[ExI] CRISPR and Gene Drives

[BillK]

On 20 November 2015 at 14:14, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> If one believes ecosystems are delicately balanced, then either one has to
> just give up since humans have touched every ecosystem (with maybe the
> exception of the lithoautotrophs in the crust) and they will all be
> disrupted (fatalism), or assume that the only sensible approach is to keep
> humans away from nature totally (not doable). If one recognizes that they
> have limits, both soft and hard, that they adapt and change, then one can
> start thinking about how to avoid making the exinction event too bad.
>
> Robustness is not invulnerability.
<snip>
>
> Same thing for ecosystems. We are learning how to engineer them, and maybe
> we can even figure out how to integrate our economic incentives with them.
> Of course, constructing robust economies is another fun topic (I would argue
> that a capitalist economy, with all the booms and busts, is actually pretty
> similar to a real ecosystem - they are pretty dynamic too).
>

That sounds like the difference between theory and practice.  :)
In theory the ecosystem is 'robust'.
In practice it is being destroyed.

I see little sign that the present rate of habitat loss and species
extinction is slowing down.
Add in climate change damage and rising sea levels and we have many
more years of the bust phase ahead.
What you are describing is cycles of growth and collapse, leading to
mass extinctions of some species and regrowth with different species.

Definition - Robust: strong and healthy, not likely to fail or weaken.

If you define 'robust' as meaning that eventually some sort of
ecosystem will recover with a different selection of flora and fauna,
then I think that is an unusual definition. When an ecosystem is on
the verge of mass extinctions that is not 'robust'.


BillK