[ExI] "Handle With Care" - NYT Article

[Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)]

>> At 09:23 AM 8/12/2008 -0300, Henrique Moraes Machado ranted contra 
>> luddites:
>>And then there's terraforming. We do it one way or the other since we made 
>>the change from hunters to farmers. And it's totally chaotic and unplanned 
>>and usually with a lot of collateral. Why not do it in a more rational 
>>way?


Damien> Because... (I have a cold so my brain isn't working with any degree
> of agility, so make allowances...):
> The way things were before humans intervened was "totally chaotic and 
> unplanned and usually with a lot of collateral," but remembering that 
> "chaotic" implies regularities and patterns not immediately evident. The 
> global ecosphere evolved in this state. Humans then simplified chunks of 
> the landscape and the pattern was to some extent broken or put on hold, 
> but tended to reassert itself eventually. If a biome has evolved to use 
> large-scale lightning-caused fires to renew itself, human interventions 
> that seem "rational" are liable to cause far worse conflagrations at 
> longer intervals. Monocropping looks rational until a plague comes along 
> and wipes out everything, instead of just blighting some of the crop.

Not really. I never thought monocropping to be really rational (culture 
rotation, on the other hand), or deforestation to make pastures either.
But, "let's terraform the Sahara" sort of thing seems interesting.

Damien> What seems to me rational (or meta-rational) is to start from a
> fairly cautious awareness of how little is really understood of the 
> interactions in nature, especially the modified nature we're surrounded 
> by, and that position probably more closely resembles the attitude of a 
> 21st century "luddite" who goes to the dentist and uses a cellphone than 
> it does a 20th century technocrat for whom everything could be done in a 
> series of rational, top-down, fiat five-year plans. (Not that I imagine 
> you'd favor the latter, of course.) We should be careful not so much 
> concerning what we wish for, as in regard to the means by which we try to 
> bring those wishes into reality.

What I really mean is that we cand base our action (or lack of) on fear 
(caution is ok but not fear). Like "Hey, let's not mess with nanotech 
because we can all end eaten by gray goo", or "Let's not turn on the LHC 
because it can create a back hole and destroy the world" or "Let's not 
research cloning and genetics and stem cells because we can end with 
designer babies" (just for the record, I'm in full favour of designer 
babies).
These are the kind of frelling piece of dren luddites I ranted contra.