[cleanair (OP)]

economist-gmo.jpg (60.71 kB . 400x526 - viewed 1472 times)

A special on Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th) predicts that synthetic biology will be the most important thing in science in this century and presents it as a natural and inevitable part of human evolution.

Remaking life means automating biology

Those given to grand statements about the future often proclaim this to be the century of biology in the same way that the 20th century was that of physics and the 19th century was that of chemistry. ...

Humans have been turning biology to their own purposes for more than 10,000 years. ...

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.

The report presents synthetic biology as a unguided practice driven primarily by the short term financial self-interest of companies. Humans (companies) will attempt to control the genetic fabric of nature and are already well on their way.

Biotechnology is already a bigger business than many people realize. Rob Carlson of Bioeconomy Capital, an investment company, calculates that money made from creatures which have been genetically engineered accounted for about 2% of American GDP in 2017.

Questions

1) Does philosophy have a say in the evolution of humanity in regards to if and how to per sue synthetic biology or GMO for food?

2) Are ethics involved to determine if and/or how GMO will be a part of human evolution or is it purely driven by market (money)?


Ethical considerations

Can life be a 'fixed state'? Basic logic shows that you can't stand above life as being life because when you would try to do so you would create a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.

It may be best to serve life instead of trying to stand above it.

A special in New Scientists showed that evolution is not like Darwin's tree of life and is also horizontal, on the basis of what is consumed. When humans consume food, information is consumed that is used in evolution.


darwin-wrong.jpg (43.42 kB . 150x197 - viewed 1456 times)

The source of life is unknown. If it is not known where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. When humans would attempt to control genetic evolution from their short-sighted and external perspective, they may hinder a vital core of successful evolution. What may appear as a genetic defect in a given time may be part of a longer term (e.g. 300 year) strategy to achieve evolutionary solutions that are essential for longer term survival.

A basis of respect for nature may be essential for successful evolution.

To summarize:

• Can life be a 'fixed state'?
• Synthetic biology (GMO) for food could be seen as a sort of incest.
• The source of life is unknown. It is not plausible to assume that life is limited to what humans can see.
• A belief that evolution is driven by random chance may result in the idea that thinking isn't needed and that anything random will count as "good".

[alancalverd]

Philosophy is bunk.

Ethics is interesting. We have been controlling genetics by selective breeding of every other useful species for at least 50,000 years, so no fundamental issues of principle arise. GMO simply makes the process more efficient by targeting desirable qualities and limiting the quantity of experimental crops needed to prove the value of the product. The ethical question really revolves around patenting and economics:

It is generally considered a Good Thing that GM crops should be sterile and thus unable to contaminate other crop varieties by interbreeding. It is also in the manufacturer's interest to protect his market for GM seed  by ensuring that you can't save this year's crop to plant next year's. Now suppose I have a sterile GM rice X that under all conditions produces 20% more yield than any natural product in the next field. Farmer A uses X and can therefore sell his crop at a lower price than anyone else in his region. So every other farmer either has to use X or eventually go out of business. Within a few years, nobody is growing anything else and banks will not lend money to anyone planting anything other than X, so the overhead of storing native seed becomes a burden and I eventually have absolute control over the price and availability of rice worldwide. I can bankrupt or starve anyone I choose. Is that a Good Thing?

Humans generally have a choice of mate, and those who don't, tend to have a mate chosen for them on some grounds of selection rather than at random. Thus human evolution is to some extent intentional and may eventually lead to species differentiation since tall people tend to marry tall people and vice versa. For the most part, couples want healthy  offspring that resemble themselves to some extent, so the elimination of genetic anomalies at least prior to implantation can't be a Bad Thing, and given that around 30% of human blastocysts abort spontaneously, the deliberate abortion of a distinctly anomalous fetus may not be considered wholly egregious. The ethical question then is whether it is a Good Thing to modify or repair rather than destroy a blastocyst or fetus that would otherwise not live up to its parents' expectations.

Unfortunately the moral waters are muddied by a false retrospect. We can, do, and should care for the sick and disabled, including those born with disease, deformity or disability. Nobody should doubt the value of any human once born. The question is not one of discriminating against extant persons, but of improving the life chances and independence of those not yet born. And I can't see why that is a Bad Thing. "Every child a wanted child" is a popular slogan among people who care about people (and I have no time for anyone who doesn't). "Every child a healthy, independent child" just seems like a logical next step.

[cleanair (OP)]

the elimination of genetic anomalies at least prior to implantation can't be a Bad Thing, and given that around 30% of human blastocysts abort spontaneously, the deliberate abortion of a distinctly anomalous fetus may not be considered wholly egregious. The ethical question then is whether it is a Good Thing to modify or repair rather than destroy a blastocyst or fetus that would otherwise not live up to its parents' expectations.

You are making a case for embryo selection to improve the human species. It is an interesting aspect of bio-engineering. My arguments where mostly directed at bio-engineering of plants and animals and GMO for food.

MSNBC had a interesting publication about embryo selection:

Would you have allowed Bill Gates to be born?

But what if I told you it’s possible that Gates has a genetic condition that accounts, in part, for both his tremendous achievements and for his "nerdiness?" Gates is widely reported to display many personality traits characteristic of a condition known as Asperger’s syndrome. Asperger’s is a version of autism, a more serious condition that renders many children unable to talk, be touched, communicate or socialize.

The perils of genetic testing

Source: nbcnews - com

Another example is Albert Einstein. He was kicked out of school and refused at the University Zurich Polytechnic. He was described by teachers as mentally slow, not social and absent in his own stupid dreams. He did not speak a word until he was 4 years old and could not read until he was 7 years old.

Source: thestarphoenix - com

Parents want their child to be healthy, but is their short-term perspective based desire optimal for human evolution?

It seems to me that it would be a practice that is founded in an ideology which is named eugenics, a pseudo-science.

Could embryo selection applied for top-down control of genetic evolution be good for the future of humanity? Would it make humanity stronger? The logic that I provided in the OT shows that it may weaken humanity.

The complex coherence of genes provides in more than humans can possibly see in it (the future can't be foreseen).

Therefor I believe that a basis of respect for nature is essential for successful evolution.

[alancalverd]

I think I can distinguish between eugenics aimed at uniformity or an arbitrary ideal determined by a third party, either of which is distinctly counter-evolutionary, and eliminating or correcting whatever the prospective parents might consider undesirable in their offspring.

Genius "needs further research", as all the worst scientific papers say. Mozart was giving public concerts at an age where, apparently, Einstein could not read.  What genetic property or accident of circumstance made Ramanujan a genius? For the time being, I would be happy if every baby was physically fit and free from any genetic predisposition to disease or disability in later life. We'll work on autism later.

Working back to GM food, apart from a few environmental toxins or mineral deficiencies, I can't think of any evidence that diet strongly affects human evolution. It's arguable that smaller people have an advantage as jungle hunters and foragers, and bigger people might do better hunting on a open plain. It's also fairly obvious that childhood malnutrition retards growth, but that is an individual consequence rather than an evolutoinary one. The statistical evidence would be very hard to find as, by about the third generation, most immigrant communities tend to assimilate to the host nation diet - at least the vegetable part thereof - or, as in the case of Chinese and Indian groups living in the West, profoundly alter that diet. Too many variables and no strong evidence, except perhaps the incidence of breast cancer in women of Japanese descent living in Australia  - but even that seems to be a matter of dietary deficiency and lifestyle rather than genetic change.

All apart, that is, from two characteristics of caucasians: tolerance of dairy produce and alcohol. It is argued that the former gave our ancestors a wider range of possible domestic animals and winter foods, and the latter allowed, through brewing of beer and wine, societies to develop away from sources of fresh water and to travel long distances by sea. 

[cleanair (OP)]

eliminating or correcting whatever the prospective parents might consider undesirable in their offspring.

Would the short term perspective of parents for a desirable life lead to a different result than a scientific consensus to clean the human race of weakness and undesired properties?

It seems that laying the choice with parents could be a scheme for scientists to justify their otherwise morally reprehensible eugenic beliefs and practices. They could piggyback on the back of parents who may have factors in mind such as financial worries, their career opportunities and similar priorities that may not be an optimal influence for human evolution.

Genius "needs further research"

There appears to be evidence that genius can be nurtured using any normal human brain. (NGC: "My Brilliant Brain" series). There are people who have just 20% brain tissue who live an entirely normal life. An example is a man who works as a civil servant who has a wife and two children. His condition was discovered by a random check in a hospital.

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors (New Scientist)


klein-brein1-300x234.jpg (23.67 kB . 300x234 - viewed 1341 times)

A man with an unusually tiny brain manages to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, which was caused by a fluid build-up in his skull.

Scans of the 44-year-old man’s brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue (see image, right).

“It is hard for me [to say] exactly the percentage of reduction of the brain, since we did not use software to measure its volume. But visually, it is more than a 50% to 75% reduction,” says Lionel Feuillet, a neurologist at the Mediterranean University in Marseille, France.

Feuillet and his colleagues describe the case of this patient in The Lancet. He is a married father of two children, and works as a civil servant.

The physical can't be the source of itself. The brains may be merely a tool and may not determine who someone is and how intelligent he/she is. It appears that intelligence may arise out of a will to go further than what can be foreseen, thus without a reasonable argument to drive them.

I can't think of any evidence that diet strongly affects human evolution.

It is named horizontal evolution. Wikipedia: HGT is an important factor in the evolution of many organisms. ...  plants, animals, and fungi, absorbing, carrying, and delivering genes that get incorporated into other genomes.

It is an argument for my statement that GMO as food would be a sort of incest. You would ultimately consume something that has been created from the short term perspective of humans. The food wouldn't contain the potentially vital information about how to be successful in life.

[evan_au]

Therefore I believe that a basis of respect for nature is essential for successful evolution.

If we had respect for nature, Columbus would have died trying to swim the Atlantic, and Armstrong would have run out of breath on the Moon.

Humans have traditionally used technology to overcome our limitations.

But if that technology itself has limitations (for example, an inability to shield space travellers from radiation or bone weakness on the way to Mars), then we might turn to biological techniques, for example, selecting astronauts who seem to have some genetic protection against cancer or weakened bones

After all, nature is no guide on how humans could survive space travel.

[alancalverd]

An example is a man who works as a civil servant who has a wife and two children. His condition was discovered by a random check in a hospital.

I consider that to be unnecessarily intrusive use of  exceptionally clever diagnostics. What treatment was offered? 

[cleanair (OP)]

I consider that to be unnecessarily intrusive use of  exceptionally clever diagnostics. What treatment was offered?

The case has been published in The Lancet.

Philosophy is bunk.

Isn't ethics a branch of philosophy?

[Kryptid]

It is an argument for my statement that GMO as food would be a sort of incest.

That doesn't fit the definition of incest.

Do you have any evidence from a reputable source that demonstrates that humans are capable of acquiring genes from the food they eat?

[Bored chemist]

The food wouldn't contain the potentially vital information about how to be successful in life.

Being "suitable food for humans" is a very successful evolutionary strategy. Ask bananas, cows, sheep, maize etc.

[cleanair (OP)]

That doesn't fit the definition of incest.

If horizontal gene transfer is a part of human evolution, it could be considered a sort of inter-species sexual activity. That means that when humans would synthetically construct the genetic fabric of food, consuming it would be a sort of incest.

Do you have any evidence from a reputable source that demonstrates that humans are capable of acquiring genes from the food they eat?

As a forum newbie I am not allowed to post links. You can find studies when you search in Google for "horizontal evolution evidence" or "horizontal gene transfer".

[cleanair (OP)]

Being "suitable food for humans" is a very successful evolutionary strategy. Ask bananas, cows, sheep, maize etc.

That would assume a limited purpose of existence. What is the origin of 'being' in your sentence?

1) can it be explained by science?
2) can science create it?

[cleanair (OP)]

If we had respect for nature, Columbus would have died trying to swim the Atlantic, and Armstrong would have run out of breath on the Moon.

Humans have traditionally used technology to overcome our limitations.

I don't think that you can compare those examples with top down control of the genetic fabric of nature, i.e. synthetic biology. The essentiality of "respect for nature" in the context of genetic evolution would be related to the purpose of the existence of plants and animals. A purposeful food source may be a stronger foundation for humanity.

But if that technology itself has limitations (for example, an inability to shield space travellers from radiation or bone weakness on the way to Mars), then we might turn to biological techniques, for example, selecting astronauts who seem to have some genetic protection against cancer or weakened bones

After all, nature is no guide on how humans could survive space travel.

Maybe it is not right to heap up genetic modification. Influencing existing beings in the context of their existence may be different from top-down construction, i.e. synthetic biology.

[Bored chemist]

What is the origin of 'being' in your sentence?

The same meaning it usually has.
"verb
1.
present participle of be."

That would assume a limited purpose of existence.

That would be a very sensible assumption.
If we are GMing food, we are doing so to make it "suitable food for humans" .

That's, kind of, the point here.
It's possible that someone is trying to make a 2 metre tall purple poodle for some aesthetic "purpose for existence", but it isn't going to be a big scale thing.

[Kryptid]

That means that when humans would synthetically construct the genetic fabric of food, consuming it would be a sort of incest.

That's like claiming that sex between any two random humans is incest. It isn't.

As a forum newbie I am not allowed to post links. You can find studies when you search in Google for "horizontal evolution evidence" or "horizontal gene transfer".

I'm well aware that hortizontal gene transfer takes place and is common among bacteria. What I have yet to see is any verified cases where it has occurred specifically between humans and their food.

[cleanair (OP)]

The same meaning it usually has.
"verb
1.
present participle of be."

That doesn't answer the questions (what is the origin of 'be'? can science create that origin?).

That would assume a limited purpose of existence.

That would be a very sensible assumption.
If we are GMing food, we are doing so to make it "suitable food for humans" .

Besides limited purpose (lack of spirit), it would assume that life can be a fixed state.

The source of life is unknown. The psychical can't logically be the source of itself. That means that the source of life can't be measured and that life can't be a fixed state.

[cleanair (OP)]

That's like claiming that sex between any two random humans is incest. It isn't.

The normal (healthy) situation would be "non-human -> human". Therefor, "human -> human" would be a potential unhealthy deviation, a deviation that is named incest if it were to be "relative -> relative".

As a comparison of a potential unhealthy situation the term may be applicable.

I'm well aware that hortizontal gene transfer takes place and is common among bacteria. What I have yet to see is any verified cases where it has occurred specifically between humans and their food.

A search in Google provides many studies.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379729/

Conclusions
Horizontal gene transfer impacts hundreds of human genes and this study provided insight into potential mechanisms of HGT in the human genome.

[Kryptid]

The normal (healthy) situation would be "non-human -> human". Therefor, "human -> human" would be a potential unhealthy deviation, a deviation that is named incest if it were to be "relative -> relative".

Humans combining genes with each other happens all the time. It's called sexual reproduction. I don't know how you can call that a "potential unhealthy deviation" when that is the normal way the humans share genes with each other whereas horizontal gene transfer from some other species is far less likely to provide any benefit.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379729/

That claim is far from settled: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5422933/

Even if such a thing was happening, it must happen very rarely. And when it does happen, it would be akin to a random mutation in the genome (in the sense that it would have an unpredictable effect on the cell's behavior, since the transferred gene could code for anything and be injected anywhere in the human genome, including inside of other genes). So it would be expected that the majority of these events would not be beneficial, even if they happened naturally. Then you have no way of knowing whether natural genes would be good for humans more often than artificial genes would be. It's practically a role of the dice.

[alancalverd]

I think ethics must be divorced from philosophy. It is true that philosophers talk about ethics, but drunks talk about football - it doesn't change the game.

The object of ethical analysis is to decide whether on balance a proposition is likely to do more good than harm. The outcome can be qualified in all sorts of ways but the object is to lay out the grounds for a decision - should we do it? I think defensible ethics should not invoke any unknowables ("what would Jesus do?") but can include unknowns ("what would the man on the Clapham omnibus think?" - we can ask him).

Back to practicalities. It is quite likely that a GM staple crop might not contain something that turns out to be significant. In general, no big deal. If you read a cornflake packet, you will find a whole bunch of ingredients that have been added so that it can be marketed as a food: maize is a very useful industrial feedstock, and once you have extracted all the useful bits, you are left with a crusty matrix that you can either throw away or sell, but food standards agencies won't let you sell it as a foodstuff until you have added some nutritional value. We add calcium carbonate to white bread, not to whiten or stiffen it, but to replace the nutritional calcium that was lost in the refining process. So there's nothing new about enhancing a basic foodstuff once we know what's missing.

The problem arises when an unlikely trace element is missing. I recall in the 1970s a lot of research on a small Chinese population who had all sorts of metabolic dysfunctions, eventually traced to the fact that although their diet was "mainstream Chinese" and plentiful, the local chicken feed was deficient in molybdenum - who would have thought it?

Postmarket vigilance is the key. We monitor "critical groups" who consume certain foods as a staple, mostly to set limits for toxin content, but also to check that they fare no worse than average if they don't eat something - meat being the obvious example. So if a GM wheat became a staple and replaced ordinary wheat in, say, one state, you could compare the incidence of metabolic anomalies and modify one or other product.
   

[evan_au]

Do you have any evidence from a reputable source that demonstrates that humans are capable of acquiring genes from the food they eat?

I heard of one case where humans in Japan acquired the ability to digest alginate, the structural polysacharide in seaweed. Japanese people tend to eat a lot of seaweed (in sushi, for example).

It is thought that undersea bacteria that live on seaweed and normally eat seaweed were eaten by humans. Horizontal gene transfer resulted in normal human gut microbes common in Japan acquiring the ability to digest seaweed - which of course benefits the human hosting these microbes.

Such a strain of gut microbes would have a significant advantage in the Japanese population.

So, in one sense, "human" includes "human microbiome".

But this case also aligns with the following question:

I'm well aware that hortizontal gene transfer takes place and is common among bacteria. What I have yet to see is any verified cases where it has occurred specifically between humans and their food.

See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26104-1