The nuanced distinction between the two approaches is in fact the very critical detail... every single thing humans do HAS to factor in the probability of human error......
Human error in the context of selective breeding has a much lower probability of catastrophic fallout than does human error in the context of direct genetic modification/"bioengineering"
catastrophic how?
If we assume gene X only controls one trait, but it turns out to control a lot of functions, we could introduce weird diseases or mutations by accident. When you selectively breed, you let evolved biological control mechanisms filter out potentially dangerous mututions
I don't trust profit-motivated corporations to tinker/optimize for bigger oranges and beefier cows without tolerating some possibly harmful tradeoffs. These are the ppl that brought us high fructose corn syrup. Given the means, they will ALWAYS want a "stickier" product..
You would of course, run tests on what you created to see if it's harmful or not
Familiar with Roundup? It's a highly toxic chemical that kills nearly anything it touches. Crops were "bioengineered" to be tolerant to roundup. Farmland was then saturated with Roundup, killing only the undesirable plants (weeds).
"Testing" the bioengineered crops would have revealed no problematic effects to the plant. But it turns out human consumption of Roundup is VERY harmful.... nature would have never produced a plant immune to Roundup. Gene editing did. Unfortunately the second/third order effects became apparent only after the practice was already mainstream.... this is a large contributor to America's food supply being toxic
Interesting case, but this is unrelated to the gene editing itself. The problem is Roundup. This is a problem of capitalist system which does not really care who gets cancer, or in the case of private, for profit healthcare, even incentivizes more cancer - because a looooot of profit can be made curing it.
Sure. In this case. I'm just pointing out the problem with unforeseen consequences. You are implying these ppl are good at anticipating consequences. I am suggesting they are abysmal at it. Therefore there should be no tinkering with the source code
Nature is the only proofreader I even marginally trust.
