Kirsty asked:

What are the morals and ethics of humans interfering in natural evolution?

============

Oboy, you've really pressed one of my buttons here. Just what does "natural" mean? Anything
non-human? Anything non-rational? Anything non-mechanical? Let's see... non-human. That would
mean that absolutely anythinga human being does, in any circumstance, is "unnatural". No, too
extreme.

Ok... non-rational is "natural"? But then we'd have to say that some actions of the higher apes, at
least, are "unnatural", since they can reason, to some extent. Also, it would mean that anythingwe
do, think, say, etc., based at all on rational thought is "unnatural". That would pretty much eliminate
everythingwe do, except when we're driven entirelyby emotion, not really a very frequent
occurrence, I'd say. Not that we're particularly rational, mind you... just that it does enter, a teeny bit,
into virtually everything we do or think.

Mechanical? Well, then we'd have to eliminate lotsof tool-using animals; not just apes, but creatures
like ants, wasps, birds, etc., etc.

Now what? Well, how about this... when humans do something which alters an ecosystem, they're
being unnatural. Well, I'm afraid that won't work either... there are innumerableexamples of animals
doing the same, from deer eating themselves into starvation, to predators exhausting the supply of
prey and dying, to huge populations of buffalo turning prairies into dustbowls... and so forth.

Building cities? What about termite mounds, columns of driver ants (and their colonies), prairie dog
colonies stretching for literallyhundreds of miles (yes, before humans).

Ok... polluting the planet...? Sorry, but we breathe the oxygen which was originally generated by
anaerobic bacteria, several hundred million years ago (or maybe as long as a billion, I can't
remember), which turned the methane atmosphere of this planet into something like what we breathe
today. Highly unnatural, those little critters.

Human beings cannotdo anythingunnatural. We are creatures evolved on this planet, like all the
others. What we do is part of what has arisen from causes responsible for everything else. We can
destroy the planet, just as any animal can destroy its environs, and as many have, or we can live in
"harmony", i.e., in some kind of equilibrium with it, like some lucky animals... if we manage to figure
out how before it's too late.

Now. Evolution. Tell me, just what does "evolution" mean? Roughly, adaptation because of random
genetic changes making our phenotypes (the result of genetic read-out) more able to reproduce, for
whatever reason. So let's see... Parasites living inside creatures are unnatural, since their hosts have
"interfered" by providing an "unnatural" environment? Ants which keep aphids for the sugar they
secrete are unnatural, then, because the ants have interfered with the aphids "natural" evolution?

Dogs? Do you have a pet dog or cat, or goldfish? Do I need to elaborate? What about bread... you
like to eat bread, right? How do you think the wheat got so tasty, hardy, fast-growing, etc... yes, by
selective breeding. Rice? Corn? Should I go on? We've "interfered" in the genetics, the "natural"
evolution, of allthose and many, many more. Did we consider the ecological effects, when we
domesticated the horse? When we irrigate land to raise rice to eat, and destroy huge habitats, forcing
adaptation of all sorts of creatures, including ourselves? Yes, of course we should consider the
effects of breeding different plants, animals, etc... and we should have been for the last few hundred
thousand years. But we haven't, have we. But then, neither did the ants when they domesticated the
aphid.

So now everyone is talking about "genetic engineering". We now have yet another technique for
doing what we've been doing all along. And it will let us do it more efficiently, and perhaps make more
profound changes. Yes, indeed. We are entering the century of biological engineering, like it or not. I
for one think it's wonderful... it can give us more control over our lives and our environment, it can
feed the hungry, it can help make work easier. And we will learnthings. Or it can destroy us... just as
our overpopulation, our weapons, our diseases, can, just as... hey, you name it.

Whatever the ethics of "interfering" in evolution are, it's certainly not something we've just begun to
do. I for one would prefer the comfort of a warm house in the winter rather than being huddled in a
cave... but that implies massiveinterference in the environment in which I'm living, even if all I'm
doing is living in a log cabin burning wood I've cut (not to mention that to have as little as an axe with
a metal blade implies all sorts of technology... mining, smelting, etc., etc.). And that interference
implies adaptation in that environment on the part of plants, animals... and other people.

No, I'm afraid that there is no boundary between any actions we take, especially now, and actions
which "interfere". So the morality of interfering is just exactly the same as the morality of any actions
at all.

Steven Ravett Brown