Synthetic biology revolution (GMO): ethically responsible?

[psyreporter]

A special on Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th 2019) 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.

Photo of the cover: thenakedscientists - com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=76832.0;attach=29457

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.

NewScientist: Darwin was wrong

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".

[Pantagruel]

I'd like to comment in general on the advisability of introducing genetic changes into the environment.

Genetic information is something which has evolved over millions of years. The current state of the global environment represents a kind of equilibrium that has been achieved between different genetic templates (species) and the common biosphere which they all share.

So, purely from a scientific perspective, it is not reasonable to believe that you can identify or predict the consequences of introducing radical genetic changes in anything like the tiny periods of time involved. Responsible science would require many decades and many generations of study to determine large scale and long range consequences. So clearly this is a financially driven initiative and has nothing to do with overall benefit.

[psyreporter]

So, purely from a scientific perspective, it is not reasonable to believe that you can identify or predict the consequences of introducing radical genetic changes in anything like the tiny periods of time involved. Responsible science would require many decades and many generations of study to determine large scale and long range consequences. So clearly this is a financially driven initiative and has nothing to do with overall benefit.

Synthetic biology intends to go a step further than introducing genetic changes. It intends to top-down construct the genetic fabric of nature.

Influencing existing beings in the context of their existence may be different from top-down construction, i.e. synthetic biology.

[psyreporter]

My main argument against synthetic biology is that the genetic structure would serve a concept that should be as it is, i.e. it would be a 'fixed state'. Can life be a fixed state? (would it be a optimum or "good"?)

Science is essentially looking back in time. It is an attempt to define. Creating a plant or animal on the basis of such would therefore produce a fixed result that should remain as it is.

Cambridge Dictionary: (knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities:

Knowledge is a concept that resides within a historical context. Before knowledge is present, it requires actions to have taken place: observing, testing and describing (i.e. defining) the results. The outcome of such is history.

My concern is: plants have a will to go further than what exists, to reach into the future. When humans would attempt to control the genetic construct for a concept that should remain as it is, they would undermine what is essential for the plant to have been able to come into existence.

[Pantagruel]

Using the concept "human evolution" in this context is, I think, perpetuation of an outmoded, anthropocentric model of reality. As my post presents, humans are just one type of complex system in a complete ecology of systems. To think that we can and should order things is hubris of a high degree. We can and should strive towards optimum systemic health.

[Sy Borg]

Pantagruel, seemingly humans are operating as a change agent within those larger systems, perhaps not unlike the blue-green algae that caused the Great Oxygenation (Extinction) Event. Did we have a choice? Once a species becomes dominant, it overpopulates and it's only a matter of how and how long.

Theoretically, humans are intelligent and thus more able to adapt to changing circumstances. Theoretically ...

[Pantagruel]

Greta, humans appear to be the quintessential invasive species. Couple that with the fact that, statistically, we are in the middle of a sixth major extinction event, I'd say time is up. Or on its way to being up....

[Pantagruel]

"The use of nature for our egoistic ends had far-reaching consequences in altering the relationships which form the preconditions of our very being. These relationships took millions of years to evolve, and they could only evolve in balance, for any imbalance would have had to either be rectified, or result in disorganization."
~Laszlo, "Introduction to Systems Philosophy"

[Sy Borg]

Greta, humans appear to be the quintessential invasive species.

So was blue-green algae. As a result of the extinctions they caused, multicellular organisms emerged.

I don't much like humans either but they are as much part of the system as every other species. Personally, I think we humans are the first step in a process that will ultimately liberate sentience (or at least some of it) from the kill-or-die model of biological survival.

[Pantagruel]

Interesting. Laszlo's take is that all systems are sentient. He calls it biperspectivism. i.e. simultaneously mechanistic, when viewed from the outside, and cognitive, when viewed from the inside. However the consciousness of an atom is not therefore similar to the consciousness of a human. Lately I have been leaning strongly towards a kind of panpsychism myself.

[Sy Borg]

Michio Kaku posits a similar form of panpsychism. I lean that way too but, as you suggest, consciousness (being awake, eg. critters) is not the same as the sentience of big-brained mammals and birds, the latter being similar to humans but without the extra layer of abstract temporal perception.

I'm guessing that biology is a phase. The only problem I have with synthetic biology is the possibility of superbugs. However, given the fragmentation of world politics, the ethical limits of any one society need not be adopted by others.

[Pantagruel]

I suspect that consciousness (qua knowledge) de facto links the knower with the (consciousness aspect of) the known. Identity is something of a transitory phenomenon. Just as the identity of any physical thing is really only a limitation of perspective, a spatiotemporal snapshot of what is otherwise an unfolding process.

[Felix]

The only problem I have with synthetic biology is the possibility of superbugs.

They are a reality, not a possibility: bacteria immune to all of our common antibiotics, crop eating insects immune to our pesticides, sterile GMO plants, etc. We are creating little frankenstein monsters.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The only problem I have with synthetic biology is the possibility of superbugs.

They are a reality, not a possibility: bacteria immune to all of our common antibiotics, crop eating insects immune to our pesticides, sterile GMO plants, etc. We are creating little frankenstein monsters.

Agreed. And this is in a context where we have corporations that control their own oversight via revolving door with the public sector, have caused a great deal of damage, have control over the research 'showing' their products are safe, and have not demonstrated any significant positive effects from their products so far.

[Sy Borg]

I suspect that consciousness (qua knowledge) de facto links the knower with the (consciousness aspect of) the known. Identity is something of a transitory phenomenon. Just as the identity of any physical thing is really only a limitation of perspective, a spatiotemporal snapshot of what is otherwise an unfolding process.

What is knowing in that context? How would it differ from other connections?