Newsgroups: sci.environment

/ hpindda:sci.environment / dmocsny@piglet.UUCP (Daniel Mocsny) /  9:51 am  Mar 27, 1992 /
In article <40911680@hpindda.cup.hp.com> Alan McGowen writes:
L.D. writes:
>>>As we have
>>>discussed before, there is a strong disagreement as to how much
>>>capability we will have to "refill" or even expand biodiversity by
>>>biotechnical means.  
>>
>>You mean a disagreement between science fiction writers and biologists?
>>I know of no biologists predicting that we will be able to "expand 
>>biodiversity by biotechnical means." Biotechnology is *dependent* upon
>>biodiversity for its raw material: genetic information. Loss of biodiversity
>>reduces the potential of biotechnology.
>
>Biotechnology today has probably realized about the same fraction of
>its potential as computer science had realized in the year 1850 A.D. 
>In the year 1850 A.D., there were a few mathematicians and tinkerers 
>who had ideas about how to build devices which could automate various 
>aspects of computation. But it would have been completely ludicrous 
>for anyone in the year 1850 A.D. to have claimed an understanding of 
>what exactly was possible with artificial computation. Even 100 years 
>later, around 1950, we still had the voices of responsibility, such 
>as the chairman of IBM, predicting that the ultimate worldwide demand 
>for computers would be saturated with 100 units.

All very nice, but not very relevant. I'm not saying that biotechnology 
will have a very limited application. I'm saying that it depends upon
biological information which has been produced by evolution. That information
represents an immense free and irreplaceable resource, and it is because
of that resource that biotechnology has huge potential. If we had to invent
all biological information de novo before it could be transferred into 
an organism, biotechnology would have very little practical potential.

Biotechnology shows no potential to be able to replace huge amounts of
lost biological information, and the constant repetition of the nonsensical
belief that it does is irresponsible at best, and a display of gross
scientific ignorance at worst. To describe this view as "science fiction"
is a fairly generous characterization, since its implausibility is far greater
that that of, say, relativistic interstellar travel: it is more on a par 
with something like the "infinite improbability engine." The sheer quantity
of history and coadaptation that is behind any useful gene is staggering. 
The idea that whole species and ecosystems could be cooked up ex nihilo to
replace what we annihilate is staggeringly foolish.

>>It isn't just a question of preserving knowledge: our civilization has
>>"bootstrapped" itself by using up many of the more easily mined minerals,
>>for example: current resource extractions depend upon having a significant
>>amount of technological infrastructure in place. If it were not in place,
>>it would be much harder to put it in place the second time around.
>
>But future resource extractions might not need nearly so much
>interlocking infrastructure. Remember, our need for so much 
>infrastructure is a direct symptom of Information Poverty.

I was speaking of the difficulty of *replacing* this
infrastructure if we were to lose it: the point was that it would be
much harder to replace than it was to build in the first place, because
the easy, high-quality resources have been used up or degraded. 

Also, our need for so much infrastructure is a result of rather more 
than just "information poverty" -- it is a result of the fact that we
eat, drink, wear clothing and like to keep warm in cold weather, and
move goods and people around. Increasing information will help to make
technology more efficent at doing these things, and perhaps reduce the
movement of people significantly, but it will not fundamentally
alter the raw energetics of food, heating, transport of goods, and 
manufacture. I'm all in favor of increasing information, but let's not
delude ourselves about what it can and cannot do: you can't eat bytes,
drink from a bit bucket, or keep warm with the data flowing through a 
fiber optics link.

------------
Alan McGowen