• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Horrors of synthetic biology: Why science needs religion

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Today I listened to the extraordinary 2019 Ted Talk of Rob Reid “How synthetic biology could wipe out humanity -- and how we can stop it.” Rob first instils chilling fear of the danger of apocalypse and then proposes some measures for mitigation.

How synthetic biology could wipe out humanity -- and how we can stop it

Below I have summarised Rob’s argument:
  • Out of about seven and a half billion of us, a small subset choose the nihilistic route of killing people.
  • For the suicidal murderers, technology is the force multiplier. So we can say, knife: terrible; gun: way worse. And aeroplane: massively worse.
  • There are far more deadly weapons in our near future than aeroplanes, ones not made of metal.
  • We are in the era of exponential technologies, which diffuse the super technologies developed by one or two living geniuses to more or less everybody.
  • Synthetic biology is one such technology. In 2011, a couple of researchers modified the genome of the highly fatal but non-contagious H5N1 flu virus and made it not only every bit as deadly but also wildly contagious.
  • Just two years after this work, the CRISPR system was harnessed for genome editing that makes gene-editing massively easier.
  • Genetic sequencing has beaten Moore’s law —- now, gene sequencing, editing and synthesis can be done by students at any university.
  • And once a genius makes a data file containing a genome sequence, any idiot can copy it, distribute it worldwide — and in near future print it on a DNA printer.
  • If somebody tries this and is only 0.1 per cent effective, eight million people die.
We can however actually survive. We must, first, embrace the Syn-Bio technology; second, enlist the experts; and third, enlist the whole society. We need a more inclusive way to safeguard our prosperity, our privacy and our lives. So how do we do all of this? Mr Rob suggests:
  • Rapidly enhance the R & D muscle to develop antibody pathogens at a really very low cost and make those available to all in the society.
  • Improve mental health. Suicidal mass murderers although despicable, are also terribly broken and sad people. We need to ensure that nobody goes unloved.
  • Make fighting the dangers core to the discipline of synthetic biology.
  • Finally, educate the society by showing to them the real dark outcomes, by painting the true doomsday picture.

I do not disagree with any part of Mr Rob Reid’s talk. My point is about the suggestion “Improve mental health”. We can develop and distribute antibody pathogens dynamically and cheaply. We can enlist the support of the experts and the whole society. But what of inherent human greed?
I cite from Mr Rob’s lecture itself. He tells us of our experience with the financial system during 2007-2008, when the stewards meant to protect the common people themselves became massively corrupted as they figured out how they could cut corners, inflict massive, massive risks on the rest of us and privatize the gains, becoming repulsively wealthy while they stuck us with the $22 trillion bills. Rob calls it “Privatise the gains and socialise the losses”. He cited three banks that had skimmed the wealth of common people much before the economic failure of 2008.

So, In my opinion, after science and regulatory systems do their jobs diligently we still do need to instil the pure knowledge of Interdependence at the minimum and also the ultimate knowledge of the river flowing through us all and illusion of ego-self.
...
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We need religion to keep science in check?
If we had that, the Sun would still be orbiting the Earth.

Anyway....which religion(s) would be the gatekeeper(s) to knowledge?
Or is it really that we need to give thought to ethics, ie, how we use science?
In that case, I prefer secular moralities.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
We need religion to keep science in check?
If we had that, the Sun would still be orbiting the Earth.

Anyway....which religion(s) would be the gatekeeper(s) to knowledge?
Or is it really that we need to give thought to ethics, ie, how we use science?
In that case, I prefer secular moralities.

You did not read.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
So, In my opinion, after science and regulatory systems do their jobs diligently we still do need to instil the pure knowledge of Interdependence at the minimum and also the ultimate knowledge of the river flowing through us all and illusion of ego-self.
I'm not sure what that has to do with religions specifically. Religion doesn't make people good or bad, it just makes them religious and good or religious and bad.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
if i assume "religion" is meant to imply the spiritual quality of "soul" then yes, science is often cold and soul-less .... or heartless.....
not across the board, but that certainly is a distinct problem over history.....
theocratic rule as presented in historical accounts is a step into ignorance, but the other extreme embraced in history also proves insufficient on its own
perhaps a balanced blend of the best and actually useful components of both would work better than the extreme polarization of one or the other
513dUaRchPL.jpg
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
@atanu could have referenced
Star Trek: Picard
as an examination of that fear.

Religion or any external rule-based motivational systems is not the answer. They don't work well enough.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
We need religion to keep science in check?
If we had that, the Sun would still be orbiting the Earth.

Anyway....which religion(s) would be the gatekeeper(s) to knowledge?
Or is it really that we need to give thought to ethics, ie, how we use science?
In that case, I prefer secular moralities.

Religion makes great use of fear to keep folks in check.

If you want to discourage an activity in humans, make them fear the wrath of God.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Religion makes great use of fear to keep folks in check.

If you want to discourage an activity in humans, make them fear the wrath of God.
That only works on some humans.
I fear the wrath of God no more than I fear Sideshow Bob.
 

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
Improve mental health. Suicidal mass murderers although despicable, are also terribly broken and sad people. We need to ensure that nobody goes unloved.
Are you talking about universal screening for that? As someone with a bit of experience in Public and Population Health - that is a monumentally expensive undertaking and may be incomplete or inaccurate

For example - look at the 9/11 perpetrators - they were driven by religious ideology - I am not sure that many tests would have picked up the underlying psychopathic elements in all of them even if they had all consented to such tests

Even agencies like the police and CIA that actively try to screen out individuals with such tendencies are deceived from time to time ........
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
That only works on some humans.
I fear the wrath of God no more than I fear Sideshow Bob.

Atheists are able to see past this conditioning and do not conform to society. They are able to see what is happening to people. Some can even understand why these people believe what they do, and though it's not their fault, it can still be difficult when they deny fact or refuse to question what they already know. People fear change and fear not knowing.
Atheism can be a courageous way of life. In one spectrum, there are these humans that have been conditioned to believe a certain way, pointing the fingers at atheists wishing death on them and trying to oppress them. In the other spectrum, everything that atheists were taught, whether by parents, society, or both, is recognized as not fact and not true, so to some it can be a difficult voyage to find purpose and answers. People fear the unknown. Atheists use it to learn new things and further explore the wonders of this universe.

Religious Conditioning and How It is Done

Not that I usually gasconade the virtues of atheism but, :shrug:
Maybe this once.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Atheists are able to see past this conditioning and do not conform to society. They are able to see what is happening to people. Some can even understand why these people believe what they do, and though it's not their fault, it can still be difficult when they deny fact or refuse to question what they already know. People fear change and fear not knowing.
Atheism can be a courageous way of life. In one spectrum, there are these humans that have been conditioned to believe a certain way, pointing the fingers at atheists wishing death on them and trying to oppress them. In the other spectrum, everything that atheists were taught, whether by parents, society, or both, is recognized as not fact and not true, so to some it can be a difficult voyage to find purpose and answers. People fear the unknown. Atheists use it to learn new things and further explore the wonders of this universe.
Religious Conditioning and How It is Done


Not that I usually gasconade the virtues of atheism but, :shrug:
Maybe this once.
"Gasconade"?
Really?
My gawd, man....that's obscure.

Please excuse my pauciloquent response.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Atheists are able to see past this conditioning and do not conform to society. They are able to see what is happening to people. Some can even understand why these people believe what they do, and though it's not their fault, it can still be difficult when they deny fact or refuse to question what they already know. People fear change and fear not knowing.
Atheism can be a courageous way of life. In one spectrum, there are these humans that have been conditioned to believe a certain way, pointing the fingers at atheists wishing death on them and trying to oppress them. In the other spectrum, everything that atheists were taught, whether by parents, society, or both, is recognized as not fact and not true, so to some it can be a difficult voyage to find purpose and answers. People fear the unknown. Atheists use it to learn new things and further explore the wonders of this universe.
Religious Conditioning and How It is Done


Not that I usually gasconade the virtues of atheism but, :shrug:
Maybe this once.
'Atheism' does not guarantee anything. Only good character does. Atheism, yes, could be courageous but could also be cowardly, being neither here nor there. Consider how much pressure gets put onto scientists sometimes from commercial or political vectors. In that case yes atheists can and have given way to conditioning and have conformed. I agree that non-belief is usually non-superstitious.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
I watched it. As for his point #3 we should begin by preparing to be more isolated. This coronavirus shows how we are all just too interconnected. The global and interstate trade have made highways for pathogens. We must close these.

We must create firewalls against pathogens.

He makes another great point: Each community should have at least 1 expert on biosynthesis and 1 mechanical engineer. This needs to be taken as seriously as the position of a police commissioner or mayor. In the event of a serious biological attack each community ought to be able to function in isolation. Currently that is not the case.
 
Top