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 should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
These things aren't new, they've been posting on /. for years!
This can only be ba-a-a-a-ad.
Too human is perhaps the point when, if, we get to making an animal that can perform as the midspecies link between two diseases?
A disease that affects sheep maybe can gestate over years in a flock of sheep and then suddenly because they have many human organs its affecting humans too. It opens a door of potentials not all of which are good
The nets biggest nude anime gallery's
than a human with a pig heart is a pig. It's about DNA, not body parts.
I welcome our 5 assed overlords!
I wouldn't consider transplanting human organs into an animal a chimera. When they can put human DNA and make human organs grow naturally in an animal, then we'll have a chimera (and a little problem on our hands).
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
Did we see this article (by the same author from the Washington Post) in a /. post a couple of days ago?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/2 0/2240209&tid=191&tid=14
Ba-a-a-a-a-d idea.
W = (-president)^1/2
When it says "Daa-aaa-aaa-dy!"
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
it really kicks the llama's ass!
"How will this affect evolution?"
Many things effect evolution... Medical science has been effecting evolution for a very long time as people who would have died because of genetic illness have lived on through medical science. The human species has not had real natural selection for a long time because we do not die from genetic problems as often.
The only evolution humans are likely to undergo is a scary one. Stupid people are having more children than smart people, therefore people are going to get stupider. Maybe it's already happened
99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
How will this affect evolution?
Not at all since the reproductive cells are not affected.
-Colin
First of all, no species has ever been shown to evolve into another species. No scientific experiment has ever proved this.
But back to the topic at hand, I don't think we have anything to fear from inserting human genes into non-human subjects. As long as the resulting creatures are kept isolated from the general population of creatures, such a "mutation" is highly unlikely to infect the general population with abnormal genes.
But then again, this all throws in the trash the whole idea of genetic engineering which is to develop cures for our current problems using the existing genetic materials which may be helpful. The development of insulin-building cells is a direct result of genetic engineering. So too are the "skin farms" which generate sheets of usable skin for burn victims.
The main problem is in how to decide to whom these benefits should go. Given unlimited supplies, anyone who had need should get them, but with current limited supply, it is difficult to decide who ought to be eligible for these.
Should the gay guy with AIDS be allowed to take advantage of these skin cells? Or should it go to the cancer patient who is losing skin like crazy as he quickly descends down the path of mortality? Should we only give these benefits to the ones who are likely to be healthy?
The problem is not the technology. We can develop greater technology. The problem is a philosophical one, because we can't offer these advances to everyone. We must decide who is important and who is not..
A tough choice, to say the least.
Isn't the line between species whether they can reproduce? And I mean _successfully_ reproduce. ;)
How will this affect evolution???
Let me ask you this - how will this affect OUTSOURCING?
Gives a whole new meaning to "code monkey"....
At what level is a chimera 'too' human?
...?
Slashdotter:
Goat: Not tonight honey, I have a headache.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
In science, an animal is a chimera if the cells throughout the animal are from two different animals. This is accomplished by mixing the zygotes (see the geep). You don't get a chimera through organ transplant.
-Colin
"How will this affect evolution?"
Assuming that you meant to say "effect", unless you mix our DNA this will have absolutely no effect on evolution.
You aren't talking about the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes by any chance, are you?
Probably no differently than our efforts are already having an effect. Unless a human-enhanced animal gets out and breeds in captivity, we won't see any new species adaptations except for those that we ourselves design. That said, what about going the other way? Would night-shift workers want to get implanted with bat ears so they could communte in the dark?
I think the ability to spray my scent on something(one) would come in handy during arguments.
"Yea well you're stupid!"
Psssssssst
"Yuck! I concede!"
That's not a soda... it's a caffeine delivery device!
...because there is no line to draw. "Animal" simply means "A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia" - Animal is a classification, and humans are part of the Animalia kingdom. Thus, humans are animals.
Lambs are animals.
Humans are animals.
Simple as that. Humans are not some special exemption - they are animals, and so to say "when do you draw the line between humans and animals" is just plain wrong. Go take a basic high school Biology course.
Perhaps what was meant to be said was "species" - a species is defined as a group of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Although humans could technically breed with sheep (and living near Wales, I should know...), the offspring would be sterile...
please.
"So baby, what are you doing tonight? baaaaaaaaaah
that's the silliest thing I've heard today, thanks for making my morning brighter!
Vote Quimby!
I personally wish they wouldn't do things like this. One mix-up and we could have an all powerful, super smart bear on our hands. Just leave the dumb animals alone.
How will it affect Evolution? It won't at all, Evolution is a process built into the Universe as I see it. We're always evolving but the selection pressure's are always shifting. The moment a doctor cures a disease in a person is the instant that that selection pressure was removed from that individuals small contribution to natural evolution. Instead it confer's a trait that is defined by how much an individual has access to quality health care as a new societal selection pressure.
:) ;)
Or I could just be talking out of my butt.
Shh.
You know lambs, wolves... oh, just forget it.
Canadian author Margaret Atwood recently wrote the futuristic tale Oryx and Crake, in which the chimera was a "pigoon". It's a good read for a fictional look at chimeras. (If I remember correctly, the pigoon ended up being very high-thinking - possibly it was a chimera because it had a human brain?)
----- Vegans don't send SPAM.
Lends a whole new meaning to the Fundies' proselytizing question, "are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?", doesn't it?
"Yes, that lamb really did die for my sins, in this case, donating its liver to redeem the rampant alcoholism I developed trying to wrap my head around why you Fundies voted for four more years of Bush."
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Some of our staff have gotten transplanted monkey organs. They jack off furiously all day and throw feces at one another during staff meeting.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Why do mice need human brain cells?
Aren't they the smartest species on Earth (followed by dolphins)?
And in fact, the article credits "Rick Weiss/The Washington Post".
One doesn't ordinarily expect to see major scientific news break in the Myrtle Beach Online. I'm sure it's a fine paper, but nearly every local newspaper gets its national news from a wire service like AP, or a "national" paper (Washington Post, New York Times, occasionally the LA Times or Chicago Tribune or a handful of others).
I grew up with the Washington Post as my daily newspaper, in which local news rarely makes the front page, or even the front section. Going away to college and reading the Richmond Times-Dispatch (a fine paper, actually, which occasionally breaks national news stories itself, but basically a local newspaper) was rather disorienting.
Heeellllpp mmeeee! HHHEEEELLLLLPP MMMEEEEEE!!!
It would be funny if life wasn't so sacred.
--
make install -not war
As a conservative Christian, I think the objection on the grounds animals should "multiply according to their kind" is weak depending on the methods used to create these chimeras. Obviously combining human gametes with animals' would be beastiality, which most people would still object to. But using adult stem cells or transplantation to do this isn't objectionable in my opinion.
The only real problem I see is illustrated in the following quote: If two such chimeras - say, mice - were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.
Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.
"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy.
Such a callous disregard for human life underscores the objection many people have to things such as embryonic stem cell research and abortion. This person obviously believes the unborn child is "alive"- otherwise it could not logically die. However, she does not care that it dies because of her irresponsible actions.
I think the medical profession above anybody has a responsibility to preserve life- even when it is just begining. In cases where there is a conflict between preserving two lives (as in embryonic stem cell research), the professional should look for alternatives- such as cord-harvested stem cells- that do not involve killing one human to preserve another.
That said, conservatives need to be open to those practices that, though unorthodox, have potential to preserve life without taking it.
Of course, then you would have to worry about cross-species dieases (AIDS is a known one) and the social stigma of such a transplant.
its 1st meal after the operation, a kebab and a pint of Guinness.
One of the primary dangers in this is increasing the contact of sheep viruses with human organs.
That is the primary way of allowing a virus to adapt and cross-species jump.
http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
As it stands asia is the source of virtualy all flu and africa the source of all Ebola. In both cases it's believed to be because of the biological conditions that put animals and humans in close contact where the viruses can jump between species. In the case of flu the host animal is birds which then jumps to mamals via pigs. Pigs are close enought o human that the jump to human is easy. and then it's flu season. In the case of Ebola no one knows what the host animal is. Apparently its not harmful to its host since it would slauter it wholsesale if it were as deadly as it is in humans. When it jumps to human's the only good nes is that it is so lethal it tends to kill it's host quicker than it spreads in rural africa. NY city might be a different story.
Some people think that ebola's natural host is a monkey or an ape.
Apes get many diseases we dont. For example Simian Aids. What would happen if we were to put human cells in an ape, then simian aids learned how to infect these cells. Then it jumped to the human population.
We are porting disease from the antire animal kingdom to our own without considering the consequences
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This is a great day for (check one):
( ) RIAA/MPAA/*AA
( ) Microsoft
( ) CueCat
( ) The Man
( ) All of the above
"Given the pace of technology, I propose we leave math to the machines and go play outside." -- Calvin
Oooooh the rats of Nimh exist in california and not thorn valley? I smell a sequel!
Well, I can think of situations where a person no longer qualifies for your definition of human. Quick example - someone in a coma. An infant probably wouldn't qualify either.
And this portion, ability to be part of a society, probably disqualifies half of the people reading this message.
before we have a talking dog named Nina then?
(I've been watching too much Fullmetal Alchemist lately and all these chimera stories are giving me the heebie jeebies)
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol in excess.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
7. All animals are equal.
You know what they're doing tonight? The same thing they do every night. PLOTTING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
You must think in Russian.
"During one recent meeting, scientists disagreed on such basic issues as whether it would be unethical for a human embryo to begin its development in an animal's womb."
It is time for Scientists to put down their petty differences! If we do not alow ourselves to start human lives inside animals how will we ever bring forth the Armageddon? HOW?! Its very clear from sctripture and popular film that we need to have human babies born from jakels. And until that happens the Liberals just don't have a shot at the US presidential office.
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
Jeez guys, this was only a week ago:2 0/2240209&tid=191&tid=14
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/
Divide by zero hurts my brain.
re infants and the brain dead: yup. Sounds like an excuse for some speculative fiction to raise awareness of these issues and get people debating them.
"Get your stinking hooves off me you damn dirty sheep..."
---As my daddy used to tell me: "You gotta be smart before you can be a smartass."
are we willing to risk the lives of many by saving a few? I am talking about things like organ transplants from animals to humans and the risk of letting animals' viruses to cross species and to attack humans? The article states that some cells in pigs used to grow human organs fuse with pig's cells and this creates this very real risk.
I am not sure this is good for survival of our species, even though it may save some individuals.
Then again, I am for anything that makes the highways go faster, so if half of the humans die from a pigs flue of some sort, I am sure there will be more roads for the rest of us.
You can't handle the truth.
A person in a coma, who is not going to come out of it unassisted, and who does not have anyone care about them one way or the other, is effectively not any more human than a forgotten dead person is, at least as far as anyone else is concerned.
People in comas who have relationships with other people, are definitely part of the network of human society, even though it may be passive. You can make a case for them being human in some senses but not others. Same applies for infants.
Even if you disagree with these sorts of criteria for determining human-ness, you have to acknowledge that the DNA-based one makes no sense at all. Or else attack me for the inhumane way I subject soiled hankerchiefs to chemical warfare when I do the washing.
A pig heart has pig DNA but doesn't make its recipient a pig; a human liver has human DNA but doesn't make a chimera human. The body part that counts is what you think with: a hypothetical sheep with a human brain would probably be better described as a human with a sheep body.
Of course, there could be ethical problems other than whether we should create or how we should treat "humanimals" - perhaps it's just my ignorance of biology, but human organs growing up in animal bodies sounds like the perfect "boot camp" for potential species-crossing germs. How would you like to be the doctor responsible for the next SIV->HIV jump?
How could having a human heart make an animal human? That's like saying a person with a liver transplant is now two people. No Einstien, its one person and a liver (albeit a new one). When we can transplant a mind and a soul to an animal and then have a conversation with it in which we contemplate the meaning of life, that's when we can start asking quesitons like this. And that is never going to happen.
And as far as evolution is concerned... that's just another pile of horseshit. The only difference is that more people believe that one then just a couple slashdoters. Tell me this, if evolution is true then where are all the "half-monkey/half-man" things walking around now? They are nowhere.
Evolution is always talked about as if it is a fact. It is a *theory* people. And it is an utterly ridiculous one at that. Open your eyes and look around; there is obviously distict separation between species. Evolution was concieved by people with utter contempt for the idea of a God who was personally involved in creation. Evolutionists just make themselves look stupid in their attempt to define their own existance, and most are driven simply by a desire to define their own morals and close their eyes to the light of Him who made us all.
Sure, there are ancient fossils of animals that are now extinct, etc. But this idea of the half-monkey/man that will contemplate life with you and then go nest in a tree and eat its own dingleberries is just a myth.
Q: At what level is a chimera "too" human?
A: No level. Who cares how human the thing is? It won't adversely affect anything in any way.
Q: Where do you draw the line between human and animal?
A: IMHO, "human" has nothing to do with biological makeup. If you have the emotional and mental capacity of a homo sapiens then you can be considiered "human", no matter what species you are.
Q: How will this affect evolution?
A: IANA biologist, but I'm pretty sure that unless we replace the testicles/ovaries of these animals, the offspring won't be affected.
...at least on the genetic level.
Since one of the x chromosomes in every female is "deactivated" and turned into a Barr body (to avoid aneuploidy) and which one is chosen is completely random, it can be said that all women contain two separate genetic makeups, resulting in a genetic mosaic: a chimera.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
You may not like it, but the Scotsmen will. ;)
Got mead?
This is orders of magnitude harder than blending with mice. It's really not a dupe.
"At what level is a chimera 'too' human?"
When Universal decides to use the premise as a Rob Schneider vehicle, I think we can safely say they've gone too far...
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
Cute, sensual, flexible enough to lick anywhere, and can hear a tin opener whirr from halfways across the state. The anime freak's dream come true, brought to you by Science!
Heere Nekochan, come to papa...
It can't really affect evolution because they've only transplanted the organs. Until they transplant the genetic code for the synthesis of the organs, the actual traits wont be passed on to offpsrings.
It's like saying if old people had children, would the kids have titanium hip joints?
Stop thinking in species, silly people. There is no such thing as species but a name we give to a certain group of creatures at a certain time of which most share some common characteristics, to make some sense from the world. It's an invention, no more, no less: what you call 'human' or 'sheep' now, might be something completely different in a few thousand years.
Nature has no actual concept of species, the only thing that matters is: can these animals interbreed or not? And I very much doubt a sheep with a human heart can breed with a human.
...or so I've been told.
At what level is a chimera 'too' human?
/. perhaps?
I dunno--when it starts posting to
Is this what Metallica was talking about when they wrote "Of Wolf and Man?"
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
How will this affect evolution?
... I don't know, butchery ?
Seriously ? Can't see what all this has to do with evolution. This is no evolution, in no sense of the word. How will this effect real evolution ? In no way. You can create hybrids to use up the organs they develop, but that's no evolution, that's
I may be harsh, and I know lives can be saved, and I don't oppose substantially. But I can't see how evolution came into the picture.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
The argument will never be settled so long as some people insist on using arguments which have no basis in physical evidence. If "faith" isn't discarded a priori, then any hallucination or delusion with a following is grounds for continuing the argument into eternity and re-writing the school curriculum where its adherents hold sway.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
All I want to know is where PETA stands on this issue. We all know that PETA is only concerned with the plight of non-humans, but what about non-humans with human (compatible) parts? Can I eat a hamburger without getting a lecture if the cow's pancreas is made up of human cells?
Yay for science! And more importantly, yay for hamburgers!
"Well, Creationism is false because you are basing it on Creationist sources. I'll prove Evolution by basing it on Evolutionist sources."
The assertion was one regarding the scientific literature. It is demonstrably false, based upon citations to the original literature, which are provided in the the linked document.
Since essentially all modern biologists are "evolutionists," saying that you cannot invoke "evolutionist" sources is equivalent to insisting that all modern biological evidence is off limits.
If evolution is true, we are talking about many many generations before actual differentiation of species takes place
Many generations can take place in a short time with short-generation species, such as flies. And there are mechanisms, such as hybridization, that can result in rapid speciation.
If Creationism is true, then evolutionist experiments will continue to show nothing but adaptations (versus evolutions).
This is circular, because Creationists provide no meaningful criterion by which one can distinguish between "adaptational" changes and evolutionary changes (i.e. there is no difference at the DNA level that will distinguish one from the other). In effect, Creationists effectively define all observed change as "adaptations." Therefore, this is not a genuine prediction--i.e. there is no conceivable observation predicted by evolutionary theory that can refute it.
...and this time the lamb had a little Mary.
Sheep with other animal (human parts) is nothing.
I have regularly conducted experiments in my own kitchen where I splice animal parts with plant species - that's lamb baked with rosemary and served with mint sauce to you.
AT&ROFLMAO
The whole point behind this is figuring out how to turn off the immune system so that humans can get pig hearts, livers, and lungs (we've already got enough humans that have pig brains, though).
If they've got it working one way, i.e. human --> lamb, then they can make it work the other way.
Amazing news for anyone in NYHA Class 4 heart failure, or the kids with cystic fibrosis, or people with liver failure.
Seeing the number of diseases that can cross the species boundary between fowl and humans, monkeys and humans or pigs and humans, we should wonder about any new technology that makes that crossing easier.
I understand there are benefits to growing replacement organs on monkeys or pigs, or using other animals to produce medicine. The risk may be small, but the consequences could affect tens or hundreds of millions...
I'd much rather exhaust possibilities with stem-cell research than start playing apprentice sorcerers with chimeras. This is not anti-science - we just need to realize there are inherently more risks to certain types of research that may make it unethical.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Some posts here seem needlessly modded up, only because too many people are concentrating on the fact that the article mentions some "transplant Chimeras." The thrust of the article is to discuss and debate growing human organs inside animals. That is from birth, they have one or more human organs. From the article:
But chimerism becomes a more sensitive topic when it involves growing entire human organs inside animals. And it becomes especially sensitive when it deals in brain cells, the building blocks of the organ credited with making humans human.
There's plenty to talk about in the article, especially about the history of this type of experimentation. It continues the ideas of growing organs, however, with this:
But what about experiments in which scientists add human stem cells not to an animal embryo but to an animal fetus, which has already made its eggs and sperm? Then the only question is how human a creature one dares to make.
The article is raising the debate, I feel, of organ growing and harvesting. It's also raising the debate of stem cell research again.
In order to go down this road we need more stems cells. And once we have these stem cells, and we grow these animals, what do we do with the animals that they were harvested from? You have the anti-stem cell groups and the anti-animal abuse groups right there on top of you saying this kind of research is wrong and evil.
Plus, the article is kind of calous, when it says this:
But few scientists are eager to do that experiment. The risk, they say, is that some human cells will find their way to the developing testes or ovaries, where they might grow into human sperm and eggs. If two such chimeras - say, mice - were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.
Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.
"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy.
It's not that I disagree with Ann's point, but hell if that's the way you spin this situation, those who oppose this kind of research aren't going to change their minds.
My point is that this article does try to subtly alude to the research debate while not actually bringing up the specific points. Many posters just went and agreed with it, but I don't think this attitude is what's going to help this type of research going forward. Being sensitive to the issues it raises will be a much better way to go about it.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
they gave a working human heart to a LAMB before they used it for that huge transplant waiting list???
um...OK THEN
But that definition is still sketchy.
There have been both fathers and grandparents who care for an unborn baby. They go to court to try to stop or prevent an abortion because they want to take care of the child, even promising to adopt the child legally and take care of it 100%. Don't these people care for that unborn baby? And if that's so, youve created a definition of "human" that is VERY easy to change at one's whim, which could easily lead to abuse.
The definition of human, in regards to human rights, should be unstretching. It needs to be some absolute point so there are no abuses of the system.
I agree with your DNA statements, DNA does not make humans.
kill me!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
That makes me immediately think of Full Metal Alchemist, as I've been watching far too much of it this weekend. How long is it going to be until we have talking dogs and lizard-tailed men?
I didn't spend all that time playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
Human is a biological quality, humanity is a sociological quality. You are confusing the two.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Formation of Barr bodies is a result of inactivation of one x chromosome, thus keeping all genes on of them from being expressed, resulting in a different genotype from a cell where the other one is inactivated. Meaning there are two different possible genetic informations for each cell depending on which one forms the Barr body. A chimera is defined as an organism consisting of cells containing more than one genotype (usually created by combining embryonic cells at an early development stage), which human women fit. And I took a genetics course, thankyouverymuch.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
The journey of a million miles begins with a single step. If microevolution is true, I don't see a strong argument that macroevolution isn't the same thing over time.
Having been a anti-evolution Christian in my early years, I think the problem is not understanding large time scales. Nobody can, really: one hundred million years is too much to fit in the brain. But apply microevolution over that span of time and there really is no other possibility than macroevolution. What do you think happens to all the "micro" changes as they pile up?
By the way -- evolution is _not_ mutually exclusive from the story of biblical creation. There are many who believe that the seven days of creation, progressing from plants to animals to man is a metaphor. Who says that God couldn't have created the world via evolution? And before you say that the bible stories are not metaphors, read Jesus' words in Mark 4:10-12.
Evolution is not about turning your back on God, defining your own morality, or denying the biblical account. It's an attempt to explain fossil records and similarities between species and to explain the source of seemingly useless traits -- like wings on flightless birds and finger bones in dolphins and stuff like that.
Think about it.
Cheers.
IMO, right where it starts. It's just a bad idea to go there at all. Just because you can is not a reason you should in all circumstances. This is one of them.
Organs and stem cells from other creatures don't affect an animal's DNA, just the organs of that individual animal. You can create as many chimeras as you want, but you won't be affecting much in the way of natural selection. (As if natural selection applied to domesticated animals any more. Pigs and turkeys are engineered to put on weight so fast that they live only a few months.)
The greater question is about the treatment such animals would receive. How human does it have to be before it has a right to life and liberty? My personal threshold for such treatment is self-awareness. Monkeys, apes, dolphins, and perhaps octopi should be treated with more respect than other animals, possibly including sub-idiot humans.
I know i'm going to get flamed for saying this, but it has to be said. I know we need a lot of donor organs and it would be really nice if we had an endless supply, but lets think about this. We already have enough people who abuse their bodies by eating fat food, drinking, and doing tons of drugs. Dangerous life styles are what cause people to need organ transplants in the majority of cases. If people knew that when my heart failed, I could just get a new one, or that when my lungs were blackened I could just get a new set, then there would probably be a lot of people in a lot worse shape. The only reason most people stay healthy now is because they are worried of dieing. If they didn't have to worry about that, there probably wouldn't be any healthy people at all.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
How will this affect evolution?
are your serious?
I remember reading in school how long ago people thought that any major bodily changes would transfer to their children.
Like, if they lost an arm, they would think there offspring would have a lousy arm on that side.
If you put the repodutive system of a rat on a pig your going to get rats (or a dead pig with a high voice).
the first time someone smashed a cockroach. There's a Simpsons episode there somewhere.
What?
As I understand the infinite lamb theorem correctly, if you give an infinite number of lambs playing such an organ and infinite amount of time, they will eventually play the theme song from Phantom of the Opera.
...However, I'm not sure if it would be the theme music from the original silent movie version, or the one from the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
The question isnt about evolution, the question is about ethics. Should we as humans be "playing god"?
I believe so. Thats not to say that I am correct though.
Was this a waste? Looking at the rate of organ rejection and other complications not to mention the recepient already being in bad health, it could have easily failed inside of a human and worked in a sheep.
There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people waiting for organs who go without everyday because people don't sign their organ donor cards or because family members refuse to let them be a donor.
If anything let this article serve as a beacon of hope for the future and a reminder to let your family know if you are an organ donor.
Even with the rate of failure of transplants, you don't need them when you're dead.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Most major operations bring the patient to the brink of death or into clinical death because either a vital organ is being replaced or the doctors can't have the patient moving around. True, massively available donor organs might entice some people to live dangerous lifestyles, but the odds facing a patient in surgery to replace a vital organ are well within human comprehension. Major surgery always carries the threat or certainty of death. I've been dead before, and it's no fun.
While there are many things to be worried about like causing diseases to jump species, or pain that may be felt by these creations. We have to keep in mind that science must push forward in order to potentially (inevitably) cure these problems that millions of creatures suffer from right now.
:/ it will just go back to the void without a memory or knowledge of what a great contribution it made to the world.
Yes we have to try our best to avoid these potential disasters by proceeding with caution. Isolated chimeras cant have an effect on our environment because they dont touch it, painkillers can be used if they must be kept alive through enduring pain.
The point is that we will have the key to solve the pain, suffering, and death of millions of creatures by experimenting with a few.
As for the question of what if they become too human, all I can say is they would be as unaware as a human infant. If it seems healthy and it could live a good life, maybe it could be kept alive, but that brings us back to the isolation issue. Either way if the subject must be terminated
-BMojo
This is an idea that I've pondered before.
Failing or non-functional organs can prevent people from reaching reproductive ages. Natural selection would normally weed out these defective genes from the gene pool because these people wouldn't live long enough to reproduce.
However, natural selection doesn't apply because of organ transplants and other forms of medicine. Having a healthy body is no longer a requirement of surviving to a reproductive age because an organ transplant can make up for this genetic defect.
The problem I see is that an organ transplant doesn't remove the defective gene from the gene pool. Because of transplants, these gene carriers are now capable of living to reproductive age and possibly passing thier genes on to a new generation.
These genes are not being removed from our gene pool as they once were. Eventually, they won't be weeded out at all and will increase in frequency.
Over time, the human race will evolve into a frail people that are horribly dependent on medicine.
I'm sure this isn't a new concept, but I just thought I'd open it to discussion. Ideas anyone?
They didn't survive the transplant.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
article post: but mice are sporting human brain cells
Brings a whole new context to Stuart Little.
Since we're not altering any reproductive DNA, how exactly are these traits going to be passed on to their offspring (the trait of, er, having humans put some strange liver in you)? Now, a sheep with human reproductive organs, that would be a different matter... *shudders* creepy...
These are organ transplants. Nothing about the genetics of the recipient changes when organs are implanted. If the lamb reproduces, the offspring will be 100% lamb. What kind of crack-pot science-fiction freak are you?
Why bother.
This topic is addressed quite clearly by MC Steven Hawking:
-- john
...a sheep with a human vagina.
How "human" do you have to be before you are entitled to "equal protection under the law?"
I doubt we'll have to face these questions in my lifetime, but some day, if primates (or dolphins, or whatever) are given human genes and they are able to communicate well enough to prove they can think on the level of a human, we will.
On the other hand, if I get a pig's heart, do I lose my right to vote?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
To me, this is deranged and unnecessary. I can't see how it could help either humans or animals. It also makes me worry that they could actually end up developing a true human/animal hybrid...As bizarre as it sounds, things like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles might not be such radical (no pun intended) fiction as we once may have thought...at least broadly speaking.
I know it's going to get a lot worse, too...there are a lot of scientists out there who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a laboratory...and they're going to create things which have previously only existed in Trent Reznor's and HR Giger's wet dreams...and they're going to do it not because it will benefit anyone (it'll actually do the reverse, I suspect) but simply because they can.
Evolution is dead, and that isn't a bad thing. You can't live in a technological society without first doing a number of evolution. In order to have fancy things like computers, you need humans to not only live well past 30, but you need a lot of them, and they need lots of free time. In other words, you need to make people live longer and healthier lives with surviving to do. You need to put them into shelters, give them more food then they need, protect them from infection, and insure that they can crank out lots of babies that all live to see adulthood (instead of suffering terrible childhood mortality rates).
What do you get when this happens? You got a few billion people with the collective capacity to undergo agricultural, industrial, and eventually post industrial revolutions. Sure, your stock might be less discriminating then the stock of the past, but who cares? One the advantages of being a technological species is that you can do evolutions work. For instance, I was a horrible asthmatic when I was young. I should have died 10 times over when I was young. Modern medicine absolutely saved my life on more then one occasion. These days I am a perfectly healthy adult. People with poor eyesight wear glasses. Weak people don't need to run to survive. Half of the population (namely woman) have been freed up to contribute to technology and society of this choose.
The places where this all leads is a good one. Well within the next 100 years, you can almost rest assure that we will start to tinker more with our own genetic code and enhance ourselves further with technology. Things like asthma and diabetes will start to be cured and removed from the population. It wouldn't surprise me if a human 500 years from now is not recognizable as human because it is such a technological and/or genetic wonder.
Evolution is hard at work through technology. For us humans, it is headed for better places.
- After all, they've been supplying us with *their* organs for years!
/me runs from the large hook swinging toward me ...
- Because the Casios that lambs had been stuck with since 1980 were really starting to annoy everyone in earshot!
- Organ music bleats the hell out of the noises sheep *usually* make!
- This time, the humans didn't just let the sheep "borrow" their organs.
- The sheep didn't bid high enough for a human calliope!
- Ha ha! Sheep have no thumbs; they'll have a heck of a time keeping the organs in tune. Ha ha!
- Now we'll get to learn the real tune to "Baa, Baa Blacksheep."
- Mostly this is to get one-up on those damned snotty cows next door.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
LITTLE LAMB, WHO MADE THEE?
William Blake, Songs of Innocence and Experience, 1789.
Little lamb, who made thee?
Dost thou know who made thee,
Gave thee life, and bade thee feed
By the stream and o'er the mead;
Gave thee clothing of delight,
Softest clothing, wooly, bright;
Gave thee such a tender voice,
Making all the vales rejoice?
Little lamb, who made thee?
Dost thou know who made thee?
Little lamb, I'll tell thee;
Little lamb, I'll tell thee:
He is called by thy name,
For He calls Himself a lamb,
He is meek, and He is mild,
He became a little child;
I a child, and Thee a Lamb,
We are called by His Name.
Little lamb, God bless thee!
Little lamb, God bless thee!
And 500 posts and I'm the first one to think of this poem?
Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Hundreds of people die every year waiting for a heart transplant. So in effect, giving the sheep a human heart killed a human. Animal research is one thing, but I was unaware we'd started killing humans to do research.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
These things have the potential of being extremely dangerous. Unknown viruses that have become harmless to the animal may be lethal to humans. In a chimera, the virus may mutate to be able to pass from one human to another, even through airborn contact.
This is the greatest nightmare of the Centers for Disease Control. They strongly discourage experimentation and research involving chimeras, even (and especially) research using animal organs for human transplant.
This is not a joke, or poorly written science fiction.
couldn't they find a better use for the organs?
People are dying waiting for a transplant.
Give your answer in at least 500 words, citing at least 3 examples. Extra credit for mapping the course of human history for the next 300 years.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
At what point can we's grant 'em marrage licenses!
This is old news in Scottland. I understand that imaginative Scotts have been giving their organ to sheep for generations.
What do you call a Scotsman with more than one sheep?
A bigamist.
What do you call a Scotsman with 500 girl friends?
A Shepherd.
Why do Scots wear Kilts?
Sheep can hear zippers at 25 paces.
Why don't Scots count sheep to fall asleep?
Because they want to sleep, not have a wet dream.
What do you call a Scotsman with sheep under one arm, and a goat under the other?
A bisexual.
I'd have rather had them give human organs to a human... The organ bank doesn't have enough stock as it is.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
The story asked about the effect on evolution. The way I see it, genetic engineering like this is the only way humans will evolve. Other than that it seems to me, evolution is over.
I'm partially paralysed but I have survived long enough to breed and have a girl-friend, the evolutionary pressures that select only the strongest/fittest mutuations in nature have been (thankfully) eliminated in civilised society, I guess we'll diversify but as long as transport is easily available then we won't fragment into different species so presumably evolution is over?
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
... we debated what is the definition of a "person" (which I think is sufficiently vague to be used as a premise for other debates, as opposed to the strict definition of 'human' which simply defines a species and not its place.)
Anyways, I forget the precise aspects of it that came about but the consensus was that a "person" is something that is, in general, self-aware, and conscious, has perception of time, not necessarily human. I don't believe that temporary states of unawareness qualify to de-personify you. You go to sleep, you don't lose your place in humanity.
So, in that sense, some particularly developed animals/fish can qualify as persons. Perhaps dolphins or more some species of monkeys. Ooo oo ah aa! Errm sorry.
But yeah, somehow I don't think a sheep with a few human organs, brain aside, will develop self-consciousness and perception of time.
- shazow
Speaking as an evolutionary biologist, I'd say the above post was the work of someone who has the higher brain functions of a chimp with a botched lobotomy. Lemme put that in small words so you can understand it: you're a fuckin' idiot. Plus, anyone who would "me too!" it is a moron.
Darwin did say life was tough, and that therefore those least fit to survive the struggle, tend not to survive. This is a statement about how the world is. It does not logically follow that the world oughtto be this way. It's simple, morals = how the world ought to be, science = how the world is, so the two do not have a lot to do with each other. Jesus fucking Christ. Read a philosophy book once in a while. For that matter, read a book once in a while.
How will this affect evolution?
Oh my God! This could be great! The human-kidney sheep could reproduce *more* human-kidney sheep, and then we'd have a handy store of farm-grown organs just ready for human transplant. That is so cool!
Then I woke up from my dumb-attack, and remembered that Lamarckian evolution is one of those disproven theories.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Human means different things as an adj or noun. Please try not to conflate.
As long as there are limited resources, evolution is not over. At best, we are in a genetic inflationary stage, in which we have a great variety of genotypes floating around.
But, this isn't even true. in much of the world, people live and die in terrible conditions. Despite our best effort, there is still war, famine, and plague. (Okay, we really haven't given our best effort.)
Back the the genotype deviation: the more genetic drift we experience now, the greater the chance the human species will survive the next cataclysm. If we had the genetic diversity of, say, the cheetah, we'd die off the first bad storm, or next real plague. As it is, there are people who are naturally immune to AIDS, for instance. This genetic diversity is a *good* thing, and by no means signals the end to evolution.
In fact, it is merely one important part of evolution.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
WOTC has a picture of the chimera as well, for those who are interested.
A few basic statistics:
The chimera have hit die of 9d10+27, which is quite formidable, considering your average scientist doesn't really have much CON or DEX and prefers to focus instead on INT and WIS. This creates dangerous situations when chimera are spooked. In addition, they have an AC of 19; in comparison, a scientist's base attack bonus, even at level 10, is still only +6/+1, and their class bonus to defence is only +4, so this can be very intimidating for the scientists working on such projects.
On top of all this, Chimera make use of a breath weapon (!!), have the Multiattack feat, have Darkvision and low-light vision, threaten a 10 foot radius, have 19 STR (granting a +4 bonus to damage), and can take a full attack round to Bite Bite Gore at +12, then claw claw at +10, and of course, are usually chaotic evil, which ruins anyone's day.
When you consider this information carefully, it explains the sudden increase in the hiring (and burying) of adventurers in the Washington area. If you see one of these, I hope you have a high AC (preferably high DEX and Uncanny Dodge) and a fast base speed (30 feet for humans is respectable). Good luck!
The last time I heard about someone putting a human organ into a sheep, it was a different kind of story entirely.
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
See, they *were* talking about genetic mixing, and not just transplant
Damnit. Must. Read. Article. Before. Posting.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Soylent Green will truly be made out of people.
-Nibbles the Mouse
You commented on goat sex and you get moderated funny!?
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Where do you draw the line between human and animal?
At goatse.cx, of course.
Anyway, as far as I'm aware, humans are animals.
And in another typical example of speciesism, the article does not provide the lamb's point of view.
Q: "At what level is a chimera 'too' human?"
A: when it can pass the Turing test.
Q: "Where do you draw the line between human and animal?"
A: see above
Q: "How will this affect evolution?"
A: Not at all. Look up "Lysenko".
We ARE evolution.
This is just another tool in the kit.
Now you are perfectly right... the way things _are_ and the way things _ought_ to be are often two completely different things. What is interesting is that we have actually evolved to becoming a species that perceives that things ought to be somehow different from what they actually are. The way things _are_ is that only the fit survive. But this is not how most people think things ought to be. We do not abandon our sick, injured, or weak... we look after them. And the higher brain functions that we have evolved seem to be serving a purpose of actually _weakening_ our species, rather than strengthening it.
That's what I find insightful... and perhaps it was my bad for not clarifying that point in my own previous post, but it really hadn't occurred to me that it would be necessary.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I don't know how this will affect evolution, but I will definitely be more careful to check labels on the meat I buy from now on..
long time ago i heard a rumor that aids/hiv was introduced into human beings (circa 1950's) by someone who was into bestiality, specifically apes. chimeras always remind me of d 'n' d. a high level monster with many attacks. so when journalese uses this term, it make sme laugh. seriously, this technology is no more dangerous than fire. we've had fire for quite some time, and still more people die every year from it than chimeras. in the 80's there was a little girl who had a baboon heart transplant. it was the first of its kind. many thought that this was immoral. but it prolonged her life by a few weeks, and more importntly provided valuable research into what could be very useful organ replacement methods. put simple, u can harvest animals for whatever you need (pigs for insulin , etc...) but you cant really harvest humans, and maintain the spirit of medicine. Proper lab technique, and quarantine methods easily solve the chimera of any possible risk in these types of experiments. the chances of some badass virus compiling from one of these is about equal to veloci-raptors taking over an isolated island after they have been cloned back to life.
Bush tried to foist his muddled morals on to the rest of the world by including a stem cell research ban into treaty disscussions in the UN to ban human cloning. Fortunately after looking at it for about 3 years the UN general assembly recently rejected it. Most countries were in favour of banning human cloning for use in "family planning" but they balked at loosing the potential benifits of stem cells. I am not an American but what the US does has an affect on everyone. This is just another loose-loose solution from Bush. Americans loose access to stem cells and the worlds attempt to ban the ugly side of cloning has been scuttled. It must be such an annoyance for the Whitehouse that the UN actually reads and understands documents before it signs them!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Since we're having the 'right to life' debate, why should we not classify little grey men as human in that sense if they are so capable?
I agree that this discussion may seem to be confusing the two terms, but in context the meaning was made rather clear. The original poster was arguing against the assertion made by many fundamentalists that because fetuses are genetically human they have a right to life. This is obviously false, but is still advocated by many.
Cut the guy some slack. He's fighting a war against willful ignorance, and it's a noble war.
people in comas may be forgotten but they certainly are human with all the rights and freedoms that that entails.
Circular reasoning! I can hardly believe you would make such an elementary error. They are only entitled to such rights and freedoms as long as society says that they are. If society were to redefine the noun "human" (including for legal purposes) so that included only those with the capacity for sentience, then these "rights and freedoms" would no longer apply to the incurably comatose. This is only a matter of law, ultimately. Not physics.
Two things here:
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
At what level is a chimera 'too' human?
When it is sentient.
Where do you draw the line between human and animal?
In the current definition "human" means species homo sapiens. The only significant distinctive feature of humans, is sentience, that is a result of a particular advanced structure of human brain, that, among other distinctive features, provides capability for development of abstract thought, structured language and production of tools. First never develops in animals or machines (machines can perform operations that are part of abstract thinking process, however only humans are currently capable of developing abstract structures from external stimuli without pre-existing knowledge of their structure, so development is still specific to humans), second and third are not developed by anyone but humans except in the simpliest forms possible. In theory, there may be, or will be other sentient beings that should be considered human, even if they do not share the same origin, and some creatures that have the same or close origin, yet lack sentience, and therefore can never be considered human.
How will this affect evolution?
Not at all. Evolution happens only through hereditary changes in organisms.
Can we go home now? I mean, didn't humans develop a better definition for themselves than "Two-legged, without feathers"?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You were a bit rough with the poor simple minded soul (but then again he just might be the next president). Darwin was right, but did he promote or even subscribe to Atheism? I thought the Church (as opposed to God) was pissed off because he contradicted them about the origins of our species. I don't think the FUD about Darwin will die anytime soon, it took 300 years for the Vatican to admit they made a mistake with Gallileo[sic] and they still have his telescope!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You have to base the definition on science and genetics. The best I can come up with is to define a human being as an organism with 23 pairs of chromosomes. Of course that begs the question - when do you have 23 pairs of chromosomes? Sperm and eggs don't count as they each have half. But a fertilized egg has the full complement. Thus by this definition a human being occurrs at conception.
Of course now you have the problem of ethics and morality. If this is indeed how you define a human being, any kind of monkeying or destruction of this fertilizted egg should be considered some level of murder. On one hand you can say that masturbation and contraception are not "sins" but on the other hand aborion is one.
Sticky subject, especially for someone like me who wants to see stem cell research progress.
"Trying is only the first step towards failure." - Homer
An example of (1) would be Stephen Hawking.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As we evolve socially different things become important. Life started with a focus on gathering food and survival. It then shifted to agriculture and building basic societies. Hopefully at some point technology will be able to take care of most - if not all - of basic human needs. Think Star Trek for a perfect world example. You are already seeing people start to question why they are here and what is the point to existence and that there has to be something more to life than just working a job and buying things.
Hopefully when we get to the point where we don't have to worry about food/shelter/survival/money we can focus instead on more important things like colonization of other worlds, intellectual development, spiritual development, and ecology.
"Trying is only the first step towards failure." - Homer
At what level is a chimera 'too' human?
When it asks "What the fuck did you do with my opposable thumbs?"
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
How will this affect evolution?
This is evolution.
kM
-- You can't drink all day. (Unless you start in the morning...)
I've destroyed universes... br -Bill Hicks
I was under the impression that humanity has been at an evolutionary standstill for some time. There is extremely little selective pressure on us anymore.
Calm down, dude. I was merely stating that the other article talked about mice instead of sheep.
An analogy I've found is helpful to use on people who have trouble with this concept:
Saying that we should not aid those who are weak because it opposes the theory of evolution is like saying we should not build support beams in bridges because it opposes the theory of gravity.
Evolution, like gravity, is a description of nature, not a philosophy of how to build a civilization.
Why are these organs being given to anything other than humans when they could be used to save the life of someone waiting for a transplant? Are there really that many spare human hearts that everyone on a waiting list can get one and still have leftovers for this kind of research?
Very insightful, IMO.
Very ignorant, in fact.
You can't take the sky from me...
We do not abandon our sick, injured, or weak... we look after them. And the higher brain functions that we have evolved seem to be serving a purpose of actually _weakening_ our species, rather than strengthening it.
How is it "actually" weakening our species?
I mean, the species that now has over six billion members, going up, how is that weakening it?
The species that is attempting to colonize other freaking planets, how, exactly, is it weakening our species to keep people alive?
If an individual is injured, infected or weakened, HOW THE HELL DOES IT HARM THE SPECIES TO HELP HIM SURVIVE?
Unless you seriously believe in lamarckism, then it strenghtens our species to keep these people alive and reproducing despite what circumstances have done to them.
The sick, malnourished kid with the broken leg that you would let die might grow up to perfect nuclear fusion reactors if we cure, feed and heal him. That is how it actually strenghtens the damn species to keep people alive.
That's what I find insightful... and perhaps it was my bad for not clarifying that point in my own previous post, but it really hadn't occurred to me that it would be necessary.
And that's why you're being called bad names and your intelligence is being questioned: Because you think that irrationnal, illogical, unscientific crap like that is insightfull, and it doesn't even OCCUR to you that others see it differently.
You can't take the sky from me...
Diseases like diabetes, which were once fatal, are now affecting more and more people just because we can treat it.
Diabetes is affecting more and more people because they INGEST TOO MUCH SUGAR.
We evolved an appetite for sugar that is perfectly natural, in a world where sugar is rare. But technology grants us all the sugar we can ever want, and so people get sick from too much of a good thing.
It's not devolution, it's capitalism making you sick by cramming down Coca Cola (tm) brand sugared water down our throats all the time.
Vending machines in highschools are to blame, not insulin shots.
You can't take the sky from me...
You heartless bastard. What about the rights of the sperm? Are we just going to sit by idly as millions- billions of sperm are mercilessly slaughtered, as if somehow a single flagellated cell was worth less than an entire human being? We need a constitutional ban on masturbation! Masturbation is MURDER!
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
You can't take the sky from me...
Tell me this, if evolution is true then where are all the "half-monkey/half-man" things walking around now?
We killed them all, you idiot.
You can't take the sky from me...
this is the most evoution i've ever seen. but in reality, i guess that last part of the post would mean more to me had i believed in evolution when i read it. honestly, i think it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution's BS than it does to believe in anything else. lets not haste to believe that evolution is the standard. even non-religious phenatics have reason to hail it as little more than horse crap. its just a theory, and one that has mostly been backed up with scientific lies. things change? absolutely. my yesterday and tomorrow will never be identical, and my body will probably look uglier tomorrow too... but once again, lets not jump to some sort of sick evolutionary standard. the only thing evolution has in common with me is my garbage can. but it evolves to.. sometimes i kick it really hard and bend that thing all up... thats evolution.
I wonder what the possibilities would be of doing it the other way around... A human with a fish's brain, capable of performing labour? Or if say, giraffe hearts are less susceptible to heart attacks etc?
Now, he will have kids, and the kids will have the disease too. So humankind will end up with more people who have this disease.
This is at best an awkward situation, since more and more people will end up having diseases, and will need to be treated, perhaps at costs society will not be able to pay anymore. It is always more people, since a lot of mutations are bad or undo good stuff. The information in the genes on how to build the body needs selection and maybe death to keep the information in shape. (You don't need death for selection, but just that someone has no kids, but that is almost as bad as death.)
So you end up with two alternative, different but completely valid and consistent ways of life:
live 'like the Amish', and consider a disease as sent by God and let weak people die, with the positive effect that Amish will actually be healthier people,
OR
Apply genetic engineering so that the disease is not passed to the offspring.
Any position in between is bogus.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
That's absurd, by that logic nothing can ever be said to be human cause then we could just "redefine the law" to make them not human. The point is that people in comas should and are considered human, but his definition doesn't include those people, therefore his definition is flawed.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
And the context of the debate doesn't change whether little grey men are considered human or not. They aren't. Humans are not the only species with a right to life, we don't have to lump little grey men into the human catagory. That's something like saying the only way black people will have equal rights is if we start calling them white.
To try and sum this up a little clearer. I agree with HalfFlat in that I think it's sociological concerns that dictate whether a form of life (i.e. humans, dogs, little grey men) have certain rights. What I don't agree with is the idea that we have to classify something as human before it can get those rights or the thought that because something has those rights it should automatically be considered human.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Wrong. If these people with diseases have any children at all, when they would not have because they would have died of the disease, then the prevelence of the disease in society will increase.
Nope. This is probably one of the most common misunderstandings of evolution. Do the math. Let's say the incidence of a genetic disease is 1 in 100 and (to make it simple) the disease is dominant. That means on the average, half of the children of a sufferer will inherit the disease. Let's say that couples with the illness have 4 children, and couples without the illness also have 3 children. What is the incidence in the next generation?
Well in each 50 couples, there will be on average one with an affected person, who will have 4 kids, of which 2 will be affected and 2 unaffected. There will be 49 unaffected couples, each of which will have 4 kids (total 4 * 49 = 196). Total incidence in the next generation = 2/(196 + 4) = 1 in 100. Unchanged.
"Absurd" is only your subjective opinion. As I said, it's not physics. What *is*, and what *ought to be* (which is purely a matter of opinion anyway) are two completely different things. As long those who share your opinion dominate, your viewpoint will hold sway - but social attitudes change over time and are influenced by circumstance. You really should read more history.
As far as Matthew 16:27,28 continue reading the first 10 verses of chapter 17. That event is commonly referred to as "the transfiguration" and is likely what Christ was referring to. "The Transfiguration" also follows Christ's statment about some standing their not tasting death before they see the Kingdom in Mark 9:1. Basically it was a glimps for those disciples of the Kingdom of God. Also Peter refers to seeing Christ's Kingdom coming in majesty as the transfiguration event in 2 Peter 1:16, so there is essentially no doubt that is what Christ was referring to there.
Obviously you've read the Scriptures. If I were you I'd continue to read the New Testament since you can probably "stomach" that a little better then the Old. Many people can't stomach either, and as you have said there are great moral principles found in the New Testament, so anyone who can actually read it will at least benefit somewhat in this life from it. I'm glad you think Christ's teachings are a good moral code. They certainly are. But sadly, that isn't primarily why were given his teachings.
As CS Lewis points out in 'Mere Christianity', "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
History doesn't have a thing to do about it. It's pointing out a flaw in his argument. His argument leads to conclusions that, by my judgement and by the current social attitudes towards the issue, are wrong.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Your last statement about his argument is correctly qualified.
The relevance of history is that a historical perspective will teach you just how evanescent such ethical or moral judgements are. Do you really think that the "current social attitudes" are in any sense the final ones? That the beliefs and priorities of Westerners today, at the beginning of the 21st century, will last forever? That would be excessively hubristic, not to mention highly unlikely.
The putative value of a human life has not only varied widely between different times and cultures, it even varies within the same culture, according to context. Attempting to set hard and fast rules over something so nebulous as the concept of "life" or "human" is always going to lead to a mass of contradictions and ambiguities. Just look at the debate going on here. I doubt if any two people arguing even share the same common definitions of the most important words being used. Agreement is impossible under such circumstances.
Past and future definitions of a word have no consequence in a debate taking place in the present and concerning the present. It's a red herring at best. The point is that his definition of the word doesn't mesh with the current ideals, it doesn't mesh with the past ones either. It's just flawed.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
That's an argument that is totally lacking in substance, IMO. You might as well just say "but I don't like it".
An Oldy-but-Goody from Tom the Dancing Bug: Ethical Issue Raised by Man-Cow Organ Slave (Salon, may involve mandatory ad watching)
... when it stands up and says, "Feed me, Seymour!"
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Do you deny that society in it's current state considers coma patients to be human? Certainly the current definition of human should reflect the current beliefs of who and what are to be included in that definition.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
I have no particular quibble with the current definition. Yes, the current definition should reflect the current beliefs etc - that's almost a tautology.
I was only saying that current definitions which are socially constructed (as opposed to, say, empirically determined laws of physics) have no special claim to be the ultimate truth. Ten, twenty years down the road, they may well look very different, reflecting the social attitudes of *that* era. That's all I was trying to say.
I was not sure you grasped the difference between "physical law" and "socially constructed". The statements you made about the definition of "human", and the force with which you made them, seemed to indicate that you believed (some interpretation of) the current definition to be absolute and irrevocable, which is erroneous. Apologies if I misunderstood you.