Objectivism, "Trial and Error"...

[EthanTexas]

The question is fairly simple... How, in a minarchist, Objectivist LFC society in which anything goes, as far as business practices and products of the mind, could we be assured that, in the course of the evolution of genetic engineering and such, the world wouldn't become irreparably damaged by a mistake?

For example, the contraceptive corn that has been developed. Whether or not anyone buys it, it is possible that, like other genetically modified crops, even if it's growing, it will eventually end up widespread. There have been many incidences in which organic, non-GMO farmers farming nearby GMO farmers have had GMO crops appear in their fields, one way or another. The problem of genetic pollution and undesirable gene flow is a real issue. Once genes are out there, they can't be reeled back in. The contraceptive corn is just one example of things that could be done with the best intentions, considered rationally, but with which one small mistake could pose a huge existential threat to humanity.

[Peripeteia]

Ethan - The question itself is simple, but the answer to solving any problem is almost always more complicated than the question.

Although I am not an Objectivist myself (I just learned about Oism and Rand only a couple months ago), and I am not a geneticist, my opinion is that until a solution is found, constant vigilance will be required to prevent either a genetic apocalypse or a GATTACA society.

[KendallJ]

The problem of genetic pollution and undesirable gene flow is a real issue.

Ironically, the wiki article that you pointed to is quite ambivalent as to whether it is a real issue.

Your assertion of widespread presence of biomodified plants is only really true for certain modifications, those that have enhanced survival value for the plant over natural plants. This is actually a very small subset of modifications. The example you give of "contraceptive corn" is a prime example of a trait that in and of itself isn't going to take over the world. What survival value to corn does the production of sperm killing antibodies bring? none. As a result a mixing of seeds would not lead to some take over by the contraceptive corn. Even if seeds are mixed, they can be screened for certain traits. Dosage is critical as many health effects might not be seen at low concentrations. This includes the therapeutic effect itself, or allergic reactions to bioactive compounds. So a certain amount of contamination would probably not be an issue.

Genetic modification has been ongoing since Gregor Mendel started modifying pea plants and today we don't have prolific species taking over the world (except by the choice of farmers)

Doomsday predictions like this have been around for decades.

[Nate T.]

If it's just a matter of unavoidable accidents due to limitations of our knowledge, I don't see why having government control of the economy and scientific research would do anything to alleviate the problem. The government wouldn't have any extra knowledge pertinent to the situation, so they would probably just ban any research or technology they consider might be dangerous.

Of course in the best case scenario they would decide what constitutes "dangerous research" based on choosing scientists (by whim, seniority, or common political ideology) to advise them, by listening to the screeching of the loudest activists on the front steps of congress, or because they feel it would make them look better in the eyes of their constituents who believe in an imaginary deity. It hardly inspires confidence.

[2046]

in which anything goes, as far as business practices and products of the mind

No, anything goes under whim-worship / anarchism. In a LFC society a government exists to protect rights.

it will eventually end up widespread.

Only if property rights are violated. The right to property is not the privilege to damage or pollute the property of others.

There have been many incidences in which organic, non-GMO farmers farming nearby GMO farmers have had GMO crops appear in their fields, one way or another.

Then they should be able to sue for damages in a court of law. Things don't just happen "one way or another" for the hell of it. If you want to do XYZ to your crops in your property that shouldn't effect me at all. The second XYZ crosses over into my property, you have committed vandalism. The only solution to this is Capitalism. All property should be privately owned and if objectively provable damage occurs as a consequence of your neighbor's action, then you have a right to sue for those damages. This can only occur if property rights are protected by law.

[Jake_Ellison]

The question is fairly simple... How, in a minarchist, Objectivist LFC society in which anything goes,

New record.I stopped reading here because your premise is false. You don't know what minarchist means, or you don't know what everything goes means. Which is it?

[EthanTexas]

Ironically, the wiki article that you pointed to is quite ambivalent as to whether it is a real issue.

Your assertion of widespread presence of biomodified plants is only really true for certain modifications, those that have enhanced survival value for the plant over natural plants. This is actually a very small subset of modifications. The example you give of "contraceptive corn" is a prime example of a trait that in and of itself isn't going to take over the world. What survival value to corn does the production of sperm killing antibodies bring? none. As a result a mixing of seeds would not lead to some take over by the contraceptive corn. Even if seeds are mixed, they can be screened for certain traits. Dosage is critical as many health effects might not be seen at low concentrations. This includes the therapeutic effect itself, or allergic reactions to bioactive compounds. So a certain amount of contamination would probably not be an issue.

Genetic modification has been ongoing since Gregor Mendel started modifying pea plants and today we don't have prolific species taking over the world (except by the choice of farmers)

Doomsday predictions like this have been around for decades.

Let's assume that it is an issue.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it would be a problem if the genetically-modified plant that has x hazardous effect on humans would only become widespread if the trait also conferred a survival advantage on the plant... but all that is necessary for a mutant strain to proliferate is if it doesn't harm the survival of the plant. It might not be rapid, but eventually, the mutation would spread.

And genetic engineering in the sense of selective breeding (a la Mendel) is quite different than modern gene-splicing and recombination.

If it's just a matter of unavoidable accidents due to limitations of our knowledge, I don't see why having government control of the economy and scientific research would do anything to alleviate the problem. The government wouldn't have any extra knowledge pertinent to the situation, so they would probably just ban any research or technology they consider might be dangerous.

Of course in the best case scenario they would decide what constitutes "dangerous research" based on choosing scientists (by whim, seniority, or common political ideology) to advise them, by listening to the screeching of the loudest activists on the front steps of congress, or because they feel it would make them look better in the eyes of their constituents who believe in an imaginary deity. It hardly inspires confidence.

I'm not suggesting that the government control the economy and scientific research. I just want to know how this would be addressed in an LFC society, because it is a potentially very large problem.

No, anything goes under whim-worship / anarchism. In a LFC society a government exists to protect rights.

Only if property rights are violated. The right to property is not the privilege to damage or pollute the property of others.

Then they should be able to sue for damages in a court of law. Things don't just happen "one way or another" for the hell of it. If you want to do XYZ to your crops in your property that shouldn't effect me at all. The second XYZ crosses over into my property, you have committed vandalism. The only solution to this is Capitalism. All property should be privately owned and if objectively provable damage occurs as a consequence of your neighbor's action, then you have a right to sue for those damages. This can only occur if property rights are protected by law.

I said anything goes as far as business and products of the mind, which is more or less a definition of laissez-faire capitalism. That's not a literal, anarchistic "anything goes".

The deterrent is Capitalism, but once the damage is done, it's done. By the time a suit is filed, the dangerous gene may be out there... after all, a plant's function is to grow and multiply, and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fully ensure that the "genetic vandalism" could fully be righted.

Well, in the US, at least, the issue of GMO crops crossing over into non-GMO, organic farms is a big deal. Farmers have sued, and it hasn't gone well. They should be able to sue, but they can't. Monsanto and the like are a big force here.

New record.I stopped reading here because your premise is false. You don't know what minarchist means, or you don't know what everything goes means. Which is it?

It's neither, and your snarkiness is unnecessary. I thought it would have been understood when I was specifying minarchism and Objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism that literally anything goes was not what was intended. If literally anything goes, it's not really a society, is it?

Edited June 26, 2009 by EthanTexas

[2046]

The deterrent is Capitalism, but once the damage is done, it's done.

If you're going to keep coming up with "everything goes to hell and there's nothing you can do about it and we all die" sci-fi scenarios, then there's really nothing any society or any one person can do about it no matter what economic system you live under.

If you want to protect the environment, buy it and sue polluters for damages. In a free market, you could actually do that, because the government wouldn't be protecting polluters from lawsuits as it does now. Laissez-faire and government privilege are incompatible.

Other than some Star Trek premise, maybe I am misunderstanding your question. "What happens if all my corn gets polluted?" Sue and grow new corn. "What happens if all corn in existence is polluted?" Don't eat corn? "What happens if all the food in the word is polluted and we can't grow any new food and we can't kill any food and we can't genetically engineer any food and the sky goes black, the sun explodes, everyone burns and we all die?" Then we all die I guess?

[KendallJ]

Let's assume that it is an issue.

Let's not until you've made a case for it. That's the whole point. One does not posit arbitrary assertions for the sake of issuing doomsday predictions. The assumption quite misunderstands natural selection.

I wouldn't necessarily say that it would be a problem if the genetically-modified plant that has x hazardous effect on humans would only become widespread if the trait also conferred a survival advantage on the plant... but all that is necessary for a mutant strain to proliferate is if it doesn't harm the survival of the plant. It might not be rapid, but eventually, the mutation would spread.

And genetic engineering in the sense of selective breeding (a la Mendel) is quite different than modern gene-splicing and recombination.

actually, it's not that different.

But let's be clear. If a gene confers no survival benefit to a species and it confers no survival cost, then it would mutate away from itself over time. Genes that are neutral to the survival of a species get jumbled up over time. It is the selective pressure on those that matter in some way that keeps them the way they are. "Spread" they would not. Exist as a varietal, maybe. Most likely you'd see genetic drift away from the specific mutation.

Again, this is a very low fraction of mutations that would both be dangerous and confer survival benefits to the species. Take your "contraceptive corn." Any mutation that causes a species to manufacture antibodies which it does not need incurs a survival cost. I would posit if anything its survival value is quite low. As a result it would not spread.

If you're concerned about a mutation that is genetically induced that is acutely poisonous to man, well, I think man would be hard pressed to induce a mutation that is more toxic than most of the ones that exist naturally. 99% of all toxins known are natural compounds created by some genetic codes. Yet we don't have these toxic species proliferating themselves all over the planet. We don't call these plants and animals an issue or a threat.

Edited June 26, 2009 by KendallJ

[Jake_Ellison]

It's neither, and your snarkiness is unnecessary. I thought it would have been understood when I was specifying minarchism and Objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism that literally anything goes was not what was intended. If literally anything goes, it's not really a society, is it?

If you know better, and still posting nonsense, my snarkiness is all the more the appropriate response. Why did you write anything goes, if you didn't mean anything goes?

The reason why Objectivism isn't "trial and error" is precisely because it is based on thought, not guesswork and approximations, like saying that in LFC anything goes.

Well, in the US, at least, the issue of GMO crops crossing over into non-GMO, organic farms is a big deal. Farmers have sued, and it hasn't gone well. They should be able to sue, but they can't. Monsanto and the like are a big force here.

They should be able to sue for what? Suing isn't going well, because they have not shown how GM crops are dangerous, or in any way whatsoever worse than non-GM crops.

The expectation that GM growers are supposed to shield non-GM farms from perfectly safe spores carried by the wind is absurd. If some people wish to keep their crops "pure" for irrational reasons, let them shield their own fields. Can you imagine a GM company suing a non-GM company for the same offense, except this time with non-GM crops crossing into the GM fields, carried by wind or insects?

If GM crops were proven to be dangerous, they could sue just fine.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[AmoProbos]

I am brand new to this forum, so kindly forgive me if I am saying something that has already been said, but it seems that this is an extremely specific worst-case scenario that could harm any society, Objectivist or otherwise. I don't feel that it is philosophy's job to protect us from genetically modified corn.

[Grames]

We don't have an Objectivist inspired LFC society now and likely won't have one for decades, yet the contraceptive corn has already been developed.

Just what is the point of this thread?

[Nate T.]

I'm not suggesting that the government control the economy and scientific research. I just want to know how this would be addressed in an LFC society, because it is a potentially very large problem.

How could such a problem be addressed in any society? If it's really an unavoidable problem that no one can do anything about until after the fact, no one can act to stop it, by hypothesis.

[Zip]

How could such a problem be addressed in any society? If it's really an unavoidable problem that no one can do anything about until after the fact, no one can act to stop it, by hypothesis.

So you are saying that we humans are evil genius enough to create this genetic nightmare but we could not hope to be smart enough to fix the problem?

Haven't people said that about... The Hadron Collider, Nuclear power, nanotechnology, CFC's, CO2 from automobiles...

[Nate T.]

So you are saying that we humans are evil genius enough to create this genetic nightmare but we could not hope to be smart enough to fix the problem?

Not really, no-- it stands to reason that we would be able to figure out a way to reverse such damage if we have the technical ability to cause it in the first place. I was just curious about why the OP thinks that such a thing would only be a problem under laissez-faire as opposed to some other system.

[Maximus]

I would be curious as to why as well. Would a Communist nation not be as likely to create a virus that turns us all into zombies?

[D'kian]

I would be curious as to why as well. Would a Communist nation not be as likely to create a virus that turns us all into zombies?

Would that they could.

I think people buy into the Hollywwod myth of the evil corporation. Anyone who's ever run a business or worked at a business or seen someone who runs a business, knows that there is very little time for anything other than running the business. That's to say Jack Welch had his hands full running GE turning out the products GE does, and woulnd't have had time to hollow out a volcano and set up a lab there to destroy or take over the world.

So if we're speaking more in terms of accidentally destroying the world or humanity, well, nothing is that powerful.

Conceivably a biotech firm could create a deadly, deadly virus that is very contagious and easy to catch, which would survive in sunlight and open air handily, and which would incubate long enough for precautions to be useless. coneivably. But why would they want to? Viruses are used as a vector for gene therapy. As such you dont' want them to be either deadly or contagious. quite the contrary, you want it to be harmless, incapable of reproduction and fragile.

As for an agricultural catastrophe, that's even less likely. All GM crops are meant to be better for people than their natural counterparts. So if we accidentally release a wheat that resists drought and it replaces every last other whaet variety in existence, then we'd ahve drought resistant wheat all over, including whatever wild wheat may exist. What's so abd about that?

I suggest learning the basics of biotech before worrying about it.

A deadly virs or faulty crop is more of a weapon. as far as I know no nation has ever made us of biological weapons. Sensibly so, they are not battlefield weapons, many are easily defended agaisnt (there are vaccines for smallpox and anthrax, the two most common bioweapons) and are very expensive to produce and deliver.

A terorist group could use them. They would be good against large populations. But a virus is not somethign you can just produce in improvised facilities. I'd worry, a little, that Pakistan may have a store of bioweapons that Al Qaida could get its hands on. But even so they'd likely be anthrax, which can be treated with antibiotics, or smallposx, for which there is a vaccine.

[Nate T.]

I would be curious as to why as well. Would a Communist nation not be as likely to create a virus that turns us all into zombies?

Indeed. And even if they didn't do it intentionally, seems to me you'd get the best, quickest solution to the problem under a system where freedom is maximized, not where everyone is shackled by the state.

[Peripeteia]

I would be curious as to why as well. Would a Communist nation not be as likely to create a virus that turns us all into zombies?

Ha!! In the ficticious "Zombie Survival Guide" by Max Brooks (who also wrote "World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War", an engrossing book with much deeper thought put into it than one would expect from a zombie-genre book) he claims that the Soviet Union actually did try to build a 'platoon' of zombies.

In WWZ, the virus that turns people into zombies spread from China into the rest of the world. When it first spreads, many governments and citizens ignored it, claiming it was a hoax, or it was merely a flu or rabies outbreak. Some people manage to profit off of it for a while. As a result of their inaction, lack of cooperation, and short-sightedness, billions of people die, and humanity is nearly wiped out before a plan is formed to reclaim the globe.

To tie it in with the genetic topic, it seems to me that humanity as a whole will need constant vigilance to prevent disaster, no matter the government. However, it should be noted that societies with a free press are always able to gain and transmit information faster than oppressive reigemes.

(An interesting note - in the aftermath of WWZ, China threw off their Communists, became a republic, and were able to rid themselves of the plague, while North Korea has seemingly vanished, with no contact with anyone outside their borders in over a decade. They are believed to be hiding underground).

Edited June 26, 2009 by Peripeteia

[EthanTexas]

They should be able to sue for what? Suing isn't going well, because they have not shown how GM crops are dangerous, or in any way whatsoever worse than non-GM crops.

The expectation that GM growers are supposed to shield non-GM farms from perfectly safe spores carried by the wind is absurd. If some people wish to keep their crops "pure" for irrational reasons, let them shield their own fields. Can you imagine a GM company suing a non-GM company for the same offense, except this time with non-GM crops crossing into the GM fields, carried by wind or insects?

If GM crops were proven to be dangerous, they could sue just fine.

There's quite a lot of debate over GMO. There have been cases of allergic reactions due to the insertion of one gene, from something that one is allergic to, to another organism, that one is not allergic to in its non-GMO form. If someone's market-base consists of people who are interested in buying non-GMO, and GMO starts getting in your fields, you have a problem.

I am brand new to this forum, so kindly forgive me if I am saying something that has already been said, but it seems that this is an extremely specific worst-case scenario that could harm any society, Objectivist or otherwise. I don't feel that it is philosophy's job to protect us from genetically modified corn.

It's a question of whether or not humans are likely to destroy themselves. It's not extremely specific; I am merely using one specific example of a genetically modified plant that could pose serious problems if allowed into the wild.

We don't have an Objectivist inspired LFC society now and likely won't have one for decades, yet the contraceptive corn has already been developed.

Just what is the point of this thread?

Whether or not humanity can be trusted to not destroy itself if given a potentially unlimited (Is it safe for me to say "unlimited"?) capacity to engineer organisms.

So you are saying that we humans are evil genius enough to create this genetic nightmare but we could not hope to be smart enough to fix the problem?

Haven't people said that about... The Hadron Collider, Nuclear power, nanotechnology, CFC's, CO2 from automobiles...

Nuclear power gave us Chernobyl, CFC's gave us a hole in the ozone layer. The LHC hasn't done enough of anything to be a real threat, and it's pretty well-estimated that it won't do anything. Nanotechnology's a big question-mark. CO2 has been implicated (probably falsely, but that's a different story) in global warming. While none of these things are world-ending, it's true that if we had twenty Chernobyls, things would be terrible, or several more holes in the ozone layer, and massive release of carbon dioxide probably isn't very good either.

Would that they could.

I think people buy into the Hollywwod myth of the evil corporation. Anyone who's ever run a business or worked at a business or seen someone who runs a business, knows that there is very little time for anything other than running the business. That's to say Jack Welch had his hands full running GE turning out the products GE does, and woulnd't have had time to hollow out a volcano and set up a lab there to destroy or take over the world.

So if we're speaking more in terms of accidentally destroying the world or humanity, well, nothing is that powerful.

Conceivably a biotech firm could create a deadly, deadly virus that is very contagious and easy to catch, which would survive in sunlight and open air handily, and which would incubate long enough for precautions to be useless. coneivably. But why would they want to? Viruses are used as a vector for gene therapy. As such you dont' want them to be either deadly or contagious. quite the contrary, you want it to be harmless, incapable of reproduction and fragile.

As for an agricultural catastrophe, that's even less likely. All GM crops are meant to be better for people than their natural counterparts. So if we accidentally release a wheat that resists drought and it replaces every last other whaet variety in existence, then we'd ahve drought resistant wheat all over, including whatever wild wheat may exist. What's so abd about that?

I suggest learning the basics of biotech before worrying about it.

A deadly virs or faulty crop is more of a weapon. as far as I know no nation has ever made us of biological weapons. Sensibly so, they are not battlefield weapons, many are easily defended agaisnt (there are vaccines for smallpox and anthrax, the two most common bioweapons) and are very expensive to produce and deliver.

A terorist group could use them. They would be good against large populations. But a virus is not somethign you can just produce in improvised facilities. I'd worry, a little, that Pakistan may have a store of bioweapons that Al Qaida could get its hands on. But even so they'd likely be anthrax, which can be treated with antibiotics, or smallposx, for which there is a vaccine.

The whole "evil corporation" myth, at least as far as corporations doing things that aren't in the best interest of the consumer, and may really be harmful to the public at large, in secrecy, for the sake of profit, isn't really a myth. Refer to Enron and Monsanto.

Indeed, all GM crops are meant to be better than their natural counterparts... but does that mean that they are, actually, in every way, better? Take drought-resistant wheat, as you said. Suppose it gets out, and it does replace every species of other wheat in the world. Then, any number of things could happen. What if there's a problem with the genetic modification that causes the wheat to produce some chemical toxic to a certain keystone animal, and that animal dies out, or dies in mass numbers, causing ecological damage. There's also the possibility that, if there's no variety, a single plague could be catastrophic. And then there'd be hardly any wheat. I would imagine that it would be very, very difficult for an organism to be engineered so that it's beneficial to humans but also does not present any potential for damage to the environment. What would we end up having? A world where exist only a few genetically modified, human-friendly versions of various plants and animals where hundreds of years ago there were thousands upon thousands?

I'm wondering if humans genetically engineering whatever suits us the best won't eventually have catastrophic effects on the planet. It's a safety concern.

[nanite1018]

Indeed, all GM crops are meant to be better than their natural counterparts... but does that mean that they are, actually, in every way, better? Take drought-resistant wheat, as you said. Suppose it gets out, and it does replace every species of other wheat in the world. Then, any number of things could happen. What if there's a problem with the genetic modification that causes the wheat to produce some chemical toxic to a certain keystone animal, and that animal dies out, or dies in mass numbers, causing ecological damage. There's also the possibility that, if there's no variety, a single plague could be catastrophic. And then there'd be hardly any wheat. I would imagine that it would be very, very difficult for an organism to be engineered so that it's beneficial to humans but also does not present any potential for damage to the environment. What would we end up having? A world where exist only a few genetically modified, human-friendly versions of various plants and animals where hundreds of years ago there were thousands upon thousands?

I'm wondering if humans genetically engineering whatever suits us the best won't eventually have catastrophic effects on the planet. It's a safety concern.

Well if your hypothetical situation were to come to pass someone would come out with new strands of wheat and start selling them, and clone the animal, create a bacterial strain that eats the chemical but can only survive for a limited time, etc. In fact, that'd probably be a booming industry, just as I think the environmental biotech industry will be booming in 20 years (bacteria to clean up pollution, algae to trap CO2, etc.).

I'm reminded of a remark by someone in a review of one of Stephen Baxter's (a hard science fiction writer) books: "If technology creates a problem, then throw more technology at the problem." That's my position on all "science gone wrong" disaster scenarios.

[Jake_Ellison]

There's quite a lot of debate over GMO. There have been cases of allergic reactions due to the insertion of one gene, from something that one is allergic to, to another organism, that one is not allergic to in its non-GMO form. If someone's market-base consists of people who are interested in buying non-GMO, and GMO starts getting in your fields, you have a problem.

You have a far greater problem the other way around. Non GM foods, in general, are more dangerous than GM foods.

Why would legal standards favor non GM foods then, and protect nonGM growers? If a GM researcher or grower wants his crops uncontaminated, it is his job to protect them from the wind and insects. Why would it also be his job to protect nonGM crops?

Indeed, all GM crops are meant to be better than their natural counterparts... but does that mean that they are, actually, in every way, better?

Is that the question? Or is the question: How do we decide what's better? Do we let individuals use their rational minds to decide what products they wish to purchase, and let the overall market, influenced by individual consumers, decide what is produced, or do we let the state make those decisions for everyone, because they just know better?

If you look at the history, the latter did not work out so well.

Take drought-resistant wheat, as you said. Suppose it gets out, and it does replace every species of other wheat in the world.

I guess I'll just have to keep an ounce of regular grain in a bag, in my basement next to the old junk I keep forgetting to throw out. Unless you can suppose a way the GM wheat's gonna sneak into my basement and replace that ounce of regular wheat, you can stop supposing that every species of other wheat will go extinct. There's nothing easier than keeping species of wheat from going extinct.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Juxtys]

Same was thought about vaccinations, but they saved millions of lives!

[AllMenAreIslands]

Nuclear power gave us Chernobyl, CFC's gave us a hole in the ozone layer.

Are you an idiot or just wilfully blind & ignorant? Check your facts before you post garbage.

[KendallJ]

It's a question of whether or not humans are likely to destroy themselves. It's not extremely specific; I am merely using one specific example of a genetically modified plant that could pose serious problems if allowed into the wild.

An example which is extremely flawed in it's premise as I pointed out.