People are scared for good reason Red.
Technology advances at a much more rapid rate than society's understanding on how to use it, what it's potential consequences are and having the correct legislation in place to prevent its misuse.
Once you've "let the cat out of the bag" you can't then put it back in if you decide you don't like the consequences.
When private corporations own the intellectual property and have a patent on the technology and can see a potential profit in it, then it's not exactly in their best interests to have any regulations or social discussion which may limit its $$$$$ earning potential, and the potential in many instances runs in the billions.
This is a problem that our society is going to have to face again and again in the near future.
Stewart Brand: The dawn of de-extinction. Are you ready?
-
Red
- ...............................
- Posts: 214
- Joined: 08 Dec 2011, 07:39
- Location: Tasmania, Australia
Hi Myzomela,
I agree that this issue will come up again and again with new technology.
With biotechnology, I am more concerned about patent rights as I feel that in this area private companies have too much power.
A sad point raised in the National Geographic article is that as far as value for money goes, biotechnology may not be the best conservation option. Still, I have no objection to reviving extinct species even if the payoff for conservation may not be as great as other projects.
I agree that this issue will come up again and again with new technology.
With biotechnology, I am more concerned about patent rights as I feel that in this area private companies have too much power.
A sad point raised in the National Geographic article is that as far as value for money goes, biotechnology may not be the best conservation option. Still, I have no objection to reviving extinct species even if the payoff for conservation may not be as great as other projects.