Chimeras

[dancing_invisible]

Chimeras

Slightly disturbing, methinks.

Thoughts?

[Azalroth]

Well this is quiet the development in Bio-engineering, not sure where this will go. As interestin as it is though I'm not sure how I stand on this topic, I'm not sure if I'm for or against it.

 

With the ever persistance of bio-engineering there is going to become a ever popular debate of ethics and morals when it comes to fusing species together, or created living breathing things for harvestin organs. This isn't something that is goin to go away, there will have to be laws and rules in place to try to govern the usage of this technology.

 

Hmmm I wonder how the Military will use this breakthrough...

[Prometheon]

Holy shit. I honestly have no idea where I stand on this, but having rats with human brains seems a little much. At what point do you become 'human' by definition?

 

If it's when you have 4 limbs, then amputees are left out. If it's being between certain height and weight ranges, then midgets, dwarfs, anorexics and obese are left out. If it's not being a mouse, well then what the fuck? Is possessing a human brain the only requirement to being human?

 

I dunno, I'm one of the most liberal people I know about cloning, stem cell research, etc, but this is some very dangerous ethical territory.

Edited August 8, 2006 by Prometheon

[Azalroth]

Indeed it is Prometheon.

 

So far there is no actual definition of "what is human", there is too many variables to come up with a definitive answer to that question. We may never have an answer to it.

[Prometheon]

Plus conducting potentially harmful experiments on lab animals has already been debated by people. Imagine the issues which arise when these lab animals possess a human brain (and a human consciousness??).

[Azalroth]

Which brings up another thing, is human conciousness only a human property? I mean all lifeforms have a concious whether sub concious or not....right?

[Guest apsham]

I hope I die before anything like this happens.. eep, seriously.

[Azalroth]

Are you dead yet? Cause it's likely alreayd happened and the public just doesn't know yet.

[cringleman]

From a purely philosophical point of view, what makes consciousness a uniquely human trait? (I mention this because of the phrase 'human consciousness' that was used.)

 

In fact, it's impossible to tell what it is like to be any other human, let alone a mouse or a cactus. Maybe plants just react really slowly to everything -- like Heinlein's Martians.

 

What about self-consciousness? Currently, aside from humans, the only animals I'm aware of that can identify their own image in a mirror as themselves are "higher" primates and "higher" cetaceans (specifically just dolphins, I think). Is that it? I don't know -- it's very hard to say.

 

From a purely scientific point of view, it's actually phenomenally difficult to pin down a single, precise definition of 'species,' let alone 'human.' We have no scalpel with which to dissect the problem: morphology is insufficient, genetics are inherently unfit and reproduction is insanely difficult to test (and potentially misleading). Currently, an ad-hoc mix of the three is being used (in varying ratios) by taxonomists and other biologists.

 

I don't even have an opinion to express (just a lot of knowledge with which to demonstrate the incredible murk of the issue, and its surrounding meta-issues), but I do find one quote from that article very funny:

 

Jeremy Rifkin (whoever that is) allegedy says, "One doesn't have to be religious or into animal rights to think this doesn't make sense." I beg to differ.

 

If one has no religious beliefs about tampering with divine creations, and one also has no beliefs that animals have rights similar (or exactly like) humans, then only human rights could possibly interfere with one's approval of chimeras. Not all chimeras are human-X mixes, and we're all equally confused about what defines a human, anyway.

 

It's a muddy issue, but one that should most certainly be carefully, deliberately examined and intelligently, thoughtfully evaluated, both scientifically and ethically, before anyone jumps to conclusions of 'right' and 'wrong.'

 

There is, of course, only perspective, in the end. But this is a long enough essay, already. Apologies for that.

[supercanuk]

In a culture where the domination of, control of, and ownership of, everything wild, the creation of half domesticated animal, and half human domesticated animal, for the furtherance of homo sapien sapien, would seem logical. I am purposefully trying to refrain from throwing in moral judgements, but if you look at the way our culture acts with the natural world ( ourselves being apart of it, how we treat ourselves and others, as well as the rest of the cycle of life), you get a really bleak picture. As Matthew Good so succintly put: "We're ruthless, and we're cunning, and im heir to it all"

[cringleman]

No other but Man can so effortlessly alter his surroundings (pardon the gender-centric language). If only he'd wait to understand better before doing so.

 

The odd thing is that it's frighteningly difficult to elucidate a rational reason for the notion of chimeras being wrong. I have no illusions of the 'solemn dignity' of the human genome; it's an incredible thing, and beautiful in the pinnacle of that word's sense, but it's not untouchably sacred, just because it's ours.

 

The same is true for other creatures (I endeavor to be fair, if nothing else).

 

The only thing you have to wonder is: does creating these odd little beings cause them to suffer more unduly than simply keeping your ordinary lab creature in its transplanted habitat? Would the mere existence of the human-brained rat be intolerably cruel to that rat?

 

If so, then why -- because it is human, because it is rat, or because it is simultaneously both and neither?

 

Can being be a cruelty, given the right DNA?

[supercanuk]

No other but Man can so effortlessly alter his surroundings (pardon the gender-centric language). If only he'd wait to understand better before doing so.

 

The odd thing is that it's frighteningly difficult to elucidate a rational reason for the notion of chimeras being wrong. I have no illusions of the 'solemn dignity' of the human genome; it's an incredible thing, and beautiful in the pinnacle of that word's sense, but it's not untouchably sacred, just because it's ours.

 

The same is true for other creatures (I endeavor to be fair, if nothing else).

 

The only thing you have to wonder is: does creating these odd little beings cause them to suffer more unduly than simply keeping your ordinary lab creature in its transplanted habitat? Would the mere existence of the human-brained rat be intolerably cruel to that rat?

 

If so, then why -- because it is human, because it is rat, or because it is simultaneously both and neither?

 

Can being be a cruelty, given the right DNA?

Very well put.

 

Can being be a cruelty given the right DNA? Well i don't know, if i had my brain that i do now, but the body of a rat, and knew that i wasn't suppose to be in the body of a rat, then yes, horribly so. But if you knew nothing else then maybe you would only progress as far as a rat would because of your surroundings. There's just so many goddamn variables in this theres a lot to consider in terms of morality... Id like to explore this a bit further, why isn't our genome sacred? Should we make no things sacred as a culture? Or are we strictly talking the furtherance of scientific understanding which must never be stemed? Also does being human take into consideration a holistic understanding. For example, are you only human when you have the DNA of a human, and are physically a homo sapien sapien? Does adding these together make you human? Is human simply creating artistically, intellectually? Is it all that we simply do/think/ etc?

[Azalroth]

No other but Man can so effortlessly alter his surroundings (pardon the gender-centric language). If only he'd wait to understand better before doing so.

 

The odd thing is that it's frighteningly difficult to elucidate a rational reason for the notion of chimeras being wrong. I have no illusions of the 'solemn dignity' of the human genome; it's an incredible thing, and beautiful in the pinnacle of that word's sense, but it's not untouchably sacred, just because it's ours.

 

The same is true for other creatures (I endeavor to be fair, if nothing else).

 

The only thing you have to wonder is: does creating these odd little beings cause them to suffer more unduly than simply keeping your ordinary lab creature in its transplanted habitat? Would the mere existence of the human-brained rat be intolerably cruel to that rat?

 

If so, then why -- because it is human, because it is rat, or because it is simultaneously both and neither?

 

Can being be a cruelty, given the right DNA?

Very well put.

 

Can being be a cruelty given the right DNA? Well i don't know, if i had my brain that i do now, but the body of a rat, and knew that i wasn't suppose to be in the body of a rat, then yes, horribly so. But if you knew nothing else then maybe you would only progress as far as a rat would because of your surroundings. There's just so many goddamn variables in this theres a lot to consider in terms of morality... Id like to explore this a bit further, why isn't our genome sacred? Should we make no things sacred as a culture? Or are we strictly talking the furtherance of scientific understanding which must never be stemed? Also does being human take into consideration a holistic understanding. For example, are you only human when you have the DNA of a human, and are physically a homo sapien sapien? Does adding these together make you human? Is human simply creating artistically, intellectually? Is it all that we simply do/think/ etc?

Sacred:

 

1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>

2 a : worthy of religious veneration : HOLY b : entitled to reverence and respect

3 : of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>

4 archaic : ACCURSED

5 a : UNASSAILABLE, INVIOLABLE b : highly valued and important <a sacred responsibility>

 

Human (Noun)

 

Function: noun

: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : HOMINID

 

Unfortunately I don't have much time to debate this right now as I have a tonne of work to do, I'm currently on my lunch...

 

 

I'd like to first say that this is a very intersting topic and so far all points are valid, well done gents.

 

I have posted two definitions that I think would be beneficial to this debate as no one has defined the two as of yet. Supercanuk, I was wondering which definition you were using for "sacred", hence the multiple definitions.

 

I think the more important question would be, Why would our genome be sacred? What is so sacred about it? It's still made up of molecular particles just like everything elses genomes. There is nothing special about them other than the fact that it's human genomes.

 

But if you knew nothing else then maybe you would only progress as far as a rat would because of your surroundings.

 

This reminds me of The Allegory Of The Cave, which states that if all you know is what you see then perception = reality. That you won't know about anything that you don't see, or experience, if you don't know what it's like to be anything other than a rat then you won't know any difference...you'll just be a rat. If you were a rat for a long time and then told that you were human you wouldn't believe it at all, you'd think that it's not reality at all.

 

Should we make no things sacred as a culture?

 

Again what do you mean by sacred? Do we hold things in high regard? As a society I would say no, only because we are so willing to kill ourselves, to kill others, and to destroy our own world and way of living. In today's society nothing is sacred anymore, not in the sense that it was in the days of old.

 

Also does being human take into consideration a holistic understanding. For example, are you only human when you have the DNA of a human, and are physically a homo sapien sapien? Does adding these together make you human? Is human simply creating artistically, intellectually? Is it all that we simply do/think/ etc?

 

We are human because of all of that, not just simply because we are creative, intellictual, or because of DNA. We are human because all of these things combine to make us human, our experiences that we have, our thoughts that are developed through these experiences, our ability to think and learn. We are who we are because we have never known anything else. This next example will even challenge what I have just said: Say you were lost as a baby and some type of animal raised you to be one of them, and that is ALL you ever knew, nothing less and nothing more. Would you still be human? Or would you be that animal that you have raised to become?

 

Cheers,

[supercanuk]

I

Edited August 9, 2006 by supercanuk

[cringleman]

The reason that no one knows for sure how a human child would turn out if raised by a nonhuman parent (though, good luck finding an animal willing to do the job) is that there is no single study that is sufficiently well-documented and verified for the data to exist.

 

As a corollary, the experiment will not be performed, under today's standards, because it is considered an eithically repugnant thought.

 

Personally, I don't believe that society should hold anything sacred, except the utmost basics: life and free will swim immediately to mind (there are others; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't a bad approximation). Something as truly meaningless as genetic information can't really be held as sacred, because it is inherently unfit.

 

Any species' (if we assume that there are seperate species, which is the penultimate biological convenience) genome is constantly changing, and the natural possibility for hybrids already exists (although, to my knowledge, never across genera). We also shouldn't hold something as perfect and untouchable just because it's part of us -- that's extremely conceited.

 

While I will be the first to admit that it is crucial for restraint to be exercised in this new avenue of biological research (we don't need Seaman, any time soon), to simply call a halt to intermingling different species to any degree would be motivated out of ignorant fear.

 

It is plain, already, that interspecies combinations have existed for millennia (a massive proportion of agricultural grains, and many domesticated animals are hybrids), and no one thinks that a mule or a hinny (a horse bred with a donkey; a mule has a donkey father, where a hinny has a donkey mother) is an abomination of science (nor the common garden primrose, for that matter).

 

It is exceptionally odd to think of a pig with a human heart, but what is wrong with it? I would caution merely against the overenthusiasm of some researchers to grow creatures with human brains, simply because, if that creature were to attain human cognition, it could be very disquieting for both the creature and all of humanity.

 

We crave being the same, after all.

 

The irony is that the reason we cannot define a precise, categorizing definition of 'human' is because we are far too varied. We are not all bipedal. We do not all create, or produce (or even comprehend) art. We do not all feel strong emotions. Some of us have great difficulty learning. Some of us are born without certain limbs, with extra limbs, or attached to a whole other person.

 

One day, we may create a computer (or software) that can think and feel, just as we do. Would it be human?

 

It is impossible to create a definition of 'human' that does not exclude some obvious humans, and still manages to exclude things that are clearly not human. All but the vaguest definitions are flawed (and the flawed ones vague to the point of meaninglessness).

 

We are, by and large, social creatures that crave some measure of homogeneity, and yet we are all so very different.

 

Perhaps humanity is simply compassion.

 

[As a side note, I learned, in ascertaining the parental sex-difference for hinnies and mules (I always forget), that a male donkey is called a jack, whereas a female is a jenny.]

[supercanuk]

Personally, I don't believe that society should hold anything sacred, except the utmost basics: life and free will swim immediately to mind (there are others; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms isn't a bad approximation). Something as truly meaningless as genetic information can't really be held as sacred, because it is inherently unfit.

 

Any species' (if we assume that there are seperate species, which is the penultimate biological convenience) genome is constantly changing, and the natural possibility for hybrids already exists (although, to my knowledge, never across genera). We also shouldn't hold something as perfect and untouchable just because it's part of us -- that's extremely conceited.

Good points, but does the basics: life and free will, run up against each other in terms of this experiment? For example, will this animal human hybrid have the same "rights" as we, i.e. life and free will ( if indeed we have the right to both). I meant sacred in terms of scientific restraint, personally im an atheist/nihilist so i dont actually consider anything sacred, im just skeptical that we can maintain our own moral compass with such science. And no, i dont mean morality in the religious sense, i mean in what we collectively agree on i.e. freedoms ( if we accept that the governments freedoms are something we agree on, but i guess for most law-abiding forum members they do agree). Scientists should be given the most freedom possible to do their research, but when their research does involve living species are we to hold their life/lives second to research?

 

edit: keep in mind morality is totally subjective, this question may to you seem fine, that research comes first, but is there a collective morality that guides us, i.e. security of the person, i.e. freedom of speech, etc.

Edited August 10, 2006 by supercanuk

[Azalroth]

First: Thanks for the term SC...nihilist, gotta remember that. Had to look it up of course, damn you and your big new words....

 

 

Cringleman...not sure if I've welcomed you to the forum yet but Welcome A-Board, you are going to be a great asset to this I can tell. Thanks for the interesting debate.

 

 

Alright down to business....

 

Cringleman...you mention something about "Free will" what is that exactly? Do we really have it? I mean we are governed everywhere we look, we can't do this or that type of thing. So if you honestly think that our Culture/Society actually holds "free will" as a sacred thing in our lives...you might want to rethink it.

 

Main Entry: free will

Function: noun

1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>

2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

 

There's the definition. I'd say it's accurate, wouldn't you? The problem with the free will idea is that we DON'T actually have it. If we ever did have it, we haven't for a long long time. With the governing forces in the world that are forever "protecting" us from...oh lets use..."terrorists" we do NOT have free will. Our choices are "determined by prior causes" such as governing rules, actions and consequences. Don't get me wrong, I believe in the fact that we ALWAYS have a choice, no matter what situation it is you do have a choice...it's just a matter of accepting what happens when you make the choice.

 

 

I think we can both agree on the main point of this thread so far, we need to have an official discussion regarding this new scientific development and to find out what it really means to us, how it affects us and how we feel about it. The term "we" refers to society...as flawed as it is.

 

 

Evolution has always combined species together, evolution is the ever changing sequence of our genomes, or genetic makeup to try and make our being perfect. When we stop mutating and transforming into other things is when we become truly perfect and never need to adapt. The fact that we are quickening this adaptation could possibly be evolution.

 

Cringleman: You say that "We crave being the same, after all."

 

Do we? Are we craving to be the same when we dress differently? Are we craving to be the same when we act differently? When we make sure that we point out the difference between people? When we keep seperating ourselves from others?

 

 

 

 

Ok...Your Turn...

[supercanuk]

Do we? Are we craving to be the same when we dress differently? Are we craving to be the same when we act differently? When we make sure that we point out the difference between people? When we keep seperating ourselves from others?

 

Ok...Your Turn...

I'd say uniformity is one of humanity's constants. Sure we dress differently, but those clothes were all made by somebody else, (unless you sow your own clothes, which is rare). This means that other people also wear these clothes, which means you are no longer original. We do indeed pick out differences in people but it's often in spite of ignorance, arrogance, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, which are all fears of what is not uniform to what society does not consider "normal". I am not saying everyone is like this, i don

[garsk]

We do indeed pick out differences in people but it's often in spite of ignorance, arrogance, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, which are all fears of what is not uniform to what society does not consider "normal". I am not saying everyone is like this, i don

[cringleman]

First of all, I should clarify that when I mention Free Will, I simply mean self-determination to the extent of having some choice, at all. My views can, on this issue, largely be grouped under weak libertarianism, where I feel that if you're not doing harm to anyone else, then you should be free to do whatever you choose. Clearly we have some choice, unless you're a scientific determinist (in which case, I think you need to learn more science), or a religious determinist (which no one seems to be, thus far).

 

What I would say as far as treatment of the species being used for research is that this case is no different than other research involving lab animals, which is no different (I would argue) than eating meat (which I adore; mmm, meat!). To my mind, there's really not a whole lot more to the issue, unless you want to debate the use of lab animals in general, which is quite a sticky situation.

 

Back to the free will debate, where you say, Azalroth, that we do not have free will, you demonstrate that we do, if only to a limited extent. If we didn't have free will at all, thanks to the government, then it must be the government willing you to say that.

 

We do, in fact, have unlimited free will: we're perfectly capable of acting against the laws of the land -- others will simply impose their wills upon us if we do. Ultimately, the test of free will is whether or not you may choose to not choose. If we so wished, all of us could cease to choose, and simply wait to expire.

 

As far as evolution, the recombination of species that have diverged previously is exceedinly rare. Examples include how we came to have mitochondria, and also how plants came to have chloroplasts. Generally, however, the accepted trend in evolution is toward divergence: groups of one species slowly become separate species, and not the other way around (hybrids exist in the wild, but are usually quite rare; the red wolf, for example, is a cross between a coyote and a grey wolf, and isn't as common as either).

 

I apologize for the tangent, but as a student of biology, I'm going to have to explain something. The mistake most people make with regards to evolution is inferring a directionality in it; some say it moves towards greater complexity in organisms (which is not always the case), and some say that it is 'perfecting' the genomes. Really, all evolution is is the increasing frequency of genetic alleles that happen to be advantageous at the time.

 

It's the at the time that's important. At some point, it was useful for us to become bipedal, which has helped us out. At some other point, it was useful for certain populations to develop a resistance to malaria, but, sadly, that allele can also cause sickle-cell anemia, now. The sickle-cell thing is now more problematic than the malarial resistance is helpful, because (in the developed world, at least) we have a much lower exposure to the pathogen that causes malaria.

 

As for the desire for conformity, I do realize (and concede) that that is not a uniform value held by all of us. I, personally, am neither conformist nor nonconformist. I do what pleases me, whether it is conformity or not. I try to simply think for myself, without worrying it if is accepted or original.

 

What I was observing was a general trend -- the trend that is responsible for fashion, for example.

 

I also never said that society does hold free will to be of utmost importance: I said that it should.

 

In any case, the topic's starting to veer wildly into some heady philosophical territory.

[Hyphnip]

I'll laugh when mankind destroys itself with shit like this

[Azalroth]

With what shit? The Chimera experiments?

 

 

Thank you Cringleman for clarifying...and as we are basically on the same page I don't have anything else to debate on this situation. Of course my side of Free Will was a generalization of society, no individual free will. We ALWAYS have a choice, we just have to accept what comes of it.

 

Thats all I got...time to make some coffee and get some food maybe.

 

Good debate, cheers.

[cringleman]

My pleasure. Sorry that it took me so very much text to explain myself.

[supercanuk]

That was a good little debate, clearity is what i always try to achieve as well, lots of text are good.

[WinstonSmith357]

I wonder if this researcher ever read The Island of Doctor Moreau?