In a perfect world, you'd be right.
The sampling approach presupposes that we can measure and tabulate all
that matters. We might think we can, and later be proven wrong.
Mitochondrial DNA for sure is being swept under the rug in most
discussions of cloning. What if methylation turns out to be influenced
by subtle prion-like heritable things?
We are talking about the future of the human race, after all. It pays us
to be prudent. A prudent ecologist tries to remember from time to time
that he might not really understand all of what's going on. So does a
prudent particle physicist. Why should a prudent transhuman
primatologist not do so?
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> Hmmm, well, I think some passive sampling should come up with
> statistically significant data, by comparing, say, offspring of
> residents of silicon valley, redmond, and other high tech havens with
> pennsylvania dutch country and other areas of high concentration of
> primitivists.
It's not just about the labels we put on people, Mike. Ever hear of
phrenology? Well-meaning scientistic know-it-alls have been categorizing
people for centuries. They have not been right very often so far.
I am trying to apply pancritical rationalism to the notion of wild,
gotta-have-'em, go-go adoption of designer genes. We probably won't be
paving paradise to put up a parking lot--on purpose. But we should do
what we can to keep a broad population base of controls of all the human
gene pool just in case NuGene Z23456 turns out to be A Bad Thing That
Got Locked In.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT