Scientists create artificial life...have we opened Pandora's box?

I wouldn’t say this is the first step on this ‘trip to opening a Pandora’s box’ but I can see the good and the bad that can come of this. I, for one, am completely in favor of such research and practices. People have been opening up Pandora’s boxes with much of everything throughout our lives here on Earth – looking up at the sky to document the planets’ cycles was seen as the same kind of ‘digression’.

It’s not that big of a deal as Venter is making it seem; he has a tendency for overhyping stuff.

It’s more of an impressive technological feat. He didn’t actually synthesize the organism itself, he just strung together pre-existing genetic codes. A code is a code, even if you chop it up, put it through a computer, and put it back together again.

Also, I’d argue that a cell is basically just a really complicated machine. We’ve already made machines as complicated as a cell, just not tiny ones. Nanotechnology in general is going to open Pandora’s Box (is arguably opening it as we speak).

@Qingu I agree with your thoughts there and I for one find it almost overwhelming to consider the near future with this ability to artificially manipulate cell functions, nanotechnology, Moores Law and AI all seemingly converging together at the same time! This will be most interesting times we live in.

Don’t talk about Pandora like that. ;)

I’m with Nobel Laureate David Baltimore who said “To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this.” There really is no “creation” here. Instead of isolating the DNA and manipulating it (as many people, including myself, do), he had it synthesized by machines. There is nothing overwhelmingly fantastic about this. There have been far more dangerous things published (i.e. how to modify viruses/bacteria to make them more lethal).

Either that or artificial intellegence will eventually be the death of us.

It’s a neat trick. Not sure there’s anything to worry about here.

In the second video Venter concludes: “The only dna in the cell is synthetic. [It’s] the first species on the planet to have a parent that’s a computer.” (paraphrased)

link

Artificial life without artificial intelligence? Sounds like a Zombie Apocalypse to me.

Seeking old sci-fi story about artificial life—where artificial humans are cloned from war heroes to become soldiers, and one officer leading them discovers their attitudes about ‘born’ humans

I am completely in favour of such advances. Why not? people seem to carry a fear of a future ruled by artificial life, which is largely driven by science fiction movies. I would like to see endangered animals, and even humans cloned too.

They haven’t created artificial life, they have just induced artificial speciation. Call me when they dump some cytosine and guanine, etc in a tube and shake it up and they get something with a membrane and a nucleus.

Next thing you know we will be able to buy artificial life in the Jiffy mix section of the grocery store. Just add water…oh, wait, that’s been done with sea monkeys way back when.

Of course they were very disappointing life forms, not at all like the pictures. lolol

@Coloma Jiffy has had this technology for 35 years now! The mutant corn muffin mix is the bomb!

It’s been open since Darwin.You can’t stop knowledge.

@lucillelucillelucille This is not so much about knowledge or even understanding, it is about purpose and the intentional manipulation of everything Darwinian. We soon could fully control evolution with this type of ability!

@Cruiser-Knowledge doesn’t care about intentions and neither did Pandora.I am typing whilst munching on a tortilla made from genetically engineered corn…and I just injected my genetically engineered insulin.I hope nobody puts the cork back on that bottle ;)

@lucillelucillelucille This is not about new elixers it is about creating new life!! Which only emphasizes my point in that scientists are pure in intent and scientific achievement to a fault, but when something so insanely powerful as creating new life forms is involved, who will be the keeper of such an ability??

@Cruiser-The whole point of this is that once it has left Pandora’s box,no one can control it.No one.

@lucillelucillelucille My point exactly!! Maybe ”“Life is too long”” will be a mantra of the next generation!!

@Cruiser -Your original question was if we had opened the proverbial Pandora’s box,and I responded that it had already been opened long ago.As to Pandora’s box,the moral of the parable is implicit to it consequence.

@lucillelucillelucille I am not used to you nit picking!! You need to get out more!! ;)

@Cruiser-Words mean things,dag-nab-it ;)

” Maybe “Life is too long” will be a mantra for the next generation!! ”

Yeah, and there will be birthday celebrations with tree themes, ‘ooh, it’s his redwood birthday, he’s turning 512 next week. ’

@Coloma LMAO!

It makes one wonder if God shortened the lifespan of humans by altering the genetic code somehow. Remember that before the great flood, people tended to live upwards of 900 years… supposedly.

But the wickedness of man brought about a new judgment:
And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
Genesis 6:3

As legend would have it, our lifespans may have originally been designed to be much longer. There is a rapid decline right after the flood. Many theorize that such an event would have released many new toxins upon the planet, and this may have been cause for further detrimental mutations, thereby shortening our life spans.

But as we are speaking of life span increases by way of genetic alterations, let’s also consider physical changes as well. Again, just before the great flood, giants walked the earth.
“There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
Genesis 6:4

Perhaps we are soon to see giants return, with a little change in the code of course.

BTW… I opened Pandora’s box once.

Now I’m paying her child support.

Oh boy… applying for a job in the future might be kind of tough.

Now Hiring: Northwest Sales Rep
Minimum 325 years experience necessary…

I agree, this isn’t as amazing as it sounds. As far as I know, its just the next step in what scientists were doing, But still, its a milestone that does have some dangerous implications. I think this article lays them out pretty well.

Although this discovery highlights the problem, its the only cause. End result is that we need to figure out how to prevent scientific discoveries from being abused, which itself is a part of figuring out how to protect people in general. I wonder if the solution in the article might not be the best answer: make the information so widely known that when something does happen (which it inevitability will) we have enough people with the knowledge to do something about it. Of course, we would still need to have preventive measures in place.

I have read that mankind has made more ‘progress’ in the last 100 years or so than in the previous 5000.

It really is quite amazing and frightening if you think about it, from the most ‘primitive’ firearms, canons to nuclear weapons that can atomize out planet in seconds.

Quite frankly I am with what Sam Clemens said last century..( haha, ironic really ) ....

” Progress was once a fine thing but it has gone on far too long.”

I think natures design is already perfect and we should leave well enough alone.

Play with fire, prepare to get burned.

@Coloma – S.C.-one of my favorites :))

@lucillelucillelucille

A fine satirist he was :-)
I admit to a partiality as I live not far from some of his stomping grounds.

“I think natures design is already perfect and we should leave well enough alone.”

@Coloma While I can agree to some degree that if things progress too fast we don’t have time to stop and see the consequences, I’m not sure I can agree with this statement.

To some degree, nature is the culmination of essentially random effects, so why would we expect it to be perfect or even close?

Change… (evolution), is part and parcel to natures design. Even nature doesn’t think its design is perfect.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I think you are misinterpreting the use of the word nature. @Coloma is using nature the way people use it when they say “I hate cities, I love nature.” You are using it to mean “anything that is the result of something natural no matter how far removed.” Its a valid interpretation of the word in general, but I think now what @Coloma meant.

It’s perfect because it cannot be any other way, randomness is a moot point.

It’s one thing to graft a pear tree and an apple tree, or create a Labradoodle, the former would never have come into being randomly, the latter perhaps.

The elements in nature would never have combined to create a nuclear bomb and disease has always been a ‘natural’ means of managing populations of anything, from rodents to humans.

Because of our great innovative pull as a species we have already tipped the scales out of whack.

Great, people live longer than ever now due to medical ‘advances’, but, as always, a whole new set of issues arise such as overpopulation, and now, while physical disease is less of a threat, mental illness has skyrocketed over the last handful of decades due to the stress of overcrowding and cut throat survival competition.

When ever the balance of any ‘natural’ population gets skewed it leads to eruptions of violence and killing until the balance is back on track, be it rats or humans.

Now we just have lots of physically healthy nut cases going on random shooting sprees. lol

There are 100’s of examples of mans interventions having negative consequences.

The road to hell….

@Coloma, so, what is your ideal situation? For mankind to go back to hunter-gatherer societies where women were chattle, tribal revenge murders were commonplace, most babies died in childbirth, and few people lived to be 30?

We can learn to live in balance with nature and continue to progress technologically and morally.

@Qingu

No, I am saying nothing of the kind.

Yep, balance..getting harder and harder to strike these days.

Still doesn’t change the fact that we have messed with plenty that has not had positive techno. & moral outcomes.

Hard to argue that nuclear weapons are one area of technology that should never have been explored. Now that the monster is out of the box so to speak, there is no putting the lid back on it.

Einstein expressed regret at the age of nuclear weapons and the Hiroshima tragedy.

A scientific ‘advance’ but hardly a moral compass that anyone of healthy mind and soul would want pointed at them.

Taking pride in helping develop weapons of mass destruction is hardly a moral accomplishment.

One of the best examples of technology gone wrong to never be unoine again.

Okay. But nuclear weapons technology was a logical development from the theory of relativity. Knowledge is power, right? Would you prefer we lived in a pre-1930’s society where people still believed in Newtonian physics?

As we learn more about the world, we are also inevitably going to discover more effective ways to kill each other and destroy the planet. However, the solution is not to say “therefore we should put that knowledge back in the box.”

I’m not saying shelve knowledge Just looking at both sides of the popular mantras… ’ a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’ along with ’ knowledge is power.’

As always, depending on the hands that power falls into for good or evil.

Just sharing my thoughts as a child of the nuclear generation.

Sorry, I disagree, I do think that a lot of our so called ‘progress’ is anything but.

You said it yourself, just finding more effective ways to kill each other and destroy the earth, like a bad B-rated sci-fi flick from the 50’s.

Just my 2 cents…and off I go into the wild blue yonder now…lol