Hacker News Reader

Comment by chillacy | Hacker News Reader

We left the pool of normal species as soon as we started using tools, agriculture, and industry. This is just the next step. Who knows where it'll go, but homo sapiens isn't equipped to be space-faring or even survive on this planet beyond a few billion years.

View on HN

Humans have taken tools and industry to a whole new level, but there's nothing unnatural about that; it doesn't make us an "abnormal" species, whatever that means. But this is something well beyond just "the next step." We're directly and consciously changing our own genetic code. This is also not unnatural, but it represents an existential threat.

> Who knows where it'll go, but homo sapiens isn't equipped to be space-faring or even survive on this planet beyond a few billion years.

So? I don't see how that's an argument for human genetic engineering. If we want to perpetuate life throughout the universe for some reason, we can send probes loaded with microbes, maybe even advanced probes that can incubate more advanced animal and plant species to create an ecosystem. In your scenario, humanity is presented with its extinction through either natural causes or by being the architect of its own destruction. I'd prefer the former.

It's not like these things people have done are exactly safe and side-effect free already. People have:

* Made entire species extinct through hunting and deforestation

* As a side effect of industrialization, dumped enough CO2 to change the climate and will probably keep it up

* Domesticated multiple other species into being dependent on us, from crops to farm animals to dogs

* Started work on AI and machines which might even replace us one day

Genetic modification isn't a one-way street to destruction as much as AI is, or industrialization.

Also regarding perpetuating life: the one thing life has in common is that it perpetuates itself. We'd be a shitty species if we perpetuated machines or microbes instead of ourselves.

We directly and consciously altered our environment, energy consumption, knowledge consumption, mobility, appearance, anatomy, life expectancy etc. etc. But genetics is somehow not cool to touch?

I agree with your larger point, Bill Joy[1] notwithstanding, CRISPR is no more likely to wipe us out than nuclear weapons, driving cars, or any of a dozen 'unnatural' and dangerous things we've been doing for decades. But as rhetorical flourish, I'm not sure I can agree with the idea it will let us survive 'a few billion years.' Are there any species which have existed the few billion years the earth has existed? Multicellular ones? Once the sun boils off all the water on Earth in 3.5B years, presumably there won't be anything surviving here...

1: https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2

I don't think genetic changes alone will allow us to survive earth becoming a wasteland, but it may allow us to better survive travel through deep space in ships and become space faring.

When I visited hawaii, I noticed that there were large trees all growing on one of the oldest islands. Due to erosion, the island will eventually submerge back into the sea, and all those tress will be dead. Those trees don't know it, but their time will be up soon.

I don't know what the future holds, but shying away from technological development means that we as a species are like the trees. At least venturing to other planets would be like if the trees could send seeds across the ocean.

As far as escaping the heat death of the universe, who knows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com