What are the moral and ethical responsibilities of using genetic engineering to destroy a species?
http://fordebating.com/ForumTopic.aspx?Topicid=128
We started playing god about 40,000 - 60,000 years ago when we started forest fires to clear land to plant crops.
But as for killing off an entire species? Considering how long some species took to evolve in the first place and how little we know about how genes really work and interact with each other, (let alone more complex things like ecosystems); I think that it would be very short sighted to eliminate entire species outright.
( Yes, I would bring a xenomorph back for study. No, I wouldn't put it inside Ripley or Newt to do it. )
Human beings have no ethics, just rhetorical virtue signaling. So there is no such thing as bio-ethics. Technically, eco-kosher is bioethics, but it only applies to Jews, but there are no real Jews. Sorcerer's apprentice much? That is basically what humans are, in theism.
I think it is the height of hubris to directly (as opposed to animal/plant husbandry of the Neolithic) manipulate genes, of higher species in general, and humans in particular. But we will, and will go extinct, and the rest of the universe will breath a huge sigh of relief.
There are good reasons to manipulate the genes of microbes ... biowarfare.
It'd absolutely be moral to wipe out diseases that harm thousands, sometimes millions, of humans a year. However, we should be very, very careful about how we deploy such measures.
Antiobiotics was a wonder cure until antiobiotic resistance evolved, in part because of misuse (prescribed to people who didn't need it, and used on a massive scale on livestock). DDT has a similarly reckless and unwary history.
Eliminate harmful mosquitoes and kudzu from the South, and I'll be a happy man.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 03, 2018, 03:51:28 PM
It'd absolutely be moral to wipe out diseases that harm thousands, sometimes millions, of humans a year. However, we should be very, very careful about how we deploy such measures.
Antiobiotics was a wonder cure until antiobiotic resistance evolved, in part because of misuse (prescribed to people who didn't need it, and used on a massive scale on livestock). DDT has a similarly reckless and unwary history.
Eliminate harmful mosquitoes and kudzu from the South, and I'll be a happy man.
So you believe it moral for one species to wipe out another species that cares a disease that kills far less than 1% percentage of its population?
For reference
429,000 malaria deaths - http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/ (http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/)
7.6 billion people in the world - http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)
500000 / 6700000000 = %0.00007462686 https://tinyurl.com/yc9gysmb (https://tinyurl.com/yc9gysmb)
I agree with you as a fellow southerner that I personally would be VERY happy without mosquitoes, but I'm interested in discussing the ramifications of the action which I see mainly for comfort.
Yeah, mosquitos really suck. ;-)
Quote from: Coveny on April 03, 2018, 04:11:20 PM
So you believe it moral for one species to wipe out another species that cares a disease that kills far less than 1% percentage of its population?
For reference
429,000 malaria deaths - http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/ (http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/)
7.6 billion people in the world - http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)
500000 / 6700000000 = %0.00007462686 https://tinyurl.com/yc9gysmb (https://tinyurl.com/yc9gysmb)
I agree with you as a fellow southerner that I personally would be VERY happy without mosquitoes, but I'm interested in discussing the ramifications of the action which I see mainly for comfort.
For me, the consideration of eliminating a species involves how it would affect people, followed by how it would affect intelligent creatures that can suffer. If a creature is harmful to humans we should consider whether it needs to be eliminated or contained. If a creature isn't harmful I see no point in eliminating it. A virus isn't very intelligent, is difficult to contain, and can do a lot of harm so I have no problem with eliminating it. Mammals can be dangerous but they can also suffer and can be easily contained, so I would be against eliminating a species. I don't think mosquitos can suffer, they are difficult to contain, and they can pose serious health risks to humans, so I would consider eliminating them. The problem is we don't know whether the consequences of eliminating them would be harmful to both humans and creatures that can suffer. If we knew that eliminating mosquitos would create positive consequences for humans and other creatures I'm for it, but I don't think we currently know enough about the repercussions.
We have our yard sprayed for mosquitos every three weeks during the warm months.
Quote from: Coveny on April 03, 2018, 04:11:20 PM
So you believe it moral for one species to wipe out another species that cares a disease that kills far less than 1% percentage of its population?
Absolutely. In fact, I believe polio and smallpox also fit that scenario. Quick show of hands, anybody think we made a bad decision wiping those out?
I'm down for a rational debate when there really are two viable sides to the issue. Is that the case here?
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 04, 2018, 01:45:24 AM
Absolutely. In fact, I believe polio and smallpox also fit that scenario. Quick show of hands, anybody think we made a bad decision wiping those out?
I'm down for a rational debate when there really are two viable sides to the issue. Is that the case here?
Small pox may still exist, because the US and USSR are liars. All superpowers have illegal bioweapons programs. However polio is down over 99% from 1988-2017 with only 22 cases last year. Estimated 16 million plus saved from paralysis. So reduction yes, wiping out ... not happened yet.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 04, 2018, 01:45:24 AM
Absolutely. In fact, I believe polio and smallpox also fit that scenario. Quick show of hands, anybody think we made a bad decision wiping those out?
I'm down for a rational debate when there really are two viable sides to the issue. Is that the case here?
No polio doesn't fit that scenario it hasn't been eradicated. Smallpox is closer, but it's definitely debatable if a virus has the same value as a mosquito. I personally think the distinction matters. Mosquitoes live outside of a "host".
As this is a discussion of morals if you don't rationally feel like destroying a species of animals is a moral dilemma then there is no reason for you to participate. Personally I have questions about how far humans are willing to go to destroy this planet and the life on it for their comfort. As the dominant species I feel like we have a responsibility to be just rules, and I feel like the attitude of "whatever is best for me, is the moral choice" is a scary attitude to have when you are at the top of the food chain. We are already wiping out species by accident with our pollution and trash, now we're going to add premeditated to the card without discussion? I mean don't get me wrong I prefer a world without mosquitoes, but there is a difference between what I want, and what the right thing to do.
Is it really playing God, though? Seems to me if you want to play God, you just be quiet, don't do anything, and pretend you aren't there. As for mosquitoes, screw them. The world would be just fine if they didn't exist.
Well, those species that eat mosquitos might not like doing without them. Maybe they could get by, and maybe not. We just need to remember that we can't eradicate one species without affecting others.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 04, 2018, 12:07:23 PM
Is it really playing God, though? Seems to me if you want to play God, you just be quiet, don't do anything, and pretend you aren't there. As for mosquitoes, screw them. The world would be just fine if they didn't exist.
That would be the Taoist god, or at least Lao Tzu.
Quote from: Coveny on April 04, 2018, 08:45:45 AM
No polio doesn't fit that scenario it hasn't been eradicated. Smallpox is closer, but it's definitely debatable if a virus has the same value as a mosquito. I personally think the distinction matters. Mosquitoes live outside of a "host".
As this is a discussion of morals if you don't rationally feel like destroying a species of animals is a moral dilemma then there is no reason for you to participate. Personally I have questions about how far humans are willing to go to destroy this planet and the life on it for their comfort. As the dominant species I feel like we have a responsibility to be just rules, and I feel like the attitude of "whatever is best for me, is the moral choice" is a scary attitude to have when you are at the top of the food chain. We are already wiping out species by accident with our pollution and trash, now we're going to add premeditated to the card without discussion? I mean don't get me wrong I prefer a world without mosquitoes, but there is a difference between what I want, and what the right thing to do.
Massive extinction has been underway for about 100 years now. Mosquitos are the host for other illnesses, like malaria and West Nile. One method of secondary control, has been to produce disease resistant male insects to compete in mating with the diseased ones.
Apparently, male mosquitoes do not drink blood, but feed on nectar. Would it be possible to genetically alter female mosquitoes to drink only nectar?
Why Only Female Mosquitoes Drink Blood (http://dcmosquitosquad.com/why-only-female-mosquitoes-drink-blood/)
QuoteBlood is full of proteins and amino acids, which makes it the perfect prenatal supplement for growing mosquito eggs, which is why only female mosquitos drink blood. When female mosquitos aren’t drinking your blood, they eat plant nectar just like their male counterparts.
I'd say it depends on the species and the overall role it plays in its ecosystem. As annoying as mosquitoes are, what other organisms feed on them? What's the impact if *they* go away due to lack of mosquitoes to feed upon?
I think it would be much more sensible to use genetic engineering to try to produce a mosquito whose biosystem is hostile to the malaria virus, if you want to attack mosquitoes as the carriers. Granted, you open up the possibility of malaria evolving to something that can live inside that modified system, but if you're going to go the genetic route it's better to make a better mosquito than it is to make no mosquitoes at all.
Nature has had billions of years to sort out how everything fits together, and we absolutely have not untangled that to its coreâ€"and it's not something we can just reboot if we screw it up. We also have to remember that whatever we do, evolution will blindly grope a way around it. Not necessarily soon, but eventually. I don't fancy leaving my nieces and their descendents a world with super-malaria in it when regular malaria is bad enough.
Ultimately, it's less a question of 'is it moral to wipe out a non-sentient species' than it is of 'is it sensible to, and do we really understand all the ramifications if we do'. I'd answer those 'I don't know', and 'It depends, and no we don't'.
Quote from: Baruch on April 04, 2018, 01:52:09 PM
Massive extinction has been underway for about 100 years now. Mosquitos are the host for other illnesses, like malaria and West Nile. One method of secondary control, has been to produce disease resistant male insects to compete in mating with the diseased ones.
Yes that is a possible way to bypass the moral dilemma and it plausible, but not what I was looking to discuss. For this post I just wanted to assume the approach on the table was eradication rather than disease whack a mole.
The grandeur of being human is the ten-thousand year old belief that we are "special" and therefore get to make such decisions. The fact of course is that we get to make some. Not all. Maybe eventually we can eradicate all that threatens humans big and small and thus claim superiority. But the "universe" such as it it, would not recognize our billion times larger than bacteria or some other creatures billion times larger than us as any measure of success. Humanity has lost far more lives to that which is a billion times smaller and creatures a billion times larger than us would be wise to understand that.
Wiping out another species without completely understanding the ramifications sounds just like what humans do....like lead and asbestos products..ciggies and facebook.
Quote from: Coveny on April 04, 2018, 04:03:48 PM
Yes that is a possible way to bypass the moral dilemma and it plausible, but not what I was looking to discuss. For this post I just wanted to assume the approach on the table was eradication rather than disease whack a mole.
The only species, we will deliberately eradicate ... will be our own. Sorry.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 03, 2018, 03:51:28 PM
It'd absolutely be moral to wipe out diseases that harm thousands, sometimes millions, of humans a year. However, we should be very, very careful about how we deploy such measures.
Antiobiotics was a wonder cure until antiobiotic resistance evolved, in part because of misuse (prescribed to people who didn't need it, and used on a massive scale on livestock). DDT has a similarly reckless and unwary history.
Eliminate harmful mosquitoes and kudzu from the South, and I'll be a happy man.
I won't have much argument about eliminating mosquitos and kudzu. And a few other pests. Like, tell me how aphids benefit us in any way... .
Quote from: Cavebear on April 05, 2018, 12:26:46 AM
I won't have much argument about eliminating mosquitos and kudzu. And a few other pests. Like, tell me how aphids benefit us in any way... .
Some use aphids like cattle ... species-ist?
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 04, 2018, 01:13:09 PM
Well, those species that eat mosquitos might not like doing without them. Maybe they could get by, and maybe not. We just need to remember that we can't eradicate one species without affecting others.
There are only a few mosquito species that harm humans. So you wouldn't need to wipe out all 3,500 species of mosquito. More like 3 to 200, depending on how thorough you want to get. That's a lot less disruptive.
But let's say we wipe out all mosquito species tomorrow. That might be somewhat harmful for fish and birds that feed on them, particularly in the arctic. But it wouldn't be the end of the world or anything. The ecosystem would recover pretty quickly.
From a lot of the responses in this thread, I get the impression that some people think of the ecosystem as a Jenga tower that collapses when you pull a single piece. Thankfully, that's not the case, otherwise we'd be long dead. Extinctions are actually pretty common, and we are in fact living during an era of mass extinction. While it's important to not confuse is-ought (we shouldn't justify intentionally wiping out species simply because other species are being unintentionally wiped out) it's also important to acknowledge that targetted extinction isn't as disasterous as one might initially expect. In fact, the world we live in is one in which humans have completely or nearly wiped out all sorts of harmful species, and I doubt anyone here finds fault with the result.
Quote from: Coveny on April 04, 2018, 08:45:45 AM
No polio doesn't fit that scenario it hasn't been eradicated. Smallpox is closer, but it's definitely debatable if a virus has the same value as a mosquito.
I'd say they both have value. Mosquitos have novel ways of preventing blood from clotting. Viruses may have novel ways of delivering their payload to cells.
You never know when a biological trick might come in useful...
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/t_cells.png)
I like the idea of sending out sterile male mosquitos of the species that cause us the most diseases. The mosquitos may adjust, but it is possible they will not be harmful after that. Mosquitoes that didn't harbor parasites might be good too.
I wouldn't mind killing off some species entirely. Does anyone mourn the end of the previously naturally-occurring widespread smallpox virus? Suppose we could simply end influenza? Should ANYONE cry about that? Does the rabies virus do anything good to any other species than the rabies virus.
All parasites can pretty much go without harm to the biosphere. And if you are thinking "But we might learn something from them", I'll risk it.
What would you like to bet that in 50 years, we know enough about all species that we could replicate any harmful one we killed off (that in some bizarre discovery had value) we couldn't replicate?
James D. Waston said "If scientists don't play God, who will?" We may not like the idea of being the sole entity that can decide the future of life on our planet, but we're stuck with the responsibility - there's no one else we can turn to for help figuring out how best to husband the biosphere of Earth. We'll either do it well, or we'll do it badly, but we'd better understand, and soon, that it's up to us, collectively, to do or not do - there is no "try.".
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 07, 2018, 02:19:03 PM
James D. Waston said "If scientists don't play God, who will?" We may not like the idea of being the sole entity that can decide the future of life on our planet, but we're stuck with the responsibility - there's no one else we can turn to for help figuring out how best to husband the biosphere of Earth. We'll either do it well, or we'll do it badly, but we'd better understand, and soon, that it's up to us, collectively, to do or not do - there is no "try.".
Been failing upward since the agricultural revolution. An individual might or might not be smart ... a committee never is ... and the mob is ... random motion.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2018, 02:22:32 PM
Been failing upward since the agricultural revolution. An individual might or might not be smart ... a committee never is ... and the mob is ... random motion.
Yeah, as stated by Kay in Men in Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 07, 2018, 02:19:03 PM
James D. Waston said "If scientists don't play God, who will?" We may not like the idea of being the sole entity that can decide the future of life on our planet, but we're stuck with the responsibility - there's no one else we can turn to for help figuring out how best to husband the biosphere of Earth. We'll either do it well, or we'll do it badly, but we'd better understand, and soon, that it's up to us, collectively, to do or not do - there is no "try.".
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. And last time I checked, humans don't have equals.
I wouldn't hesitate to kill the last mosquito on Earth or the last parasite. Depends on your definition of "parasites" though. In a narrow way, all animals are parasites on plants.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 10, 2018, 12:02:51 AM
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. And last time I checked, humans don't have equals.
I wouldn't hesitate to kill the last mosquito on Earth or the last parasite. Depends on your definition of "parasites" though. In a narrow way, all animals are parasites on plants.
And there is an old Dr Who episode on that too. A plant lover conspired with aliens to kill all animal life. But what about the Venus Fly Trap? Viruses are the original parasite on cellular life. Wanting to actually eliminate germ life ... puts one in Howard Hughes territory.