Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Give Human Organs to Lamb
TK Interior writes "Myrtle Beach Online reports the existence of a lamb-human chimera-- a blend of two different species. Not only has a lamb been given a human liver and heart, but mice are sporting human brain cells. At what level is a chimera 'too' human? Where do you draw the line between human and animal? How will this affect evolution?"
> I want my monkey man!
You could buy Koko!
Was it Bart who said this?
If you believe DNA is what determines human-ness, then all the cellular detritus that you leave scattered about every day is just as human as you are.
:-P
Yes, I do believe they're a part of me and therefore human, anything else is simply not true. What else? Being alien? Or do you mean something else with "human"? I agree they're not humane if that's what you're saying...?
You would have to claim that the snot you pick out of your nose has the same human rights as your mother.
No, because my mother is a human with humanity, while my snot is human but with no humane characteristics.
What constitutes human then? The sensible answer is my view (and others) is that it depends upon the thing's ability to be part of a society with other 'humans', and to have qualities such as empathy, self-consciousness and the like which are regarded as human qualities. Without those, a thing is no more human than its DNA might be.
You seem to be saying that if one acts humane, one is human. I'm not sure everyone agree with that these terms are interchangible, and in this case things get a bit complex, since there are several definitions for both words if you look them up, and one of them is that "being human" can mean "having the form of a human" which is probably where this discussion/disagreement probably has its roots in. Since that definition is in direct conflict with "a robot can be human". However, to make matters worse, there are other definitions that don't seem to conflict.
Given how unimportant it really is, it seems quite possible in the future that there will be (human-constructed) things which are human in all the important senses, even if they don't have the same DNA as my toe-nail clippings.
This is another example of definition problems and where I'd like to make a difference between humane and human... I would agree with you that we might have humane beings with non-human DNA (at least not to 100%) in the future, however I wouldn't really want to call a strange robot looking like a box human even if it might have humane qualities. But yeah, it's hard to make a difference and I fully understand you when you say "a human-constructed object can be human". It just depends on which definition of human I'd use if I would agree with you or not.
I'd dare saying it's all a definition question anyway...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
No, because my mother is a human with humanity, while my snot is human but with no humane characteristics.
Your snot is human? Sorry man, but this is ridiculous.
I really don't think it is easy to make one sweeping definition of what is human. Organisms classified as Homo sapiens are human, but last I checked you can't go out to the store and buy a H. sapiens membership test in the drug store.
To assert that your dead skin cells are human since they are made up of the same genetic material as you is just as silly. If I gather piles of skin cells from a million people over a year and build a skin-cell mountain, is that a human? Of course not! It shares genetic material with humans but so do monkeys, bananas and just about every living thing on this planet.
kill me!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Was it Bart who said this?
I think he talked about monkey butlers when they were stranded on an island.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Isn't that amazing? Two anti-abortion posts both modded as -1, while the opposite side is not modded down, despite using the same crude language.
Thanks slashdot moderators, for always maintaining a level playing ground.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Your reasoning is short sighted. Evolution has no impact on the existence of God. Maybe God is smarter than you give God credit. Maybe God created the big bang and let the universe run the way it went. Maybe God created man form a Monkey, maybe not. I do not think that a missing link has been found yet, which pretty much says that there is nothing that directly connects us (humans) to any other species. There are theories that man came from another species. We know that man-like species (cro-magnum, homo eructus, ...) came from other speices, but I am not aware of the missing link being found as of yet. Maybe our next step in evolution is taking control of one more aspect of our environment and enhancing it for our survival (our gene pool). Maybe keeping people alive who would normally die off is a first step to being intelligent enough as a species to eliminating that which might kill people off in the gene pool. That would be incredible evolution.
True, at our current level, we are weakening the gene pool by allowing those who would not normally live long enough to reproduce. But, maybe we are strengthening the gene pool by gathering enough understanding of these God given tools (genetics) to use them the way God would. After all, it is our calling to become as Godlike as we can. Maybe Satan wants us to go no further and whispers in peoples ears pretending to be God. Show me one place in the Bible where God says to not do these things. Thou shalt not murder is good, but if murder is not involved, then what?
Maybe life is just a test to see if you can be smart enough to see past the false preachers in this world who would hold a society back because of the individuals' fears or the false preachers' power mongering through fear. I do not remember reading anything in the Bible that says we should not use any of the tools that are available to us. I remember hearing small men in cloth preaching we should not, but that is their opinion, not the word of God.
Most people whom I know who think Darwin is right are better church goers (do what they say, not just lip service at the pulpit) than most of the people who fight this stuff. I know very few "scientists" who do not believe in God. And, nowhere do I find a contradiction in Genesis and Darwinism. The only contradiction I find is in those who are unwilling to learn and study the world around them, as the Bible says to do. If this is God's creation, and in Genesis it is written that he has given us dominion over it, then what has he not given us dominion over?
We should move ahead with great caution and make sure many times over before we use this knowledge, but that is left to us by Him.
BTW, while we are on Genesis, why does it say the Gods created the heaven and Earth? It may not in English and Greek and other such translations, but in the original language, it does. Why did people mistranslate that? Why are Christs writings not included in the Bible? Is not he the main focus of the new covenant? Why are the writings of Mary not in the Bible? What were the real objectives of the Niacean (sp?) meeting in the 400s AD to build a Bible where none had existed before? Think about these things. A religion is not about God, but it is about the people who want us to see God in a certain way. That is why there are so many religions for the same God.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.