Then they came for the rodents, and I did not speak out because I was not a rodent.
...
Then they came for the me.
I wouldn't be surprised if our gene editing ego trip blows back. Playing god with things we barely understand the impact of.
Doesn't matter - god doesn't either. That's why it is running this experiment :-)
Seriously, since when did anyone ever understood the impact of anything? What the long-term impact of any new development or invention would be? Apart from running the experiment. Unless it is something very specific I don't see how this ever is a valid argument. Had we stayed in the trees we would have to deal with other issues and felt no better.
When the impact was low and localized, and the methods to affect change crude. I.e. for the most part of human history.
Now we have surgical methods to edit genes etc, but combined with the knowledge and understanding of a Wild West quack doctor (and their profit motive).
> Now we have surgical methods to edit genes etc
I refer back to the comment you replied to... in any case., I don't see how understanding is the main point. We actually understand quite a bit, far more important are the incentive systems that often force us to do stuff against what we actually know. I'm pretty sure companies in the past and present that used landscape (rivers etc.) as garbage dumps knew that that wasn't good, so understanding does not seem to help nearly as much as some think.
Today a modified plant or insect can travel all over the globe, take plane rides, and so on...
The "vast distances" were the whole planet and an ever increasing population, even before the explosion in numbers later. See the reports about the impact the Mongols or the plague, both killing large parts of the populations back then, with great impact on the environment. Humans always had a large impact on their environment especially after inventing agriculture.
Last time I checked gene editing, especially on humans, is basically like using a shotgun to blast DNA and praying we didn't break anything of value. [0] We simply don't understand the mid-long term consequences.
Remember when we used lead paint in kindergartens, uranium in lipsticks, asbestos in everything and sprayed unprotected kids with DDT ? That was "science" and "progress" at the time. We thought we knew everything but we didn't. And we're pulling the same shit with gene editing, something that has the potential to change the human gene pool forever, there is no git revert with that, it's not a "move fast and break things" type of situation. (And I'm not even talking about the moral aspect of it).
[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2174149-crispr-gene-edi...
https://www.sciencealert.com/sadly-the-chinese-crispr-babies...
The method is not the important aspect for an ethical consideration, its the subject. Its like saying that a butcher is just a small step away from being a cannibalistic serial killer.
The problem starts once you no longer have "any human" as the subject of ethical considerations but start to define subgroups.
My use of the quote was purely stylistic.