The connection is that science is abusing it's own terms of what can be deemed 'validity' to pose that life is no factor to consider other than that it merely exists, i.e. that life is meaningless and that determinism is true.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 10:01 amThe two thoughts in this statement are dissconnected.
You might as well say my dog does not know where his bone is, yet Trump is still not President.
What could possibly be a basis for considering life to be of substance beyond what it can be empirically?
The notion 'it is alive thus it is life' appears to be how science views life in practice.
A special in The Economist, by reporters specialized in the subject.
https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2019-04-06The Economist wrote: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.
When it concerns life, the existence and prosperity of humanity and Nature is at stake. One would potentially falsely assume that life has no purpose. Life and Nature may not be merely intended for human amusement.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 10:01 amI can change channels on my TV without knowing how transistors work. I can even produce TV programmes, operas, and a whole hiost of other entertainments but never having any understanding of how TV signals are transmitted.With Eugenics on Nature, science intends to ‘redesign life’. Thus, without ever having been able to explain why life exists, science believes that it can become master of it.
The Mona Lisa was painted with zero understanding of the chemistry of pigmentation.
As mentioned in the OP: If it is unknown 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.
"Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution"
With synthetic biology, humans would intend to self direct evolution of Nature. The self + direction, the key characteristics of Eugenics, are present. Just the human would be replaced with Nature.
When it concerns long term prosperity and the optimal serving of life (when applicable), it is not possible to claim that eugenics works.
When the question whether something is 'morality justifiable' is not yet answered, it cannot be said that it is justified.
As mentioned in my previous post, the 'method' for selection is at question. With Eugenics, one assumes that there is no more to life than what empirical science can prove to exist, and that idea may not be valid.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 10:01 am4) GE has already provided advantages. It is just the pinnacle of thousands of years of slow patient selective breeding which has modified a massive range of domesticants, including humans themseleves. GE just provides shortcuts.
The moral value of GE would be based on a case by case basis. There is no "Eugenic on Nature". Nothing we do changes Nature. Our understanding of Nature enables us to change genomes.
In short: there may be more to life than the empirical and if that would be the case, Eugenics as a guiding principle for evolution could be 'immoral' (not optimal and thus something that should be prevented).