Increasing Biodiversity via Genetic Engineering

[Techno-Druid]

The concept of genetically engineering species into new races, subspecies and species to increase the level of biodiversity and recreate lost ecological niches. If you agree or believe this is a viable, then how could and should we go about it?

- - - Updated - - -

For example, with developing gene modification tech such as CRISPR, will people create new species as they please?

If you want a more colorful variety of bird in your garden, for example, you hybridize the traits of many foreign, tropical species into a native species. Creating a new subspecies.

The danger of this could obviously be outbreeding native species or the opposite effect.

[Kuntantee]

The point of engineering is to solve a problem or optimize something. Increasing diversity for the sake of diversity is not engineering, not science, it would be art at best. If you want to engineer a species, there should be a point such as increased milk production. However, such an endeavor would certainly involve ethical issues.

[Release]

The point of engineering is to solve a problem or optimize something. Increasing diversity for the sake of diversity is not engineering, not science, it would be art at best. If you want to engineer a species, there should be a point such as increased milk production. However, such an endeavor would certainly involve ethical issues.

Other factors as well like species of animal with very low populations currently where low amounts of genetic variance make the long term population difficult to sustain.

[Techno-Druid]

The point of engineering is to solve a problem or optimize something. Increasing diversity for the sake of diversity is not engineering, not science, it would be art at best. If you want to engineer a species, there should be a point such as increased milk production. However, such an endeavor would certainly involve ethical issues.

As Release stated, engineering for more diversity in populations does seem like a very useful concept as well as engineering for immunities to diseases/viruses.

[Kuntantee]

Other factors as well like species of animal with very low populations currently where low amounts of genetic variance make the long term population difficult to sustain.

Not sure if I follow. What is the point of genetically engineering new species if the objective is to sustain the population of species near extinction?

- - - Updated - - -

As Release stated, engineering for more diversity in populations does seem like a very useful concept as well as engineering for immunities to diseases/viruses.

Useful in what way? You can't predict the outcome of engineering new species and putting them into to the wild (aka increasing the diversity) because the system is chaotic. As for engineering for viruses/diseases, that's not what you suggest in your original post. Did I miss something?

[Vizardlorde]

I want a real blue rose garden so far ive only seen purple roses made...

[Deleted]

The most interesting point to me is: How long would it take till any kind of impact would be notable? I mean a few thousand engineered people vs our natural reproduction facilities (few instincts, hormones, cultural stuff, socialization and the immense mass of people that currently live)... They have no chance.

[Sunseeker]

Sure, but they're still engineering the best thing to fill that niche.

[Nanaboostme]

Just as long as they don't invent the ability to transfer our conscious mind elsewhere after death.

[Deleted]

I welcome any species that will wipe out humankind as we know it...including myself.

[Powerogue]

The point of engineering is to solve a problem or optimize something. Increasing diversity for the sake of diversity is not engineering, not science, it would be art at best. If you want to engineer a species, there should be a point such as increased milk production. However, such an endeavor would certainly involve ethical issues.

Have we not already been doing that with selective breeding? Meet the humble wild banana.



The question isn't should we do it, it's should we do it to humans?

I'd say no, because the reasons we engineer people for could be very short-sighted or ultimately dangerous. Certain genes have been useful at certain times, and if we get this idea of an "ideal human" in our heads, we'll wind up with less biodiversity needed for adaptability to new circumstances, rather than more.

Or even worse, cosmetic changes like corgis. You look at one and think "how could this amazing thing possibly be a bad idea?" until you look at their health problems they get from their stumpy legs. Or pugs with breathing problems, as another example.

I'm predicting it right now, women with comically oversized boobs with tragic, horrible back problems.

[Kuntantee]

Have we not already been doing that with selective breeding? Meet the humble wild banana.



The question isn't should we do it, it's should we do it to humans?

I'd say no, because the reasons we engineer people for could be very short-sighted or ultimately dangerous. Certain genes have been useful at certain times, and if we get this idea of an "ideal human" in our heads, we'll wind up with less biodiversity needed for adaptability to new circumstances, rather than more.

Or even worse, cosmetic changes like corgis. You look at one and think "how could this amazing thing possibly be a bad idea?" until you look at their health problems they get from their stumpy legs. Or pugs with breathing problems, as another example.

I'm predicting it right now, women with comically oversized boobs with tragic, horrible back problems.

I am not an expert but selective breeding may be quite limiting compared to genetic engineering. Also, OP is suggesting diversity for the sake of diversity or doing it just because we can do it. "Recreating lost ecological niches", why? Because some people want to amuse themselves with nature? They better watch a BBC documentary. Extinction is not an alien concept to Earth. Majority of species are extinct. Also, I know we are not going to do it but let's assume we created a new type of lion and put it into wild. We don't know what will be the next. You may end up with something catastrophic while trying to increase the biodiversity. What is being suggested here seems rather pointless to me.

It may sound radical but all this "biodiversity", "transhumanism" and the rest of the fetishes associated with nature/universe is product of popular science. Researching is one thing, interfering to nature with engineering is another.

ps: of course, I am assuming we have mastered gene science and all that.