REM@MIT-MC@sri-unix (11/17/82)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC> Tonight's MacNeil/Lehrer report was about recombinant DNA R&D. It gave me an idea for another way lots of ETI could have developed without filling the galaxy. Suppose each society with space technology also has recombinant DNA technology, and suppose each at some point develops a powerful world government which uses recombinant DNA technology to eliminate from its populace the desire to revolt against the government. To prevent wild variations from breeding elsewhere and then coming back in force, the desire to travel away from the central star&planet system is spliced out. Eventually the central government collapses but not before the species is totally devoid of the desire to spread thru the galaxy. Due to the genetic predisposition to following the central government and not revolting, similar central governments develop from time to time and purge the race of mutations and ancient revolt-genes that hadn't been found previously, so over long time the race stays quite pure by our standards. Finally after 10 billion years the star burns out and the race dies, but meanwhile it has lived a long stable life over an appreciable fraction of the age of the Universe. Perhaps when we go out to other stars we'll find many such races on random yellow stars. P.s. the concensus of people interviewed seemed to be that combining human and non-human genes into a hybrid organism is so abhorrent to most people that it ought to be made totally illegal. I don't think it's abhorrent at all. In fact I think making hybrid monkey-humans or dolphin-humans etc. might be an interesting way to create organisms that can comunicate with both humans and the other species, acting as translators/interpretors in our attempts to communicate with other races. Once we develop the technology we might apply it to ETIs we meet and thus develop Earth/NonEarth hybrids. These hybrids would also expand the variation of creatures in which our genes find themselves, thus enhance the survival of our genes thru difficult circumstances where a pure race might uniformly die out (such as some disease or environmental poison). Funny how parochial most people are.
Lars@sri-unix (11/18/82)
Does anybody have a reference to the "High Frontier" report referred to in this digest? One contributor quoted from it, so I suppose it is unclassified. Thanks, Lars
bc@sri-unix (11/18/82)
This is in reply to R. E. Maas' categorization of negative reaction to the creation of human/non-human hybrid organisms as "parochial." I don't think that reaction is necessarily as thoughtless a reaction as he seems to think. There are severe ethical and moral questions in creating a sentient being (if it's not, it won't fulfill the purpose of translator) whose viability and quality of life is open to great question. Consider that many people reject the idea of allowing a genetically damaged fetus to come to term or even be conceived, e.g. Down's Syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, Huntington's Chorea, etc. etc. Many parents feel that it is immoral to bring a damaged child into the world if a choice exists. Recognize that we would have *NO* way of a priori knowing how a hybrid sentient would perceive the world, or relate to other sentients. It's a widely held scientific opinion these days that much of any animal's behavior and relationship to other beings is rooted in its evolution and thus its genotype. What does this mean for a hybrid, especially one of the more exotic types where the non-human genetic material is also non-primate? What kind of life would the creator of the hybrid be wishing on the created being? It is certain that in many ways such a being would be more alone than any human has ever been. The fundamental question is what obligations the creator of a life, whether parent or biologist, has to that life, and what degree of certainty is required. That question is answerable, as are all the knotty moral questions, by each person for himself alone. I'm not myself necessarily opposed to the creation of hybrid sentients. There is a chance that such beings would be greatly gifted by the expansion of their perceptions and relationships relative to ours. The issues are not, however, as simple as progress versus parochialism. It's essential that anyone considering actions with consequences as important (for some one person, if not for the race as a whole) as these consider all discussion very carefully before deciding on action, and that he recognize the responsibility which the action entails. Bruce Cohen ...!intelqa!omsvax!bc