Comment Re:Nature isn't all that efficient, actually (Score 1) 67
While recent advances have made it possible for the blind to have partial vision, look at the techniques used. The equipment is cumbersome and not nearly as effective as the human body. The most powerful computers cannot begin to model the folding of proteins that naturally occurs. The bottom line is that nature is excellent at finding optimum solutions to the point current technology only begins to rival nature.
Sure, *current* technology. 20 years from now, however? Who can say?
The thing that gets me is that many people seem to have reverance for the way nature does things, kind of like "this is the way it's always been done, therefore this is the best way."
That makes no sense on the face of it. If we just lived "naturally," we'd all be dead by about 40, 45 tops, crippled by minor injuries, etc.
As to how this is relevant to the issue of something as complex as genetic improvement, well, what is DNA except for a remarkably (by today's standards) code? What are genes but tricky, semi-tempermental ways to send that information?
Let me put this into quasi-programmer jargon:
Evolution/nature's methods of genetic improvement are about as efficient and effective as bubble sorting (and poorly done bubble sorting, at that).
Nature has design faults that would never be tolerated in a properly run project. Appendix?! WTF! Cross-linking and cell-replication errors? Cancers? Didn't anybody friggin beta-test this thing?
Anyway, to get off the rant... Sure, it does something pretty cool *now,* but if intelligent design were involved from the git-go, we'd be in a much better place.
Sure, *current* technology. 20 years from now, however? Who can say?
The thing that gets me is that many people seem to have reverance for the way nature does things, kind of like "this is the way it's always been done, therefore this is the best way."
That makes no sense on the face of it. If we just lived "naturally," we'd all be dead by about 40, 45 tops, crippled by minor injuries, etc.
As to how this is relevant to the issue of something as complex as genetic improvement, well, what is DNA except for a remarkably (by today's standards) code? What are genes but tricky, semi-tempermental ways to send that information?
Let me put this into quasi-programmer jargon:
Evolution/nature's methods of genetic improvement are about as efficient and effective as bubble sorting (and poorly done bubble sorting, at that).
Nature has design faults that would never be tolerated in a properly run project. Appendix?! WTF! Cross-linking and cell-replication errors? Cancers? Didn't anybody friggin beta-test this thing?
Anyway, to get off the rant... Sure, it does something pretty cool *now,* but if intelligent design were involved from the git-go, we'd be in a much better place.
