1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
|
I have a more humanistic approach to this. Since DNA was first isolated in the 1950s, it wasn't just a molecule, it became an informational molecule. It was given a name, and when it happens when you give a name ot something, that something begins to assume a different existence, you change its nature.
It became a cultural entity and not just an entity, as such, in view of the labs, it became influential in society as well. Then, it went on to being an object of study to a medium in the form of wetware or hardware or software. As such, it became a tool. What have you have to believe I think when you society, I think I am particularly interested in the genomic databanks.
I think those are the most expressive cultural element, as DNA as software. You have DNA that becomes a single- it's a represention of thousands of letters which does not match the actual entity, so we have an information of life where it becomes information and instantiated into computers and stored and traded at that point. It becomes the property of those changes, by pharma companies, and you can patent DNA, you can sequence it, so what you do is you have protections of DNA. It's an ideal form of government based on the supremacy of genes. Genocracy. THis happens because DNA and genes are thought to be objective in the name of nature, so what happens is very often, governments conduct social policies under the belief that genes have life and death. You can see that in health care, forensics, agriculture, parental testing.. you have adoption policies entirely based on entire genomic databanks. That same cculture and genetically modified organisms.
I think this would leave to a Gattaca scenario, a future where DNA doesn't just determine body features but also social status of someone and what happens is that, there's eugenics where you determine how an organism will be before its birth. And genetic determinism as well which is the assumption that everything that happens to someone in his life is determined by his genome. Even though it's not the case right now, it's sort of uh, possible direction we're headed to. Since genomics databases and all these DNA so far are in the hands of governments and big laboratories and big corporations, I think these gave a very partial views to things and I think it's the reason why the need for as well.. is mainly to givea broader perspective. So I think open sourcing bioknowledge and having .. bridging biotech by.. and challenging that, is my goal as a biohacker.
So this is basically what we do and what we're trying to do. Thank you.
|
