Human Logic; It makes me LOL

There is something intrinsically wrong with human logic when the Earth is treated the way we have of late. It is evident that something is amiss in our thinking when animals, who have sustained us for centuries have suddenly developed diseases that are more virulent than science has ever seen. We may have "boldly gone where no one has gone before", but at what costs to our Biosphere's health? It seems with the evidence presented that science has answers to push us forward into more and more unknown regions of biotechnology, but is only able to produce more problems that some day the human race will have to come to terms with. Either by re-awakening the knowledge that humans are only a part of the whole of our world, even the universe, or by becoming just another blip on the extinction chart.

Creating new diseases or extreme forms of known ones is not the path civilization should follow. We may take nature and shape it to our will to serve our own ends, but has it ever caused so much destruction? Some will say yes, but do they know the far-reaching ramifications of our current activities in biotech world? Would nature create a "terminator gene", a living thing that would purposely drive itself into extinction? The way of the world is to survive, it is written in our very genetic code--the thing science thinks it can "manipulate" without any ill effects to life.

What are we thinking when we say, "Humans have done this for years", when it does not compare to past actions? When the average person does not even understand the basic science behind gene manipulation when making this statement?  In the past, we merely took what was already there and encouraged it to flourish. We did not try to create something new; the sacred boundaries evolution drew between species were not crossed. Life was not meant to cross this line.

Life co-evolved in ways humans cannot, even may not ever, understand. To treat deliberate manipulation between species as if it can and should compare to the evolutionary differences within a species is nothing more than arrogance on our part. To think that this line should be crossed to re-make nature into what we see fit is illogical. Have we entered the abyss that Dr. Moreau entered? Are we creating a "perfect island" were nature has no laws, and anything goes?

What I find most abhorrent in this field is the insistence that it is merely an extension of what's been going on all along in nature, we're just giving it a little push in the direction we want it to go. To insist that a species would take such a course, to de-evolve to a previous time and recombine its genetic make-up is ridiculous.  Evolution pushes forward, it does not choose to back-peddle.  Yes, outside forces have pushed evolution backwards--even to extinction for some--something to consider when arguing for "genetic modification"--but it begins its fight forward once again.   A plant is a plant because that is its path--either by biotic or abiotic pressures--it is a plant. The genes that turned off eons ago that could have made it something else are still there, but remain dormant for a reason.

Do we understand this reason? Most likely not, something we as humans must embrace: There are things in the universe we do not understand, concepts we cannot grasp, and something we should not interfere in until we do reach this plane of understanding about life. To insist that something should be remade before we understand the essence of its life, is to taunt nature, the one that made it.
 
We can, of course, hypothesize, study, examine, and theorize, but should not engage in wide-spread experiments on the population without thorough, extensive research.  Making bold and broad statements about the genetic tweaks we make as being "comparable to its counterpart so it must be safe" is childish.  If it still looks like the familiar apple, it must not be bad.  If it in a familiar package, it's accepted to be good.  After all, it does not resemble the horrible mutant often associated with genetics gone awry.   Outward appearances are shallow and meaningless.  It is what at first attracts us, but whether we accept it as something to cherish depends on deeper things--what is inside.  In the case of genetics, it is something most cannot and will never see so we rely on those who can--the "experts" in the field. 

Who are these experts?  The experts are the ones who's livelihood depends on the corporate giant who's bottom line is to make money at any cost.  So our experts are already biased towards the industry, something science shies away from and even makes rules against.  Our experts are the ones who are paid to present to the public the "cutting edge of technology" wrapped in the familiar, so we  accept without question.  Have we been so conditioned by our advertising industry that we cannot think critically or objectively?  Can we not formulate our own hypothesis based on what we feel, even know is wrong down to our core--our DNA--the very essence of who we are? 

Are we so arrogant to think we can re-make the very mechanism that shaped us? We may have the upper hand on Earth, or so we think, but in the grand scheme of things we are but mere cogs in the larger machine that is life. When we become beings who feel we have all the answers and solutions, in our own minds we become God-like, and gods we are not.