Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!umd5!newton.cs.jhu.edu!callahan From: callahan@cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Mutant flies Message-ID: Date: 27 May 91 18:54:08 GMT Lines: 59 In article <10091@idunno.Princeton.EDU> unasmith@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Una Smith) writes: >Well, then, would you prefer that small pox be allowed to persist >somewhere in the world? I'm aware of the eradication of small pox. I had considered mentioning it in my original posting, but I decided it wasn't all that similar. If I had realized that people were going to use it as the definitive counterargument, I would have mentioned it. See my previous posting for related comments. >There's no "mutation" in evidence here. Ok. I wasn't the one who made that claim; I was simply making the assumption that it was true, on the grounds that it would only weaken my argument that there was an ethical question involved. Perhaps the subject line ("Mutant flies") ought to be changed. >Certainly, humans do not hold all other species to be equal. Is this >wrong? Is this a habit that we can change? Should we? Aha! But then a small pox virus isn't equal to a screw fly, is it? I'm perfectly willing to assume the ethical inequality humans > insects > viruses, though I'm not certain of the grounds that I'd use to argue for it. If it were a contest between a human life and a single screw fly, or even a fairly big population of them, I'd side with the human life. When the question is, instead, the extinction of a species, it's not as clear to me. Obviously, I'd rather have the extinction of screw flies than the extinction of humans. However, this does not mean that I would rather have the extinction of screw flies than the loss of a human life. Considering that many species have become extinct as part of the natural evolutionary process, there is no reason to believe that it is the duty of the human race to insure that all current species continue to exist. However, when a decision is made to deliberately cause the extinction of a species (and I'm not implying that such a decision has been made with respect to screw flies), one should explicitly weigh all of the ethical factors involved. What I see is the implicit assumption that a threat to human life and prosperity gives us a carte blanche to ignore all other factors. This assumption disturbs me. With regards to animals, many people have trouble seeing beyond the categories "fuzzy" and "icky." As screw flies clearly fall into the latter category, I imagine few would bemoan their disappearance. If the human race had the power to eradicate a species at will, as may one day be the case, I would argue that every species deserved, at the very least, a fair trial, unbiased by mere sentiment or aesthetic principles. Moreover, if it became technology feasible, I would insist that we had the duty to archive sufficient genetic information to restore any species we destroy, regardless of any commonly held judgment about its significance or beneficial nature. Those are my opinions. I am not so much interested in having others adopt them as in having others admit that there are ethical questions involved, and *clearly define* the principles they are using before going ahead with large-scale irreversible acts. It's easy to dismiss my concerns as mere pedantry or monomania, but as technological power increases, such questions will become very real. -- Paul Callahan callahan@cs.jhu.edu