[extropy-chat] Priorities: Longevity, food or viruses?

[Robert J. Bradbury]

Mark's recent paper on the right to access life extending
technologies and some of Natasha's efforts suggest (to me)
that she wants to move ExI in a similar direction seem to
be raising Kass, the presidential bioethics commission, et al
as the arch-enemies of the transhumanist and extropic viewpoints.

I am wondering today whether or not that is the case.

For example see:
"Move to Ban Altered Crops is Focused on California"
AP, Jan. 11, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/national/11GENE.html?pagewanted=print

This raises the point that the "organic" movement is alive and
well and exercising political muscle to squash biotech at least
with respect to food sources.  (Examples such as restrictions
on engineered salmon farming (cited) or the recent prohibition of
engineered aquarium fish also spring to mind.)

[side bar -- this trend seems likely to throw cold water on my dragon
idea... :-(]

Now, this impacts food prices for the average individual as well
as perhaps contributing to the number of people that die of hunger
every year.  (Yes, I know we could get into a discussion about this
with respect to the current situation -- I'm thinking if the trend
present in Europe and the U.S. spreads significantly.)

Now, factor in this site recently pointed out to me by Dave Kekich:
  http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
which discusses the problems we may face with our food supply
when the oil crunch arrives.   [Yes, I *know* the site is alarmist
and doesn't cover solutions under development -- but for the sake
of discussion lets assume there will be a decline in oil resources
and that will impact food prices because politicians generally do
a poor job of solving problems before the develop.]

So the organic movement compounded by resource shortages and
increased populations potentially suggest some real problems
with feeding people in the future.

Now, of interest in the NY Times article is the quote:
 "genetic engineering at this stage is the biggest uncontrolled
   biological experiment going on in the world today"

How does he compare that with tens of millions of people infected
with HIV that we *know* mutates at a rapid rate?  If we were
to get individuals infected with both HIV and SARS and they
were to recombine to form a new virus we could perhaps have
a real mess on our hands.

So the danger represented by Kass & Co. seems to pale compared
with some of the other problems we may face.  (The Kass & Co.
problem to me seems minimal because (a) by and large we don't
have the knowledge or the technology to extend life; and (b)
even if we did, it would still take probably 10 years for
the FDA or other regulatory agencies to approve it -- if it
can be approved at all [because aging is not a disease].)

Some of the problems I point out above are either here now or
potentially require significant advance work to prevent them
from developing.  How does one decide where to place ones emphasis?

Robert