Craig Venter creates synthetic life form

Source and video

I found this astounding.
At one side, there's the whole ethical thing, and I don't think we should be playing God
But on the other side, just think of the potential benefits. It seems like a sci fi movie (I actually thought of FFXIII and the Fal Cie)
And then there's also the repercussions they talked about, it being used as a weapon or it affecting the environment.
But still, this is a big step.

 

People who think we shouldn't do this because it could be used as a weapon should throw away most of their modern appliances and belongings. Virtually every modern advance has a military application, no matter how novel. That moots that point.

As for the playing god argument, we play god all the time. Even the cultivation and selective breeding of crops and animals is technically playing god.

I really don't see where the problem with this is =/ Unless of course it gets in the wrong hands, but that is always a danger. Just look at electricity and nuclear fission. As well as mass production and the invention of steel. Neither World War would have been possible on the scale they were without any of those inventions.

 

But we're talking about life. Living, breathing, MRS NERG life here. Not metal that can be welded together. The applications of this go far beyond anything we've ever scoped before. If we can design life, then what? We can make a 'perfect' human. One with great physical ability or intelligence, someone who can numb pains from bullets or shrapnel, or be shaped to look 'appealing' to a wide audience, or even a merciless killer. Essentially we could have the perfect weapon.
It's like the invention of the scythe, originally it was used for harvesting crops, but eveolved into a weapon of mass carnage. Good intentions doesn't stop the misuse of something.

I don't like any of the possible outcomes at all. Life should be left to Mother Nature, the unbiased one, and not the emotionally charged humans.
Quality of life is supposed to be the highest it has ever been in recent years, why do we need to fix what is not broken?

 

The analogy goes far deeper. Like a machine, life doesn't function unless all the pieces fit exactly. DNA is, ironically, exactly like welding pieces of metal together. The different properties contribute to the whole and end result.

I'd just like to point out that we have the exact same situation with computers. If these things ever become self-aware, we're all screwed. Things have the potential to go wrong, but that's what makes human learn and progress. We've been altering and playing with DNA for YEARS now, hence why we no longer need Pig Insulin for the diabetic, the method of placing said DNA into bacteria has been done for just as long if not longer.

What, not even giving amputees new organic limbs? Giving sight to the blind? Being able to pretty much solve any organ failure problems, or any of the implications for modern medicine? No offense, but you're looking at this awfully pessimistically. Not that you don't have a valid point, I'm just saying.

Personally, I find this a rather exciting discovery. Sure, there are many moral and ethical implications, but like I mentioned, this has the possibility to create the worlds very best Antibodies, and by extension, wipe out illness/disease. Yes, I'm probably looking too far into the future, but it is a very real possibilty. This is not an easy issue socially, ethically or politically, so to say the least, I'll be curious about how this pans out.

 

this sounds really amazing...but it sounds like they are just performing regular old gene splicing...more then creating something entirely new...thats what i can't wait for...

(on another note...does anyone else sense a real world application of the sigma virus from megaman X =P)

 

Your'e thinking purely like a scientist. It is not the difficulty, or the cost, or the amount of energy it will take, but the actual effects of it in real life. We're presuming that if we created this life it will simply obey us, life is not a slave to another life. Not without alot of resistance. For example, bearing a human life and caring for it, that does not make it ours, we do not own it since it has rights of its own. Why would what we create not do the same?

I know that, and I don't advocate AI or human cloning. Not if the said being created is experimented on or segregated into a seperate community, or basically any violation is performed without the said consent of that being. I feel the same for extr-terrestial life forms, whether we find them or they find us, i'd want a fair and even agreement between the two life forms.
The thing is we are getting closer to the actual cloning of humans or creation of AIs, but many only think about how to exploit the situations and not the fact these beings may have a free-will of their own. And if it does, what do we do? Cage it? Violate it? That is what I fear humanity will do.

There was a reason we were not born with the natural ability to shape life the way we want it to go. We were, and still are not, ready for the possible repurcussions it could lead to us and the wider world.
And I don't dislike the ability to help people with a disabiltiy. But it's an easy way out. I know a number of disable people who are wiser and happier learning life over agian with a disability, it's led them to develop better as people. BUt if we can instantly grow an arm back, won't people simply not care about not harming themselves? Will it allow heavy drinkers to just get a new liver when they want? or heavy smokers new lungs?
We, as a species, do not learn our lessons by simply given a replacement bottle, when we cry and want another. We learn to grip our teeth and take the pain. And afterwards we appreciate the life we have. I just don't like humans thinking their invincible when really we are always int he presence of danger.

I don't know how many times i've said it on this forum before how meaningless and pointless the eradication of disease actually is.
Basically, you can't wipe out disease, each time you commit genoicde to one of them, a new, more powerful one comes along soon after causing greater deaths. Illnesses are a way to keep the population in check. Without disease humanity would have run over the planet centuries ago, stripping away the natural resources, making a number of other species extinct in the process, and either causing mass faminine or war. As much as we hate death, it is natural and needed for not only us but the rest of the world to live.

 

The cell phone should have never been invented. The prospect of it being abused by organized crime syndicates would be horrifying! I mean...They can just, like, call each other to warn members to make a quick escape. It's way too dangerous to tamper with such advanced technology.
...
...
...
...
See my point?

 

This is very interesting. It represents very amazing steps. Being able to make a vaccine from scratch instead of having to make it from something else could lead to healing many diseases.
But honestly, it's a pretty small step. I think it's irrational to worry about murderers or warfare coming out of this, if that happens it'd probably outside of our lifetime anyway.

 

I would like to point out that all current plans are for life on the scale of bacteria. Bacteria that can process nuclear and dangerous waste, clear oil spills, produce fuels etc.

Also, @Peace-and-War, you sound like the kind of person who refuses to leave their house because they might get hit by a bus. Even that's a kind of analogous, there are lots of amazing things you can do outside your house but bad things can still happen no matter your intention. Doesn't mean you stop going outside.

And yes, as Styx re-iterated, you can through away pretty much all modern technology. I'm sure most inventions have been or are currently being misused.

 

However, this life is not human. It's not anything we've ever seen before. As to whether it "obey's" us or not, you're taking the assumption that this new form of life is in any way sentient, something which I have not seen any evidence of. I may sound cold in saying this, but there's no "if" in the matter. We can simply genetically engineer it towards doing what we wish for it to do as part of it's natural processes.

People created this life form, people are the sole reason it exists. If it was not our ability to create this that... well, created it, how does it exist?

Maybe, but we won't become ready by not advancing with this.

Then if they wish to remain a they are, they are fully entitled to, and have my deepest respect. I'm not suggesting that we force this kind of stuff onto people. People can refuse treatment nowadays, so it's hardly forced therapy. I'll admit, I probably picked a bad example in this case, in the forms of missing limbs.

I quite agree. I was merely stating a possibility. All I was doing was stating possibilities. However, in the case of terminal illnesses, I stand by my point.

 

What I'm trying to point out to everyone is the fact that this is LIFE we are experimenting with. I don't know about others, but I truly respect and cherish it, since it is such a fragile blessing. Life to me is everything positive I feel about myself, the happiness and joy that is experienced. As such I don't think it's right to try and prod and poke at it like we have the jurisdiction to do so. Just because we have the technology to design life, doesn't mean we can justify our use of it.
This is nothing like creating medicine, inventing transportation or manufacturing a device to make our lives easier. Mobiles, guns, computer chips, guitars, pens, and the such are inanimate objects, they do not have the ability to adapt or evolve. That is what life does and has done. From bacteria, to ants, to dogs, and then to humans, we will not stop to see what we will able able to create next. Bacteria is merely the first step, human ambition will want to keep this type of procedure for decades until it is improved on. But at what cost? The ends do not justify the means.

p.s
as a side note to me sounding like I am agorophobic, it's a common fact that anything from a peapod to a skyscraper can be used a weapon of leathality. There are a considreable number of martial arts schools that now teach people how to use at-hand items in order to knock-out or kill people who pose a threat. But I don't think about such things everyone time I walk down the street. Because I don't know whether this is my only life i'll be able to experience or not, but I will live it without constant worry. Fear does not control me, I control it.

 

You may not like the analogy with inanimate objects, but the principle is largely the same. You release a new groundbreaking element with both benefits and risks. Synthetic life form or not, this is not new.
But that risking, that "gambling" if you will, is the very foundation of science, of engineering and invention. Of creativity. It shouldn't hold us back, like it hasn't held us back many times in the past.

I'd go as far as to say that mankind could use even more ambition. But ambition in its full package: the will to control as well as the will to create. Making a low-risk discovery depends on the balance of these two.
We have erred in the past, and we have encountered nasty surprises (the radiation impact of cell phones to name one, or the health effects of smoking).

Try to get ahead of ourselves is a human flaw. But rather than letting this flaw lead to inactivity, it should now urge us to think before we act, keeping the past and the future in mind. To learn to control what we're dealing with.
I'm all for creating synthetic life forms, if they mind their steps when they tread on where the ice is thinnest.

 

So, what you're saying is, we should leave life to Mother Nature alone? No more medicine, organ transplants, pacemakers, nothing? Because it's LIFE we're tampering with? Would you rather experiment a little with life to make things better, or have everyone die of a simple cold?

 

For jeez... I've already noted my views on illnesses in this thread, as a way to keep life from over populating restricted space, so please read it before jumping to conclusion people have already made.

And when I say that we should leave Mother Nature to Life, i'm talking about how we use technology to splice our DNA in order to create specific human characteristics. I mean in the sense of dramatically altering our evolution patterns, would mean our adaptability as a species would most likely be affected negatively with constant altering of our immunosuppresors, physiqual parameters, and so on becasue our judgement tells us to. But we are biased judgers, long term effects of altering our species characteristics may be highly hazardous for both short term and long term life expectancy, physiology and psychology

 

All you keep saying is that we shouldn't do this because of what MIGHT go wrong. It has already pointed out that most other technological advances (including fire and the wheel come to think of it) have gone wrong in some sense of their functions being misused. I don't see how this is any different.