DOCSLIB.ORG

De-Extinction in a Crisis Discipline C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
De-Extinction in a Crisis Discipline C opinions, perspectives & reviews ISSN 1948-6596 opinion De-extinction in a crisis discipline C. Josh Donlan Advanced Conservation Strategies, Midway, UT 84049 USA & Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Bi- ology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA. [email protected] De-extinction, the idea of resurrecting extinct spe- one of hundreds of technological innovations that cies using genetic engineering, has recently caught will happen in the coming decades. Most of them the attention of both the scientific community and will bring new ethical challenges, and de- the wider public (Kumar 2012, Sherkow and extinction may prove to be mild compared to Greely 2013, Zimmer 2013). A diverse group of other disruptive innovations coming our way. The scientists and practitioners, led by long-time envi- pace of de-extinction progress will largely depend ronmental proponent Stewart Brand, has been on the resources its proponents are able to at- busy articulating a framework for de-extinction tract. and exploring a roadmap forward, including iden- Like all intervention-based strategies, there tifying the many challenges that lie ahead. De- will be risks, costs and benefits to de-extinction. In extinction may mean different things to different my view, the potential benefits are profound, people. The Long Now Foundation defines it as while the potential costs and risks are real, but using “genetic technology and DNA from museum not novel. The risks are similar to other restora- specimens or fossils to revive species that have tion-based approaches to biodiversity conserva- gone totally extinct”1. Related discussions are also tion, such as the potential for disease transmis- underway around using genetic engineering to sion and unexpected species interactions (Donlan assist populations in adapting to climate change et al. 2006, Sherkow and Greely 2013). These are and other extinction drivers (Thomas et al. 2013). familiar issues to conservation science, and the De-extinction has sparked a lively debate on biodi- abilities to quantify and successfully mitigate versity conservation strategies, one with plenty of these risks are improving at a steady pace. For detractors who give reasons why it is a bad idea or example, our ability to manage certain invasive that it will never deliver on its promise. species, particularly mammals, has increased dra- There are many unknowns surrounding de- matically over the past two decades. There have extinction. Whether it will happen or not, how- now been over 900 successful invasive vertebrate ever, is likely not to be one of them. It already has, eradications from islands worldwide, including albeit briefly (Folch et al. 2009), and it is likely to from islands larger than 400,000 hectares (Donlan become commonplace—sooner rather than later. 2008, Veitch et al. 2011). Yet there are still obvi- One main reason for this is the rate of technologi- ous limitations in our ability to manage popula- cal innovation, which is currently doubling every tions; those limitations and uncertainty should be decade and accelerating (Kurzwell 2005). Mass a major factor in the initial stages of selecting de- adoption of the radio took 30 years, while the extinction prospects—the current ability to man- World Wide Web required only seven after it was age the taxon. This suggests that vertebrates with introduced in 1991. The power of information slow reproductive rates would make strategic can- technologies is growing even faster, doubling didates. In sum, risk assessment will be a pivotal every year. The cost of sequencing DNA, for exam- factor in the de-extinction process, but the issues ple, is outpacing Moore’s Law2. Using genetic en- involved (e.g. invasiveness, disease transmission, gineering to resurrect extinct species will be just unexpected species interactions) are common 1 http://longnow.org/revive/candidates/revival-criteria/. Last accessed 06 March 2014. 2 Wetterstrand, K.A. (2013) DNA sequencing costs: data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP). Available at: http:// www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts. Last accessed 06 March 2014. frontiers of biogeography 6.1, 2014 — © 2014 the authors; journal compilation © 2014 The International Biogeography Society 25 C. Josh Donlan — De-extinction in a crisis discipline across many biodiversity conservation interven- from more “important” activities. Will the ability tions. to bring back extinct species wipe away people’s Another common criticism of de-extinction concern about protecting species alive today? This is that it would divert attention and resources possibility assumes that conserving species is a away from other biodiversity issues and the major priority for many—although much evidence strategies to address them, such as endangered suggests otherwise (Brook et al. 2003, Sorice et al. species conservation and land-use change 2013). Could de-extinction act as a perverse incen- (Scientific American Editors 2013, Mark 2013). tive and political tool to promote activities that Will de-extinction become the next new “fad” in harm species and the environment? At a mini- biodiversity conservation and shift precious re- mum, the answer is probably yes. But environ- sources away from other strategies (sensu Red- mental policy and conservation strategies are no ford et al. 2013)? This argument can be made for stranger to perverse incentives. The US Endan- any conservation strategy: carbon markets dis- gered Species Act, for example, is fraught with tracting from ecosystem-based approaches, pay- them (Donlan et al. 2013). In many countries, ment for ecosystem services programs distracting strong policies already exist to prevent extinction; from species-based conservation, and working yet species continue to decline. It seems unlikely landscapes distracting from protected-area net- that the ability to de-extinct certain species would works (Redford and Adams 2009, Soulé 2013). drastically change the moral landscape around There is little evidence to support any of these endangered species conservation. Another sce- claims, partly because conservation practitioners nario is also worth considering: rather than acting are notoriously bad at tracking spending and out- as a perverse incentive, could de-extinction be comes (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006, Halpern et used as a strategic policy tool to promote and trig- al. 2006). Similar to research efforts (Brodie 2009), ger conservation actions? If the passenger pigeon how conservation funding is allocated is influ- were resurrected, would there not be a legal case enced by many factors, including those that have for its protection and the designation of critical less to do with science or strategy (e.g. a family habitat under the Endangered Species Act? Moral foundation’s personal interest). Conservation dol- hazard is no stranger to the field of biodiversity lars are often not fungible, and novel initiatives conservation. can generate new funding sources. If successful, While the risks of de-extinction are not de-extinction will become a relatively specialized new, the challenges are substantial. The labora- tool under the larger umbrella of species’ reintro- tory challenges will enjoy the momentum and re- ductions. Thus, one would hope de-extinction will sources of the biomedical and agricultural sectors. become more complementary than competitive Bringing de-extinction into the “wild” will be less within the larger portfolio of conservation strate- fortunate. We are currently better at manipulat- gies. In my view, a significant diversion of re- ing genomes than we are at rewilding landscapes. sources is unlikely because conservation strategies This will have to change if the benefits of de- are not mutually exclusive—a point conservation extinction are to be fully realized. Moving from a scientists tend to overlook. De-extinction work on few individuals to a functioning, viable population the Woolly mammoth, anti-poaching programs for will probably be the limiting step—presenting a forest elephants, and market-based solutions for monumental challenge for conservation biologists. illegal wildlife trade can and should occur concur- Species reintroductions commonly fail, particu- rently. And the funding for those initiatives is larly for captive-born individuals (Jule et al. 2008). likely to come from different sources—from dif- Allee effects—demographic dynamics of small ferent players with different interests across the populations—are more complex than previously diverse environmental sector. appreciated (Hughes 2013, Luque et al. 2013). And A moral hazard argument accompanies the for many species for which de-extinction may be concern of de-extinction acting as a distraction highly desirable, the threats that were responsible frontiers of biogeography 6.1, 2014 — © 2014 the authors; journal compilation © 2014 The International Biogeography Society 26 C. Josh Donlan — De-extinction in a crisis discipline for their extinction still remain (e.g. habitat de- corner of the globe, and technology evolves at an struction and land-use change). Those remaining exponential rate. Yet the majority of those in the threats will limit the utility of de-extinction to a biodiversity conservation sector seem to ignore subset of extinct species, which calls on conserva- public opinion, which is increasingly indifferent to tion biologists to develop a decision framework to environmental issues (Kareiva and Marvier 2012). guide efforts and priorities. Given the asymmetry Public and subsequently political support for bio-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering: Frankenstein Is Still a Myth, but It Should Be Reread Periodically
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 48 Issue 4 Article 2 Summer 1973 Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering: Frankenstein is Still a Myth, but it Should be Reread Periodically George A. Hudock Indiana University - Bloomington Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Genetics and Genomics Commons Recommended Citation Hudock, George A. (1973) "Gene Therapy and Genetic Engineering: Frankenstein is Still a Myth, but it Should be Reread Periodically," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 48 : Iss. 4 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol48/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GENE THERAPY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING: FRANKENSTEIN IS STILL A MYTH, BUT IT SHOULD BE REREAD PERIODICALLY GEORGE A. HUDOCKt Biotechnology and the law are far removed from each other as disciplines of human intellect. Yet the law and my own discipline, genetics, have come together in many courtrooms concerning such matters as paternity, and they will continue to intersect with increasing frequency as the visions of 100 years ago become the reality of today. This article examines the implications of recent research for human genetic therapy and genetic engineering, and suggests some guidelines for legal regulation of genetic technology. The following discussion derives from three premises which I view as basic: (1) that which is currently possible in genetic engineering, and in fact has already been done, is generally underestimated; (2) what may be possible in the near future is quite commonly overesti- mated; (3) regulation of the application of genetic technology is possible and will not be overwhelmingly complicated.
    [Show full text]
  • New Techniques of Genetic Engineering
    March 2016 New techniques of genetic engineering Why EU GMO law must be fully applied to the so-called ‘New Plant Breeding Techniques’ The European Commission is considering whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have been produced through a range of new techniques should be excluded from the European Union’s GMO regulations. Biotechnology companies want to apply these techniques to engineer plants and animals for use in industrial food, biomass and biofuel production. They argue that these new methods to directly modify the genetic make-up of living organisms fall outside the scope of EU GMO regulations. This would mean that there is no risk assessment, labelling and monitoring of GM organisms produced by the new techniques and their derived products. The Commission has announced that it will present a legal analysis on the matter by the end of March 2016. The new GMOs present a real risk to the environment and human health. Legal analysis shows that they are covered by EU GMO law. If they were to escape EU regulations, any potential negative effects on food, feed or environmental safety would go unchecked. European consumers, farmers and breeders would have no way to avoid GMOs. The Commission should leave no doubt that all products of genetic engineering are subject to EU GMO law which requires rigorous risk assessment, detectability and labelling. 1 Which techniques are we talking about? The biotechnology industry and the European Commission use the term ‘New Plant Breeding Techniques’ to refer to a diverse set of genetic
    [Show full text]
  • Drawing the Line: Disability, Genetic Intervention and Bioethics
    laws Article Drawing the Line: Disability, Genetic Intervention and Bioethics Adam Conti Graduate student, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham St., Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia; [email protected] Received: 2 June 2017; Accepted: 10 July 2017; Published: 17 July 2017 Abstract: Meteoric scientific advances in genetic technologies with the potential for human gene editing intervention pose tremendous legal, medical, social, ethical and moral issues for society as a whole. Persons with disabilities in particular have a significant stake in determining how these technologies are governed at the international, domestic and individual levels in the future. However, the law cannot easily keep up with the rate of scientific progression. This paper aims to posit a methodology of reform, based on a core value of human dignity, as the optimal course of action to ensure that the interests of persons with disabilities, other possibly marginalised groups, and the scientific community, are balanced fairly. The paper critically analyses the current law and varying bioethical perspectives to ultimately conclude that a clear principled approach toward open discussion and consensus is of paramount importance to have any chance of devising an effective regulatory regime over human gene editing technology. Keywords: disability; human rights; genetics; gene editing; bioethics; governance; human dignity; eugenics; germline; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The true good is in the different, not the same (Menand 2004). 1. Introduction Popular, professional and scholarly interest in genetics and their influence on human variability, behaviour and development has grown exponentially in recent years. In no small part has this interest been bolstered by mainstream media coverage of large-scale collaborative scientific initiatives like the Human Genome Project, which endeavoured to identify and map the human genome and determine the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up our DNA.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Engineering & Genetically Modified Organisms
    Genetic Engineering & Genetically Modified Organisms: Forming Informed Opinions By Smith, Lisa Scientific Theme(s): Science and Technology *Relationships among science, technology, and society Grade Level(s): 6-8 Lesson Duration: Designed for one 70 minute lesson Overview This lesson provides students an introduction to genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms, and raises student awareness of the potential Bias of availaBle information and the importance of forming informed, defendaBle opinions regarding controversial topics in science. The lesson was designed as an introduction for students to the genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms in preparation for a two-week research project exploring GMO topics, culminating with student presentations giving their opinions on the topics. Objectives Students will: 1. Define the term, ‘Biotechnology’. 2. Understand the difference Between selective Breeding and genetic engineering. 3. Identify different applications of genetic engineering, and recognize that all genetically engineered organisms are genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 4. Recognize Bias in print media, and to Be aware of the need to identify sources. 5. Understand the importance of forming informed, defendaBle opinions. Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) Addressed Science as Inquiry and Process [7] SA2.1 identifying and evaluating the sources used to support scientific statements Science and Technology [7] SE1.1 descriBing how puBlic policy affects the student’s life (e.g., puBlic waste disposal) [7] SE3.1 recognizing the effects of a past scientific discovery, invention, or scientific Breakthrough (e.g., DDT, internal comBustion engine) Required BacKground This lesson builds upon concepts covered in previous lessons on DNA, genes, and heredity. Students should have a solid understanding of the Basics of these concepts, including the idea that DNA is the “Blueprint” of life, that genes are coding regions of DNA, and that traits encoded By genes can Be inherited.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Engineering (3500 Words)
    Genetic Engineering (3500 words) Biology Also known as: biotechnology, gene splicing, recombinant DNA technology Anatomy or system affected: All Specialties and related fields: Alternative medicine, biochemistry, biotechnology, dermatology, embryology, ethics, forensic medicine, genetics, pharmacology, preventive medicine Definition: Genetic engineering, recombinant DNA technology and biotechnology – the buzz words you may have heard often on radio or TV, or read about in featured articles in newspapers or popular magazines. It is a set of techniques that are used to achieve one or more of three goals: to reveal the complex processes of how genes are inherited and expressed, to provide better understanding and effective treatment for various diseases, (particularly genetic disorders) and to generate economic benefits which include improved plants and animals for agriculture, and efficient production of valuable biopharmaceuticals. The characteristics of genetic engineering possess both vast promise and potential threat to human kind. It is an understatement to say that genetic engineering will revolutionize the medicine and agriculture in the 21st future. As this technology unleashes its power to impact our daily life, it will also bring challenges to our ethical system and religious beliefs. Key terms: GENETIC ENGINEERING: the collection of a wide array of techniques that alter the genetic constitution of cells or individuals by selective removal, insertion, or modification of individual genes or gene sets GENE CLONING: the development
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Dilemma of Genetically Modified Foods (Gmos)
    Fordham University Masthead Logo DigitalResearch@Fordham Student Theses 2001-2013 Environmental Studies 2005 The orM al Dilemma of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs) Anamarie Beluch Follow this and additional works at: https://fordham.bepress.com/environ_theses Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Beluch, Anamarie, "The orM al Dilemma of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs)" (2005). Student Theses 2001-2013. 72. https://fordham.bepress.com/environ_theses/72 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies at DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Theses 2001-2013 by an authorized administrator of DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Moral Dilemma of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs) By Anamarie Beluch Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods that are produced from genetically modified organisms (GMO) that have had their DNA altered through genetic engineering. The process of producing a GMO used for genetically modified foods involve taking DNA from one organism, modifying it in a laboratory, and then inserting it into the target organism's genome to produce new and useful genotypes or phenotypes. These techniques are generally known as recombinant DNA technology. In recombinant DNA technology, DNA molecules from different sources are combined in vitro into one molecule to create a new gene. This DNA is then transferred into an organism and causes the expression of modified or novel traits. Such GMOs are generally referred to as transgenic, which means pertaining to or containing a gene or genes from another species. There are other methods of producing a GMO, which include increasing or decreasing the number of copies of a gene already present in the target organism, silencing or removing a particular gene, or modifying the position of a gene within the genome.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Gene Therapy: Ethics and Public Policy*
    HUMAN G E N E T H E R A P Y 2:115-122 (1991) Mary A n n Liebert, Inc., Publishers Human Gene Therapy: Ethics and Public Policy* LEROY W A L T E R S ABSTRACT The first t h r e e h u m a n gene t r a n s f e r / t h e r a p y clinical p r o t o c o l s a r e n o w u n d e r w a y after h a v i n g b e e n s u b j e c t e d t o a n extensive review process b y t h e Recombinant D N A A d v i s o r y Committee (RAC) a n d i t s H u m a n Gene Therapy S u b c o m m i t t e e . T h e "Points t o C o n s i d e r " d o c u m e n t d e v e l o p e d b y t h e R A C established t h e f r a m e w o r k for e v a l u a t i n g genetic i n t e r v e n t i o n protocols. T h i s r e v i e w process is t a k i n g place in a b r o a d e r social c o n t e x t .
    [Show full text]
  • Science of Genetically Engineered Crops (AKA Gmos)
    Science of Genetically Engineered Crops (AKA GMOs) Margaret Smith Plant Breeding & Genetics Cornell University Topics • What is a “GMO”? • How is genetic engineering done? • Where are products from GE varieties found in our food and feed systems? What is a “GMO”? • It depends on who you ask! • Genetically modified organism – Organism = a plant, animal, or microbe – Foods are not organisms, thus not “GMO” – Food products or ingredients might come from a GMO • What is considered “genetically modified”? 2016 US Labeling Act • “Bioengineering” refers to a food: – “That contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant DNA techniques; and – For which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.” UN FAO / WHO Definition “Genetically engineered/modified organisms, and products thereof, are produced through techniques in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” Which are “natural”? • Domestication • Farmer selection of new crops and varieties • Cross breeding • Genetic engineering Techniques that produce “GMO” varieties • Genetic engineering Techniques that produce “GMO” varieties • Genetic engineering • Cell or protoplast fusion? Techniques that produce “GMO” varieties • Genetic engineering • Cell or protoplast fusion? • Gene editing? Techniques that produce “GMO” varieties • Genetic engineering • Cell or protoplast fusion? • Gene editing? • Gene drives? Am I eating foods from genetically engineered crops? What foods contain GE crops? • 60-70% of supermarket foods have ingredients from a GE variety • Products made with soy or corn most obvious • Products with soy or corn derivatives • Limited fresh produce Food for Thought * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ingredient may be made from a genetically-engineered organism The Food Supply GE Crops Non-GE Crops Harvesting Detection Equip.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Organisms Vocabulary Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Gene - a Section of DNA That - the Long, Double-Stranded Codes for a Specific Product
    A Quick Look at Genetically Modified Organisms Vocabulary Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) Gene - a section of DNA that - the long, double-stranded codes for a specific product. helical molecule that contains Genes (and environmental fac- an organism’s genes. tors) determine traits exhibited The “blueprint” or “recipe” for by an organism. an organism. Genetically Modified Transgenic Organism - an Organism (GMO) - an organism organism that has had genes whose DNA has been changed from another species, or syn- in some way. Includes alteration thetic genes, introduced into its by genetic engineering and DNA by genetic engineering. non-genetic engineering meth- Sometimes found in nature, ods. Frequently occur in nature. most created in laboratories. Genetic Engineering - the Mutation - a spontaneous or in- introduction or change of DNA, duced change in an organism’s RNA, or proteins by human DNA. Plant “sports”, like blood manipulation. oranges, are common examples of mutation. Methods Used in Plant Breeding Conventional Breeding Genetic Engineering Cross Pollination Agrobacterium-mediated The natural or artificial Transformation transfer of pollen from one The use of the naturally sexually compatible part- occurring, soil-dwelling ner to another. The oldest bacterium Agrobacterium technique used in plant tumefaciens to transfer breeding. genes into a target plant. Chromosome Doubling Gene Editing Inhibiting proper cell divi- The use of sequence-specific sion to produce cells with enzymes to alter targeted, twice the amount of DNA. non-random sites in the Can be induced by radia- DNA. Allows for precision tion, chemical treatment, or genetic engineering. natural errors in cell division. Mutation Breeding Particle Bombardment The process of exposing “Gene gun” method.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Technology the Promise Of
    The Promise of Molecular Technology Unlocking new sources of molecular diversity to create products that are better, cheaper and more sustainable for all TABLE OF CONTENTS 03 Overview - About Zymergen 05 The Zymergen Approach 09 The Science and Technology to Make the Promise a Reality 15 Market Impact and Opportunities ABOUT ZYMERGEN ABOUT ZYMERGEN Over the past century, industrial progress has not kept pace drive untargeted, genome-wide surveys to discover unknown with the demands of the world. For decades, the materials used in traits. Our software infrastructure lays on top of our cutting- everything from clothing to toothpaste, food sweeteners, fertilizers, edge manufacturing environment, an automated, modular, full- and many other products have been obtained from petroleum. production facility for creating modified microbial strains. In this People have now nearly exhausted the methods for using facility, scientists safely and accurately conduct high throughput petrochemicals and traditional processes to create wholly new (HTP) experiments using automated equipment and workflows. materials. Yet, innovation relies on creating products that are high- Zymergen’s proprietary manufacturing platform and data performance and sustainably-sourced. Zymergen looks to biology infrastructure enable work with a wide range of microbes in a host to produce these new molecules that will make up the materials of agnostic manner. We have proven capabilities with the full range the future. of microbes currently used for industrial production, including Founded in 2013, Zymergen marries the latest innovations in canonical hosts such as S. cerevisiae and E. coli, as well as a range data science, automation, and molecular biology to discover and of yeasts and filamentous fungi, and less commonly engineered engineer new molecular products.
    [Show full text]
  • How Genetic Engineering Differs from Conventional Breeding Hybridization
    GENETIC ENGINEERING IS NOT AN EXTENSION OF CONVENTIONAL PLANT BREEDING; How genetic engineering differs from conventional breeding, hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer by Michael K. Hansen, Ph.D. Research Associate Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union January, 2000 Genetic engineering is not just an extension of conventional breeding. In fact, it differs profoundly. As a general rule, conventional breeding develops new plant varieties by the process of selection, and seeks to achieve expression of genetic material which is already present within a species. (There are exceptions, which include species hybridization, wide crosses and horizontal gene transfer, but they are limited, and do not change the overall conclusion, as discussed later.) Conventional breeding employs processes that occur in nature, such as sexual and asexual reproduction. The product of conventional breeding emphasizes certain characteristics. However these characteristics are not new for the species. The characteristics have been present for millenia within the genetic potential of the species. Genetic engineering works primarily through insertion of genetic material, although gene insertion must also be followed up by selection. This insertion process does not occur in nature. A gene “gun”, a bacterial “truck” or a chemical or electrical treatment inserts the genetic material into the host plant cell and then, with the help of genetic elements in the construct, this genetic material inserts itself into the chromosomes of the host plant. Engineers must also insert a “promoter” gene from a virus as part of the package, to make the inserted gene express itself. This process alone, involving a gene gun or a comparable technique, and a promoter, is profoundly different from conventional breeding, even if the primary goal is only to insert genetic material from the same species.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Future Doesn't Need Us
    WIRED Issue 8.04 - Apr 2000 Why the future doesn't need us. Our most powerful 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech - are threatening to make humans an endangered species. By Bill Joy From the moment I became involved in the creation of new technologies, their ethical dimensions have concerned me, but it was only in the autumn of 1998 that I became anxiously aware of how great are the dangers facing us in the 21st century. I can date the onset of my unease to the day I met Ray Kurzweil, the deservedly famous inventor of the first reading machine for the blind and many other amazing things. Ray and I were both speakers at George Gilder's Telecosm conference, and I encountered him by chance in the bar of the hotel after both our sessions were over. I was sitting with John Searle, a Berkeley philosopher who studies consciousness. While we were talking, Ray approached and a conversation began, the subject of which haunts me to this day. I had missed Ray's talk and the subsequent panel that Ray and John had been on, and they now picked right up where they'd left off, with Ray saying that the rate of improvement of technology was going to accelerate and that we were going to become robots or fuse with robots or something like that, and John countering that this couldn't happen, because the robots couldn't be conscious. While I had heard such talk before, I had always felt sentient robots were in the realm of science fiction.
    [Show full text]