I sent this to Pete by mistake. Lack of practice. Sorry. On 14 Mar 00, at 18:47, pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14 Mar 00, at 13:44, pete wrote: > > > > Sun Microsystem's top scientist writes in a > > > provocative new article that technological advances > > > could eventually threaten our existence. > > > > > > By Joel Garreau, Washington Post > > > > [...] > > > > > > He points to nanotechnology +the emerging science that seeks > to > > > create any desired object on an atom-by-atom basis +and > agrees > > > that it has the potential to allow inexpensive production of > > > smart machines so small they could fit inside a blood vessel. > > > Genetic technology, meanwhile, is inexorably generating the > > > power to create new forms of life that could reproduce. > > > > By the time people have awoken to the implications on the > > food chain of the reckless dumping of vast quantities of > > toxins into the oceans, which are simultaneously being > > stripmined of every living organism larger than a diatom > > (decreasing returns of driftnet fishing of larger species > > have led the mammoth fleets of irresponsible fishing nations > > to turn their attention now to krill), it will be far to late > > to reverse the damage, and who knows how far the ripples will > > travel. In the face of this, to concentrate on the potential > > hazards of an arcane technology not yet out of the realm of > > the gonzo futurists seems almost perverse in its irrelevance. > > > > ---- > > Good point. Then again, there's this to consider. > > > Gene Stocks Get Hammered > > Wired News Report > > 10:50 a.m. 14.Mar.2000 PST > > > Companies hoping to profit through patenting genetic research > > saw their stock prices tumble Tuesday following statements by > > U.S and British leaders supporting open access to data about > > gene sequences. > > <snip> > > > "To realize full promise of the research, raw fundamental data > > on the human genome -- including the human DNA sequence and > > its variations -- should be made freely available to > > scientists everywhere," the two leaders said in a joint > > statement. > > > Their call came a week after U.S. company Celera Genomics, > > racing to become the first firm to sequence all the genes in > > the body, said it was concerned that if it shared information > > with publicly funded research its data would be used by > > rivals. > > > Celera is one of a number of private companies planning to > > patent and otherwise license their information on human genes > > for profit. > > http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,34956,00.html > > > Maybe one's view of the risks depends a lot upon whether you focus > upon the writer's predictions [extrapolated from current > technological trends], or upon the driving forces at work. Within > the optic of driving forces, I thought this little paragraph -- which I > think appeared between the brackets above [...] -- was a little > more credible, but no less troubling. > > > > What further concerns him is the huge profits from any single > > > advance that may seem beneficial in itself. -It is always hard > > > to see the bigger impact while you are in the vortex of a > > > change,- Joy wrote. -We have long been driven by the > > > overarching desire to know that is the nature of science's > > > quest, not stopping to notice that the progress to newer and > > > more powerful technologies can take on a life of its own.- > -- John McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Advocates Ink
