Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 15:28:54 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Fw: love and difference - genome



> Eric/All,
>
> Eric wrote:
>
> >I agree with Karen that essentialism tends to be used ideologically to
> curtail minority >rights.  My latent fear is that even though the genome
> project is very worthwhile as a >scientific venture (indeed, perhaps one
of
> the most significant achievements of my >lifetime) my fear is that a
> reductionist approach to the concept of the gene may use it to >usher in a
> new essentialism where the gene replaces nature in a similar reactionary
> >fashion.

The gene "is" nature or, at least, bio-nature, and present knowledge, as
in
agriculture and medicine, and research, can be used towards reactionary
ends.

In a book titled, "Tomorrow Now", Bruce Sterling speaks of the 100
trillion
non-human
cells in a normal human body, and comments about the potential of genetic
science to eventually detect and remedy body malfunctions, more or less
automatically, by mobilizing and deploying useful bacteria.

The system would detect malfunction by continuous examination of body
excretions,
maintaining "wellness" without  hypotheses, diagnosis, lab tests,
prescriptions or invasive
procedures.

You can find an excerpt at:

 http://mostlyfiction.com/excerpts/tomorrownow.htm

Although I am without an ability to evaluate Sterling's ideas, I remember
the human genome was not read out completely until a few weeks ago.

The scope and influence of genetic science will likely be far greater than
 is indicated by the experience in agriculture, medicine, and research
which
is presently known to political, religious, and ethical prognosticators,
and
legislators.

 That's not to minimize the importance and necessity for leaders in
 politics, religion and ethics to make wise choices in the immediate future
 with insufficient knowledge.

 That's what leaders are for...

 regards,
 Hugh


>