Can man create [and destroy] life?

Scientists at J. Craig Venter Institute in Maryland in the United States have created a gene map for synthetic life, in a move that could re-define birth of life and the fundamentals of human civilisation.

The research is aimed at designing synthetic life form that could be used in medicine and for industrial purposes like the production of biofuels.

Before they embark on the venture to create what could be considered as a real-life Frankenstein, the god-fearing researchers are planning to seek guidance from religious and ethical experts.

Fact is if man indeed is able to or attempting to create life, is man not playing god or at least attempting to do so? Needless to say, such a ‘blasphemous’ act will be or have already been met by resistance from others who have held on to the established fundamentals of our current human civilisation.

But this is far from the first time humans have attempted to manipulate life, nor would it be the last. Stem cell research is the most recent human attempt to replicate lifeforms with the goal of extending rather than creating new [human] lives. However, the twist in the latest project undertaken at the J. Craig Venter Institute in Maryland is that the life of the synthetic lifeform could be sustained indefinitely depending on its use value for instance in helping biofuel production.

The premise of the new research on the synthetic lifeform then throws up a new challenge to human civilisation. How far can we humans tolerate the existence of Frankenstein lifeforms living and breeding among us, though the purpose of their beings is indeed to serve our ends throughout their lifetime?

Beggar thee neighbour – classic self-interests at play

Biofuel, the renewable child of energy and agriculture, starts with the promise of creating new income streams for the empowerment of rural poor.

But alas, the policy makers conveniently forget to educate their constituencies on the opportunity costs for land use. You have this limited land and it could only go to either raising of crops for food or crops for fuel.

Thus sparks a chain reaction of rising food costs – fairly or unfairly blamed on the biofuel sector.

The Chinese response is a classic example of self-interests at play.

The price of pork – a popular source of meat protein – almost doubled over the last year. Certainly cause of concern in a country with a growingly affluent population demanding more meat in their diets.

So what are the Chinese doing? Stop corn or grain-based ethanol production. Sounds like a good idea. But wait, read the fine line:

The government also said it would encourage corn processors to set up corn production bases in other countries, to “take advantage of global land resources.”

Save the land in China for food production and source for lands elsewhere to produce the needed corn for biofuel. Beggar thee neighbour – Chinese need to eat but not everyone else in the world. Classic self-interests in search of refuge under a globalisation tagline.