turf, I would respectfully dissent from the line of reasoning that allowing genetic assistance to fight cancer is similar to allowing genetic tampering in an effort to forestall psychological trauma.  Those are the sorts of hard lines we need to draw, however, and early on.  We have to come to a mutual understanding as a race...what should be treated and what should not be?  That's something the world needs to talk about.

16

The problem is that the idea of 'hard lines' is substantially against the 'liberal' orthodoxy, when in reality it's not really a politically charged item.

The question might be better formatted as, what type of society do we WANT to build.
Because whatever we do will end up in some sort of lock-in.
This is pretty obvious in 'standard' technology; a decision in the 20th century still affects us, whether it's the JPEG or the Plug Type A.

17
jokestar's picture

I find it interesting that Dyson isn't too concerned about global warming because the changes are going to occer slowly while human technology is moving much more rapidly and, because of that, humanity should be able to handle the changes. But, then, he seems concerned about genetic engineering. and the fallout that could occur from that. What if genetic engineering is one of the key components to preserving our civilization with all of the changes threatening us in the future?

18

I thought it was interesting that Doc's immediate thought (apparently) was the scientific community.

But isn't it far more likely that some combination of politicians/religious leaders/cultural arbiters will the be power drawing that line?  And I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that this cuts across the political and religious spectrum--we can all imagine exactly who we DON'T want empowered to draw the line.

And is personal preference involved?  If I choose to use the technology to 'improve' my offspring...and you decide otherwise...and mine therefore become more valuable in terms of talent/earning power, is that a fair fight?  

And since this would seem initially to come at a very steep price, should the very rich be the first able to perpetuate/extend their already existing advantages?

19

Wouldn't limit the moral dilemmas to the first-line researchers at all.  

In the U.S. health care system, I wouldn't characterize the 'very rich' as the ones benefitting from cutting-edge research.  I've received 3-month-old platform studies from the UW, genomics studies, avante-garde techniques totalling probably $500k, but how much was out of my pocket?

But as you say, the moral problems will be addressed by a wide variety of interests.  That's one of the reasons I'm sure that we're in for a rough ride ....

20
Nathan H's picture

We can all agree that improving the human condition is a good thing. We have different means with which to accomplish this task, from the fillings in our teeth to the genetically modified foods on our plate. We adapt our bodies and our environment to suit our needs.

The question is: at what point does this activity become non-productive? If we adapt our environment in such a way that harms us more than benefits us (chop down the rainforest for phone books, for example) we can all agree that that is a bad thing and we should stop doing it. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should shut down the whole idea of Capitalism that brought about this issue, though. Not unless it is a fatal flaw. We mitigate the bad and reap the good.

When dealing with deliberate human genetic manipulation we're dealing with issues of culture and the unknown. Examples include the eugenics movement that was a part of the genesis of the national socialist party and Mojican's hidden soybean gene that only gets activated by x-rays and turns us all into zombies.

These and other similar issues are real and must be addressed. However, these issues should not stand in the way of investigating a new means to improve the human condition. These issues have not yet been identified as fatal flaws. They may be fatal flaws or may not be, we just don't know yet.

Human genetic modification is a tool. It is not, in and of itself, good or evil. It can be used for good or for evil by people. Just like hammers and hair dryers.

Let's say we created a caste system based around whether you had braces, headgear, or were born with perfect teeth. Does that mean that the practice of orthodontics is inherently wrong? Of course not. The caste system is.

If human genetic modification can cure Parkinsons, who could argue that doing so would be a bad thing? If the development of such cures also brings with it the ability for rich people to allow their children a genetic advantage over the less fortunate, does that make the cure for Parkinsons a bad thing? No, it does not. It means we have to, as a culture, find a balance point for reaping the good and mitigating the bad and, perhaps, examine what might be wrong with a system that would allow for such a practice instead of bettering everyone.

We, as a species are limited only by our imaginations because of how technology allows our imaginations to become reality. Technological progress ain't pretty sometimes but it has been worth it so far. It has been our species' defining characteristic and while it's had its downsides the upside has been incredible. Let's hitch our horses to that carriage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seperately, I must protest the idea of using biblical law as described in the Old Testament as a basis of defining the entirety of one's moral code.

  • It was made by men in a culture different from the one in which you currently live.
  • It has reprehensible practices built within (Leviticus 20:10). Even Jesus didn't abide by this, why should you? (John 8:5)

Moral guidance that exists from any soure (from the Bible to the Bhagavad Gita to the Lord Of The Rings) should be incorporated or not based on an examination of its own merits. Much love, but an appeal to authority to the Torah doesn't cut the mustard with me. It may have some good insights generally but I'll take each piece as it comes and weigh it accordingly.  : )

21

They get applied right NOW.  And this is one of the main branches of cancer research, that if you could manipulate the gene to repair it, then of course you would.

There WILL NOT much if any moral debate, if and when the genomic solution to Parkinson's is found.  The line on genetic manipulation is drawn elsewhere.  Nobody debates genomics studies that lead directly to treatment of disease.

Good post Nathan.

22

I think will be a reality in the not too distant future. Those with money and power will want to see that their offspring have an even bigger headstart, both genetic and environmental headstarts. Maybe they'll be the ones writing the code used to tip off the Singularity.  

23

               I hope it is not too late to throw another log on the embers of this discussion, but I ran across a paper that offers an interesting framework for evaluating a policy that may cause severe harm to the public domain. The paper is entitled “The Precautionary Principle” (or “PP” for short) and a pdf is available here.  http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

               PP states that if the risk of an action includes severe or unrecoverable global harm (or as the authors put it, “ruin”) then in the absence of scientific near-certainty of the safety of the action, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing the action. The authors compare nuclear energy risks with Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) risks as an illustration. They conclude that nuclear energy risks, if implemented in small quantities, can be localized (how small to be determined by direct analysis so threats remain local) and subject to traditional cost-benefit analysis for local decision making. GMO’s, on the other hand, should be subject to PP because their risk is systemic both to the ecosystem – a GMO might spread uncontrollably and cannot be localized – and on human health – the modification of crops affects everyone. Therefore, the absence of evidence, one way or the other, that an action might cause ecocide shifts the burden to those proposing the action to demonstrate to a near-certainty of its safety.

               The paper contains interesting discussions of why fragility is an important concept, and how Nature mostly limits risks, especially in an evolutionary context, to small, local and therefore manageable events. We break that rule at our peril. For example, any individual’s choice of spouse affects their children, but is not something that creates a species wide cascade of change. Similarly, if we are able to modify a gene in a particular individual to suppress or prevent a particular disease, one can imagine that while it might not work in that individual, it is not something that will create systemic ruin of the species. However, introducing a GMO into a monoculture food source involves whole different kind of risk. The paper also has a list of 10 fallacious arguments against PP.

               I bring up this paper because it help me focus my thinking about some of the issues raised above.

Cheers.

 

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.