From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Worse case scenario
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:39:09 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <40911729@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>...
> 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.
>

	I think that as long as we have the building blocks (amino acids,etc.)
technology will find a way to (re)create and extend biodiversity.  Not that it
would be easy, or that would let us destroy what we have.  Merely that I see
the building blocks of life as a parallel to the DNA building blocks.  We can
resequence those to bring about new combinations.  It is only a matter of time
before that ability grows/matures into the ability to bring back extinct forms
of life using the present day cousins.
 
> 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.

	That depends on what you mean by lost (and what is lost).  If essential
building blocks have been lost (I don't think this is the case) then you are
right.  But if we are only talking about species and certain combinations of
those building blocks, then I think we can solve that problem.

> 
>>>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. 

	Well, there is the rest of the solar system...and other solar systems.
(Once again, not that this would be easy or desirable to *have* to do this,
merely that it is a possibility.)

> 
> 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.
> 

	Neither will an eggplant recalculate a spreadsheet.

Brett---------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________The best thing about morning________________________________________
__________________________________is that it's over by noon.____________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:26:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Dieback and culture: Was(Re: AIDS in Africa (was: environment and animals))
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA