I do love your version of the Dodo and Neanderthal and what their existence (in your written worlds) says about us now, but feel I must make what I hope is a relevant comment on the below:
'I’m not sure ‘should we?’ has ever really crossed any scientist’s mind, ever, and do not see it starting now.'
I know quite a few scientists, one of them being my daughter, and can assure you that many do indeed consider the implications of their work and are highly ethical people for whom I have immense respect. For every scientist whoring themselves out to whatever dubious enterprise you read about in the media there are many more doing great things. For a relevant example, we're on the brink of genetically tailored medicine that's much more effective that the crude stuff currently used - brought to you by passionate scientists working their collective arses off to help humanity. They REALLY care about this stuff. For they most part they live like church mice, they're not doing it for the money. They laugh at the idea people have of scientists getting wealthy (though of course a few do).
Need your extremely rare cancer cured? You'll need a scientist, and they'll be delighted to assist. Hope this helps!
*to head off comments to the effect that this is only for the rich or those in wealthy countries, well yes right now it is. If some be that way forever, it'll become cheaper and ubiquitous. Don't forget that there are therapies like those for AIDS that are now available in very poor countries, and that patented medications (invented by scientists) are made in such places royalty-free.
I totally agree with your summarisation. The animals will otherwise suffer. On another note, discovering Thursday Next remains one of the highlights of my (reading - in case I seem too sad) life. Thank you.
Of course, in real life one has to be careful about such ventures, but it’s definitely a important part of the Next/Parke Laine household. More plocking dodos to the people..
It’s interesting that CRISPR9R gene editing was invented by at least two scientists independently of each other but both called for ethical rules to be established before we launched headlong into ‘fixing’ the world. Gene Drive has the potential to rid the world of malaria for a relatively small financial cost but no one knows the implication of totally removing an insect from the ecosystem. Should we use gene editing to save a species from extinction (as we have) or is playing gods interfering with the natural process. After all, 95% of every species that has lived is now extinct and of course it is the current rate of demise which should terrify us but we of course deserve it. I’m absolutely with you on this Mr Fforde but if anyone ever offers you a fresh Dodo in a plain brown wrapper I’d say yes please.
I do agree in general with you. I do wish, though, that the Dodo, so recently extinct due to the introduction of ground-dwelling predators, could be unextincted and allowed to live in a predator-free environment, as is being done for the kākāpō in New Zealand.
As Climate Change grows increasingly chaotic and strong, perhaps less science focus on reanimating those gone and more focus on making better the lives of the current and future living.
I read a Note yesterday in which someone (again) bemoaned the fact that AI was making a big deal out of taking over creative pursuits humans actually enjoyed and were rather good at, rather than tackling the 'real problem' of more unpleasant or inefficiently performed work.
My point in response was that the only 'problem' AI developers and their investors wished to tackle was that there were not quite enough 0s in their bank accounts, and to remedy that, they could generate far more hype by creating a fake Drake mashup or a 5-minute synthetic action film, which would earn them more digital column inches than a 37% improvement in the image diagnosis of cancer cells.
I do love your version of the Dodo and Neanderthal and what their existence (in your written worlds) says about us now, but feel I must make what I hope is a relevant comment on the below:
'I’m not sure ‘should we?’ has ever really crossed any scientist’s mind, ever, and do not see it starting now.'
I know quite a few scientists, one of them being my daughter, and can assure you that many do indeed consider the implications of their work and are highly ethical people for whom I have immense respect. For every scientist whoring themselves out to whatever dubious enterprise you read about in the media there are many more doing great things. For a relevant example, we're on the brink of genetically tailored medicine that's much more effective that the crude stuff currently used - brought to you by passionate scientists working their collective arses off to help humanity. They REALLY care about this stuff. For they most part they live like church mice, they're not doing it for the money. They laugh at the idea people have of scientists getting wealthy (though of course a few do).
Need your extremely rare cancer cured? You'll need a scientist, and they'll be delighted to assist. Hope this helps!
*to head off comments to the effect that this is only for the rich or those in wealthy countries, well yes right now it is. If some be that way forever, it'll become cheaper and ubiquitous. Don't forget that there are therapies like those for AIDS that are now available in very poor countries, and that patented medications (invented by scientists) are made in such places royalty-free.
I totally agree with your summarisation. The animals will otherwise suffer. On another note, discovering Thursday Next remains one of the highlights of my (reading - in case I seem too sad) life. Thank you.
Of course, in real life one has to be careful about such ventures, but it’s definitely a important part of the Next/Parke Laine household. More plocking dodos to the people..
It’s interesting that CRISPR9R gene editing was invented by at least two scientists independently of each other but both called for ethical rules to be established before we launched headlong into ‘fixing’ the world. Gene Drive has the potential to rid the world of malaria for a relatively small financial cost but no one knows the implication of totally removing an insect from the ecosystem. Should we use gene editing to save a species from extinction (as we have) or is playing gods interfering with the natural process. After all, 95% of every species that has lived is now extinct and of course it is the current rate of demise which should terrify us but we of course deserve it. I’m absolutely with you on this Mr Fforde but if anyone ever offers you a fresh Dodo in a plain brown wrapper I’d say yes please.
A wonderful insight into your mind. Thank you.
Maybe curiosity killed the Dodo and then brought it back!
Lol
I’ve had some fun de-extincting dodos myself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLZsrDsrTOg) but yes, it’s hard to imagine that real ones would ever be happy.
I do agree in general with you. I do wish, though, that the Dodo, so recently extinct due to the introduction of ground-dwelling predators, could be unextincted and allowed to live in a predator-free environment, as is being done for the kākāpō in New Zealand.
Nuance, sweet nuance. Thank you Jasper.
As Climate Change grows increasingly chaotic and strong, perhaps less science focus on reanimating those gone and more focus on making better the lives of the current and future living.
The monetisation of Big Promise is exactly it.
I read a Note yesterday in which someone (again) bemoaned the fact that AI was making a big deal out of taking over creative pursuits humans actually enjoyed and were rather good at, rather than tackling the 'real problem' of more unpleasant or inefficiently performed work.
My point in response was that the only 'problem' AI developers and their investors wished to tackle was that there were not quite enough 0s in their bank accounts, and to remedy that, they could generate far more hype by creating a fake Drake mashup or a 5-minute synthetic action film, which would earn them more digital column inches than a 37% improvement in the image diagnosis of cancer cells.