The Line

Listening to the excellent Collings and Herrin podcast today, I was a little annoyed by Andrew Collins's stance on the experimenting with embryos and the like. He thinks that human-animal hybrids are a step too far; that we're going against nature.

It's the same fuss about genetically modified food and cloning. People think that we are over-stepping our bounds. We're messing with the domain of the natural world. We're playing God (which even seems to be a problem to good-old liberal atheists for some reason).

What is strange about the controversy is that it is often the case that the same group of people who are outspoken against GM foods and screwing around with embryos, also tend to be environmentalists, stressing the importance of our role in the natural order of things.

The thing that annoys me is the idea that by doing certain experiments, we have suddenly crossed a line. We suddenly become adversaries with nature.

The thing is, we're part of nature. Surely that's what environmentalists believe.

(I was going to make a joke about them putting the 'mentalist' in 'environmentalist', but that would be trite).

The human race has evolved as all life has on the planet. We're made of the same basic building-blocks. We evolved naturally. We're just one type of creature; one of many. Why is it that what we do is unnatural? Termites build hives (or nests or something, I'm not doing research) by using the planet's substances in a way that fits their needs. That's what we do. We use and combine substances to serve our purposes. A termite nest is natural, but a plastic hot-dog replica isn't for some reason.

I'm not saying we shouldn't act responsibly, but I still don't see why everything we're doing shouldn't be entirely natural. An alien observer wouldn't segregate our actions from the rest of the other lifeforms, even if we have mastered speech and badminton.

I don't know how protestors have managed to draw the line between science and 'playing God'. Forging metal is natural, that's ok. Fighting disease is natural, that's ok. Flying in BIG METAL SKY TUBES is ok. But doing stuff with embryos? The line has been crossed.

It's a bullshit, pointless line.

We should think about what we're doing and why, but we shouldn't be hindered by arbitrary codes of conduct. There's no rulebook saying what we can do. Unless you count the Bible. But with that as my rulebook, I'd imagine it would be a nonsensical and terrifying game.

The other thing about people making assessments about these new scientific experiments, is most of us don't know enough about the specifics of the project to be able to make a meaningful judgement. We don't have enough specified knowledge, so everyone who decries GM and the like are just basing their opinions on third-hand summaries and superstition.

So, I'm all for scientific experiments. There are no boundaries. And if science eventually leads us into lives confined to isolated pods, being drip-fed nutrients and electronic pulses to keep our brains stimulated, our blank, staring eyes moistened by tiny robot sponges, I have no problem with that. None whatsoever.

***

So in my last post I mentioned a funny Facebook thread between Lucy and myself. I've selected the good bits, and will present some highlights over the next few entries. The conversation took place while I was working for Exeter University, and Lucy was at home. The length of the conversation should show how interested I was in the work. Here's the first extract:

On TV Detectives:

Lucy:
Have just drunk coffee, and I'm feeling rather jittery and paranoid. I'd be great at solving crimes! (Wait a minute... this earring is a fake! He was dead before he got in the water! The prostitute was a man! etc.) Love you.

Paul:
I'd love to see you in a detective show. Can I be your slow-witted sidekick?

"But Inspector, how would he have been able to get in unseen?"
"You stupid fucking cunt. If you don't know, you never will. Now get me a coffee."
"Yes ma'am."

Lucy:
Oh, I love you, my slow-witted sidekick! You know I don't like mild, sumbissive, put-upon Paul. It makes me sad. Still, the sidekick is usually the happier of the two - i.e. the one without a drink/drug/ problem, so I guess we can take comfort in that.

Paul:
I didn't mean to sound put-upon. The sidekick is simply awed by your genius, and happy to be around you. It would be much better if the sidekick had the drug problem, and was just an albatross around the detective's neck.

"John. John! We've got to go to the Manor House. I know who did it."
"Can't... legs... fuckin'... right!"

The detective would probably have to stop sticking up for him after a while. Or just give him simple jobs so he didn't get in the way.

Better yet, it would be good if the sidekick was an actual albatross.

Detective: "Any ideas, John?"
Albatross: "(pointing wing) SQUAWK"
Detective: "By jove, you're right!"

And, somehow, I still don't have my own TV series.

This country...

Lucy:
You get an lol and an lmao for that. My ass is quite separated from my body with mirth. It's over the other side of the room, warming itself by the fire.


On Diplomacy:

Lucy:
I was good at that when I was a kid (my two friends would always get annoyed with each other, I'd refuse to take sides, and in mutual annoyance at me, they became friends again). This is known as masochistic diplomacy, and may well be successful on an international level.


On Facebook Etiquette:

Lucy:
Why, you ask, would somebody request to be friends with you just to ignore you? To make a point.
You know what this means? If you can underestimate somebody, do. If you can't, teach.


On Weekend Plans:

Lucy:
We should do something this weekend, like eat out or bake a cake or something.

Paul (to no response):
Let's go bake a cake!
Up where the heat is make(d)!
Let's
All
Go...

Bake a Cake!