Slashdot Mirror
The Chimera Dilemma Manifested in Sheep
Rollie Hawk writes "While many limits on stem cell research exist in the United States, scientist are finding wants to straddle or at least blur the line between man and animal. It's not quite The Island of Doctor Moreau, but it's bringing a pantheon of ethical dilemmas, nonetheless.
The creation of chimeras, named for the mythical beast composed of parts from several different animals, has been in the news off and on for the last few months. The latest case involves around 50 sheep said to possess at least partially human organs.
These heavily modded sheep are growning human-like organs such as livers, hearts, and blood. All of these could eventually be close enough to the real thing to be harvested as replacements parts.
If that doesn't shock you, consider one other human organ that is being grown in some of these sheep: human brains. While it is doubtful that anyone would want a brain transplant from a human-sheep chimera, it does hold the possibility for doing brain research that would never be allowed on human beings.
That is, unless, the brains end up being too human. Just the possibility of a human mind bouncing around inside a sheep's head is a scary proposition."
But I want a bird brain you insensitive clod !!
Well, the wife never complained when she found I was part horse.
What has the world came to?
Haven't we done that? Timothy is a living example of a Sheep grown brain transplanted into a human ;-)
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
We're not too far from sheep these days either. Everyone got pissed at Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction because the US Government said so.
That justified our plunge into the heart of their country and subsequent 'liberation'. Now that we've raped it over and over and handed it to the highest bidder, there's been no mention of these weapons.
I've seen several versions of this article recently, and have been resisting (until..uh..now) asking a question:
If I slaughter and eat one of the sheep am I guilty of cannibalism?
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
"you guys are just a bunch of mindless sheep following the crowd!!!!!!"
"Hey how did you know where brain was grown?"
__________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
I thougt I got picked on at school .. At least I didn't have a sheep's body!
Joking aside, can you imagine a sheep with almost human intelligance? Man, that is freaky. Perfect fodder for horror movies, though.
That Skittles got to this story first. FYI: Skittles has been playing a commercial with two sheep with human heads are eating Skittles. They comment on how they could manage to cross two completely different flavors into one candy.
"Are we sheep or are we men? Oh, wait, we *are* sheep, but we have human brains. Hey, look a farmer! Let's get him!"
My dick is bigger now
"... human mind bouncing around inside a sheep's head is a scary proposition."
Not back in good 'ol Arkasas! We already dun treat sheep like people uther ways! Now they cun' talk like girlfriends too! H'yuck!
(Disclaimer: no real offense to the good people of Arkasas)
That's okay, as long as the transparent textures stay goddamned transparent.
Because it's new? Are you a luddite?
Two researchers were discussing this topic on Science Friday last week.
The thing that kept running through my mind as I listened to the discussion was how someone with enough money could run circles around these ethics panels and produce chimeras off-shore.
Now that Bush has made the political (rather than scientific) decision to limit stem cell lines, this activity will most certainly occur outside of the US and beyond any jurisdiction of American ethics organizations.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
While it is doubtful that anyone would want a brain transplant from a human-sheep chimera
It would explain how the Patriot Act and the DCMA got passed.
Ba dump bump! Thanks, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitresses.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Human brains in sheep? Now that's just plain *COOL* Hacking the genes.. loads of fun!
I don't know why so many people get upset about this kind of thing.. I mean, if my mom had something like CJD from eating euro-beef 10 years ago, and you could sacrifice a legion of humo-sheep hybrid brains to save her.. Sacrifice away! Myself, I have a damaged heart.. if I could have a new one, I'd kill any number of chimera sheep to get it. I want to watch my boy grow up, not die at 35. Oh, and you go tell that hypotetical burn victim why he'll be deformed for the rest of his life, because he can't have the artificial skin developed from chimera sheep in Qwai Pong Province china, because his narrow minded government doesn't think it's ethical.
In the balance of life, they're sheep. Who cares? Grow them in vats for all I care. As long as this is all done in a clean room environment, so we can minimize the risk of having superbug's crossing the sheep human barrier...
-=-Ze End-=-
They still wouldn't have opposable thumbs, so they couldn't use firearms. And their native attacks like kicking and biting are pretty pathetic. They'd be no threat at all.
Theres a BIG difference between Chimeras and organ farming in sheep. It's not a chimera untill it's part lion, tiger and lizard all in different parts combind. One cell or a different shaped heart means nothing.
I like muppets.
1. This sounds like the w*t dr**ms of furry fans right off the bat. Nuff said.
2. Is it any more moral to experiment on the sheep than humans?
3. Will children be soon taught to recite other songs? "May was a little lamb, her fleece as white as snow..."
4. Will "Mint Jelly" be a new favorite scent in body washes now?
5. How will we tell the American public from the chimeras? Both have allegedly humans brains, both act like sheep...
6. Who will be the first to welcome our new Merino overlords?
7. Will Dan Merino be sued into forking over royalties regarding his name?
8. Will we reach a time when our livestock can rebuild our systems as fast as we can and we give new meaning to "server farm"?
9. Should I be against or for this, and exactly why?
In short, I came, I saw, I was no less confused than before, I shrugged. Category: Judgement Reserved Indefinitely.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Just injecting some human brain cells into a sheep or even transplanting an early human brain from a fetus is unlikely to produce any kind of human sheep. The human brain doesn't just develop from a genetic blueprint but also requires a huge amount of deveelopmental cues and responds to hormones and signaling molecules (like sonic the hedgehog) to develop properly. Not to mention a host of enviornmental stimuli needed to encourage the brain to wire itself correctly.
In short it isn't just human neurons which make us human but the whole brain development system at work in babies. This isn't the sort of thing which could be duplicated in a sheep without extensive genetic modification or hand controlling all the developmental signals. If this is possible at all it is far beyond our current level of technology.
So don't get freaked out yet people. They are just growing human neurons in sheep at the moment there is no chance we will make a person trapped in a sheep body.
God damn these popular stories can be misleading.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
This is way too close to Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake for comfort. Not a good book by her usual standards (not in the same class as A Handmade's Tale) but still really disturbing in parts.
1: If you eat any of these chimera animals, does that technically make you a cannibal?
2: In the event that chimera hybrids accidentally make it into the food chain, does that mean that humans have a higher risk of contracting spongiform encephalopathy (if, for example, the nervous system/brains of said critters are even a small percentile human)?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
"Liiisssaaaa, don't eeeaaatttt meeeeee."
:)
If you kill it, it'll stop creeping you out by talking.
Anyone remember the song, "Cows With Guns"?
the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.
You know when considering a solution to that particular ethical dilemma that wasn't the first idea that came to mind...
I stole this Sig
"Stanford law professor Hank Greely, who chaired the ethics committee, said the board was satisfied that the size and shape of the mouse brain would prevent the human cells from creating any traits of humanity. Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior."
OK, I can just see it now:
"Same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the" [splat!]
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Me wife told me "good thing it was a zebra and not a unicorn, otherwise it'd just got stuck in the snow"
sheep with brains are not neccessarily smart. :D
It's always fun to see how the reporters particular bias will come accross.
He can't wait to examine the effects of the human cells he had injected into the fetus' brain about two months ago. "It's mice on a large scale," Chamberlain says with a shrug. As strange as his work may sound, it falls firmly within the new ethics guidelines
They've allready painted him as a mad scientist, eagerly rubbing his hands together in glee over having fought Gods plan. All the while shrugging his shoulders at the cocern of the good people of the world.
Everything will be taken away from you.
That Skittles got to this story first. FYI: Skittles has been playing a commercial with two sheep with human heads are eating Skittles.
Available on their site, quicktime or windows media: Taste the sheep boys.
I miss the beautifull surreal skittle ads, the creepifying ones don't make me want to eat their stuff: I might get the same horrible nightmare vision they do.
You can't take the sky from me...
Why isn't this in the hardware section?
...
Stupid editors
...live action Disney movies? ...Animal Farm???
I don't know why....
Injecting human DNA into sheep is nothing new to lonely shepherds..
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Arkansas and it's pronounciation was an offense to English majors anyway. :P
My website says it all.
GotSheep?
(The NYS DMV cancelled my plates on my car- GOTSH33P - and the reason given was "They are illegal, immoral, and sexually perverse".
In Soviet Russia, the sheep count you!
please change me. - sig
welcome our uhhh... what the fuck?!
Imagine the enormous commercial possibilities...
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior. If they DO start behaving like humans and have vastly increased intellect, wouldn't this be considered murder? Wait.. I forgot.. Mice ARE more intelligent than men. So are dolphins. Nevermind. It would be a priviledge to the mice to be put out of their misery. All jokes aside, seriously, if they are "human" in consciousness and intelligence, killing them because they're "human" would be murder. It's also rather ironic if you think about it.
they should build a sheep with human vocal cords, if that's possible.. shorten/lengthen the trachea/throat, whatever is necessary to make it possible for these hybrid monsters the ability to learn speech. Now that would be cool. Hopefully they'll be capable of reproduction as well.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
I guess people must have got tired of modding their computer/cases, because now they are trying to mod sheep!
Just think, having a case window on a sheep, you could see the inside of the sheep.
Maybe let the sheep swallow some blue led's.
You could have a blue glowing sheep with a case window!
Maybe put an led fan on it's butt, to vent the hot air?
What about overclocking it? Now that would be weird!
and sheep have many uses
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Spirit?
The url is science.slashdot.org, not mythology.slashdot.org.
I have been looking at more ethical ways to supply my craving for...I mean, uh, this is horrible. Who's responsible for this madness, I need to get their contact information to arrange a, um, protest.
The scientist is my shepherd
He makes me lie down on the examining table...
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I have to say, as a medical student, that I am quite excited about the possibilities presented by this type of research. To be able to conduct research on tissue systems that are more human will provide better models for treatment of disease in humans. Thus making medicine more effective and safer. That being said, I am appalled at the prospect of ANY form of human hervous system running around in ANY other type of creature. True, it could provide tremendous insight into how the human brain works. However, it is my belief that the brian is the center of our humanity. It is the seat of who we are as a species, and is unique in the world. To artificially develop this type of tissue in an animal mode really seems to be an ethical misjudgement. A public backlash to this type of research could jeopardize research in general, which would be a disservice to the scientific community.
... I was just helping those sheep over the fence. What, one's pregnant and i'm the daddy? Ewe shitting me, right?
I despair of scientific literacy in this country.
This type of thing has been experimented with for years with pigs. Pigs are compatible with humans in a number of ways - not to mention the only other animal, other than man, which sunburns.
Work has been underway to find out what organs which are semi-compatible be "enhanced" or "tweaked" to become more compatible. Hearts are almost there. The baboon heart transplant was a ridiculous mistake when pig hearts are much closer to a human structure.
The real threat isn't sheep with human brains, it's cows with guns
There were the usual Furries, they called themselves "Morphs". I hope this games was not a reliable prediction of our future :)
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
I'm sorry, but I have difficulty comprehending complex issues about what it is to be human unless they're presented to me in anime form.
So we're going to need an anime on this issue, preferably with intensely slow pacing and occasionally boring monologues in between brief, action-filled flashes of the crack commando team "Sheep Force 2014."
Sheep Force 2014: They've been engineered to be the perfect killing machines, but they're also still in high school!
Simply saying "wow, this is scary" isn't questioning anything; it's fear-mongering. I don't doubt that there are some very serious psycho-sociological issues with growing a human brain in a sheep's body, but IMO there is absolutely NOTHING scary or immoral about hearts, livers, etc.
Even the sentient-sheep proposition might not be automatically bad (anyone got a good New Zealand joke to go here?)--as long as they aren't suffering, as long as it's even POSSIBLE for a human consciousness to be happy or content in the body of a sheep, I don't see anything inherently immoral about it.
Or was that a sheep brain in a monkey body? I can't ever remember at times....
Blur the lines between man and animal?
Are you insinuating that humans are not animals? Or that animals are sub-human? Does that infer that humans are not mammals? Or that not all mammals are animals?
Such statements make me believe that some humans are perhaps better classified as a plant or mineral.
I don't know, maybe it was the cheese, I told my parents not to send any smelly stuff by post :-)
Haven't you seen the skittles commercial? Old news, sheesh :P
You should be more concerned about the minds that are bouncing around inside the brains of other primates, primates humans kill, abuse, cage, and eat.
A human brain inside a sheep's head would probably not have a human mind; supporting a brain holding a human mind required all sorts of complex anatomical adaptations even just to support its size, adaptations that sheep just don't have.
What you are going to have is human brain cells inside a sheep's skull, and that is likely mostly just going to be a creature that's going to be a sheep, and probably not even a very smart sheep as far as sheep go.
This will make for some really fucked up zombie movies.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
The third meaning is probably the most common. Now, just how can you possibly use a word like that to describe a dilemma of ethical questions?
But, oh wait, "dilemma" means a choice between two equally unpleasant things.
So just what the hell does a "Pantheon of ethical dilemmas" mean? Other than that Slashdot Timothy likes to use big words that he hasn't the faintest idea what they mean?
I really could care less about the moral bullshit surrounding this. If it weren't for some people cracking open some skulls well before most of us were born, we wouldn't be able to perform surgery the way we do now. I'm not saying we should grab someone off the street and start experimenting on them, but growing almost 100% human brains in a sheep and then experimenting on it does not bother me. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who whine about this and make noise. I really hope the research is going on without anyone knowing, and we gain knowledge without having to answer to some religious crackpot protesting that some damn sheep has a human heart.
fuck it, nevermind....
How similar is the ethical concern with this as compared to using pig or primate organs as replacement human organs?
It is amazing that something like this can happen, but I fear that there is a risk it might end up like 'medical research' in World War II, where, for some, ethics and decency were set aside in the name of research (but those who maintained their ethics took the results anyway...).
InfoSec that matters, when it counts.
For fuck's sake. It's pretty much just agreed the world over that science will be constantly used to create new and horrible weapons that could kill increasingly large numbers of people in increasingly horrible ways, but that strangely enough it's expected will never be used. You tell someone about Russia restarting its nuclear weapons research program and people just shrug and go, meh, they do that.
But if it turns out science might be at some point to do something that, rather than being horrific and violent, is merely strange, people freak the fuck out. A bomb that can kill billions in a single moment is shrugged off as normal. But tell someone that someone might be growing sheep with human livers, and what's the response? Oh no! What a horrible perversion of nature! Why do we continue to let such horrible things happen! Never mind that this, you know, has the capacity to save lives or create useful technology on a huge scale. It's "unnatural!" Of course, so is fire and clothing and the internet. But for some reason those are okay and genetic engineering is not.
Mankind has the capacity to do strange and wonderful things, and instead of trying to find exactly where our capacities lie we're holding back everywhere just based on pure grossout factor.
If the reason we're holding back scientific progress is actually "ethics"-- people complaining about genetics and such keep using that word, I am not sure they know what it means-- I want to know why they're worrying so much about sheep in laboratory conditions with some slightly strange DNA in their brains and totally ignoring the relatively horrible conditions that totally normal sheep, chickens, etc are being bred and harvested in on a worldwide scale. The worldwide march of technology and progress has brought a lot of horrible things, but we shrug, decide we don't care, and eat our chicken mcnuggets anyway. So why freak out so much over these sheep? If the rediculously unlikely situation we turn out to have created sheep with thinking, feeling human brains, okay, give them legal rights and a social security card and move on with your lives. I assure you, this isn't worse than what happened to the contents of those chicken mcnuggets, just a little bit wierder.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
There are quite a few co-workers I can think of that could use a brain transplant even if from a human/sheep chimera...
hmmm....
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Just what the US electorate needs, more sheep...
While it is doubtful that anyone would want a brain transplant from a human-sheep chimera [...]
I think you mean a body transplant.
...with these new human brains, the sheep could join up with other human modded animals - for the sake of argument, lets say pigs, forming some sort of idealistic communist regime that turns incredibly sour?
Of course, the fatal flaw in that logic is no human beings would ever mindlessly follow and never question their leaders? Right?
Would a sheep with human intelligence shear its own pubic wool?
A lot of philosophers, and neuroscientists for that matter, believe that the human brain is human because it is part of the human body. When you change the body, you can't call it human anymore.
"Dilemma", from the Greek, meaning literally "We cloned the guy from Motorhead."
FURRIES!!! ;)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
So how much would the life expectancy of this human mind trapped in a sheeps body be? Pretty long I think, they'll never see the difference. Baa!
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
I believe the human mind has more to do with the structure of the human brain than with the make of of human brain cells which are probably very close to any other brain cell type.
However our brain has many and larger structures than do other animals.
So the chances of a human being trapped in a sheeps body is rather unlikly even if it had 100% human brain cells.
As they have already done with mice, I believe.
Disclaimer I'm assuming this is the same article I read the other day on chimeras (not through slashdot)
Anyone who gives credence to what you say.
How soon until we have Real Dollies?
just had to say it (ducks)
the thought of a large black market in human body parts harvested from (once) live humans scares me a heck of a lot more than a half-man half-sheep hybrid.
Besides, I for one welcome our new man-sheep overlords.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I am really amazed to read that kind of comments from the poster. We are humanizing those animals so in the end, they can be used as spare parts. In the end, they will get killed. Apart from Animal Rights Activists (whom i respect), why John or Jane Doe should care. We killed (murdered for some people) an incredible high numbers of animal everyday to feed ourselves.
And then the desert, the part about transplating sheep brains in a humain to replace a non functional brain. Unless we made some serious progress in moving "ghosts" (cf "ghost in the shell"), i can't see why this might be considered. A human brain is the result of learning through multiple years, i don't see how we can mimick those physiological reactions, those chemical reactions to create a new functional brain with all the knowledge and personnality of the old one. Not to mention that a brain is very plastic by definition and that it will learn to handle a sheep body.
Animal have different level of consciouness and intelligence than us. But they are intelligent beings; hopefully, if such an advance feature was to exist one day, it will create a species less stupid than the humans.
On the one hand, I worry that our constant meddling with nature is dangerous and could result in global disaster; on the other hand, Sheep-Boy must live.
So perhaps this will make for a good open source biology project.
I propose taking two arthropods and combining characteristics to make, a still rather stupid, but much more practical and useful creature.
Lobsters taste good.
If you've not tried one, BT a copy of the Simpsons episode in which Homer acquires Pinchy, a pet lobster.
Cocaroach lives everywhere and tastes like crap. Thank you Arby's. Actually much worse than crap. Even worse than that bit of shell innard from a pecan that you immediately regret overlooking in your haste to shell and eat.
I propose a project to take the tasty genes from the lobster and put them in the cockroach. While we are at it, we should transfer a few more genes to make the tasty roach weigh in at about a half pound and a few modified genes so it will seek out and consume non modified cockroaches.
If you guys are worried about a sheep doing math and complaining that you don't pay enough attention to her when you're done, than implementing the robster should be a piece of cake.
I'm serious here. If there is one thing on this earth that genetic enginearing should listen to, it's the scream of a squeamish woman who has just found a cockroach in her cooch.
Imagine a world where robsters have consomed all the cockroaches but are still plentiful from cleaning kitchen floors and eating their own scraps. Hell, we should patent the damn things and make the chinese pay through the yingyang for 'em.
the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.
I guess the idea is that this is supposed to make me feel better?
Genetic research and experimentation has some real potential, the problems comes with "what do you do with the mistakes"?
Disclaimer: IAAF (cf. IANAL). I pay attention to and attempt to understand that-which-is just as much as, if not moreso than, my personal that-which-should-be; but nevertheless IAAF.
That being said, I am appalled at the prospect of ANY form of human hervous [sic] system running around in ANY other type of creature.... [I]t is my belief that the brian [sic] is the center of our humanity. It is the seat of who we are as a species, and is unique in the world.
Why? Because it will dilute the purity of our species, any combination of human and other animal which shows even the slightest hint of sentience must be exterminated?
To make myself clear, I will say that anybody who intentionally attempts to hybridize in order to make intelligent creatures at this time is off their rocker. But to suggest that it is outright immoral or impossible belittles intelligent life everywhere.
Once many of the genetic and biological hurdles have been cleared and in the meantime, other systems have been explored, it becomes less an act of science and more an act of expression. And expression through creation certainly isn't an invalid concept; we mask the instinctual drives of our species' propagation in emotion, so how can it be immoral to tie science in with this process (especially when the science is built on other science and not on the emotion)*?
And besides, as has been stated already in other posts, human nervous tissue is just that: human nervous tissue. The presence thereof does not necessitate intelligence.
* The intention of this statement is to exclude "science" such as "intelligent design", thus qualifying what kind of ties science and emotion may have without compromising either's integrity.
Either you have been grossly misinformed, or you're a troll. Keeping a positive frame of mind about this, I will assume the former.
No one (stastisically speaking) objects to stem cell research. No one. What a large percentage of people don't like is embryonic stem cell research, generally because embryonic stem cell research requires killing a human embryo. California's initiative focuses on embryonic stem cell research. It is also only embryonic stem cells which have been limited to only supplies already on hand.
Again, many/most folks approve of research into stem cells from adult, waste (umbelical cords, etc.), and other non-fatal sources.
It bothers people because the same logic can be applied to humans. "Why not sacrifice a legion of your average, miserable persons, to save someone's mother? I'd kill any number of strangers to watch my boy grow up. Their just humans, there are several billion around and no one will miss the children from Qwai Pong Province. Grow clones in vats for all I care, as long as its in a clean room environment! " There's a reason to feel queasy about this...
someone fucking well gets it. i swear, people who think it's would be as simple as dropping a gene into a different animal to get anything remotely like a human brain as the end product need to be punched. people who are against it on ethical grounds need to be shot. they are impediments to our species. actually, make that shot repeatedly.
The question is this: would you want that human(ish) brain in the sheep to be your brain?
The big deal here is about human(-like) brains in animals. As far as we can tell, it is the brain that sets the humans apart from the rest of the lifeforms on this ball of dirt we call Earth. Few logical people would object to having most human organs grown in an animal's body (although I'd not want to be first in line to receive a transplant out of fear of unknown biological repercussions).
The concern is over not wanting to inflict a human mind with cruelty and suffering.
"This is your brain in a sheep..."
meanwhile the government is worried about the lame-assed, non forward-thinking piece of shit, hacked (in the bad sense) together by people who know nothing of the internet, law called the DMCA in Canada
Look at it this way.
There is already a lot of common genetic material, sheep-man. Yet, these "heavily modded" sheep are still far removed from man genetically.
Hell, when you get right down to it, it only takes a little bit of genetic snafu to turn a human into an animal. Spawn of human !=human in some cases. Might look human, but so do many apes, which have a lot more in common than said sheeps, sans any modding.
So, do you measure humanity by genetics, intelligence, social acceptability, rational thought, or require a declarative on the part of the human as a qualifier?
two legs four legs three legs, slug
what does it matter in a biologically competitive world?
Next thing you know someone will accidently breed a sheep with a swastika pattern to it's wool and half the world will call for his head.
Perhaps instead, fate will yield a crossed sheep and they'll make him a saint.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Why not have the brain of a human bouncing around in a sheep? We already have plenty of candidates where the brain of a sheep is bouncing around in a human.
Shepherds are probably concerned for their jobs.
The idea of a human brain (and mind?) developing in a non-human skull was discussed when mice were the subject of choice. It was generally agreed that the size of a mouse's skull and therefore the size of the human/mouse brain would not result in a creature with thought processes similar to a human's. Now I am not familiar with the diameter of a sheep's skull compared to a human's but they're pretty close. What WOULD happen if a "human brain" was grown in a sheep?????
"Just the possibility of a human mind bouncing around inside a sheep's head is a scary proposition."
Strangely, we're all absolutely fine with the other way around...
City Gent -- Good afternoon.
Rustic -- Afternoon.
City Gent -- A lovely day isn't it.
Rustic -- Eh, 'tis that.
City Gent -- You here on holiday or...?
Rustic -- Nope, I live 'ere.
City Gent -- Oh, jolly good too. (surveys field; he looks puzzled) I say, those are sheep aren't they?
Rustic -- Ar.
City Gent -- Yes, yes of course, I thought so...only...er why are they up in the trees?
Rustic -- A fair question and one that in recent weeks has been much on my mind. It's my considered opinion that they're nesting.
City Gent -- Nesting?
Rustic -- Ar.
City Gent -- Like birds?
Rustic -- Ar. Exactly. Birds is the key to the whole problem. It's my belief that these sheep are laborin' under the misapprehension that they're birds. Observe their behavior. Take for a start the sheeps' tendency to 'op about the field on their back legs. (off-screen baa-ing) Now witness their attempts to fly from tree to tree. Notice that they do not so much fly as...plummet. (sound of sheep plummeting) Observe for example that ewe in that oak tree. She is clearly trying to teach her lamb to fly. (baaaaaa...thump) Talk about the blind leading the blind.
City Gent -- But why do they think they're birds?
Rustic -- Another fair question. One thing is for sure; a sheep is not a creature of the air. They have enormous difficulty in the comparatively simple act of perchin'. (crash) As you see. As for flight, its body is totally unadapted to the problems of aviation. Trouble is, sheep are very dim. Once they get an idea in their heads, there's no shifting it.
City Gent -- But where did they get the idea from?
Rustic -- From Harold. He's that sheep there over under the elm. He's that most dangerous of animals, a clever sheep. He's the ring-leader. He has realized that a sheep's life consists of standing around for a few months and then being eaten. And that's a depressing prospect for an ambitious sheep. He's patently hit on the idea of escape.
City Gent -- Well why don't you just get rid of Harold?
Rustic -- Because of the enormous commercial possibilities should he succeed.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
I didn't know (until a recent argume... discussion) that dilemma actually meant 2 lemmas, where lemma means "A subsidiary proposition assumed to be valid and used to demonstrate a principal proposition." So with a dilemma, you have two valid propositions.
Get your own free personal location tracker
"But offica', it tol' me et was fo', which fo' dem sheep is like, 20!"
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Define "human."
(I'm not being sarcastic -- see my other post)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That is, unless, the brains end up being too human. Just the possibility of a human mind bouncing around inside a sheep's head is a scary proposition.
What's scary about this? That you'd have to treat another species with a little more respect?
Remember if we ever meet intelligent beings from another planet, they'll have a mind bouncing around a body unlike anything you've seen before.
So I ask, who's afraid of science fiction?
If the reason we're holding back scientific progress is actually "ethics"-- people complaining about genetics and such keep using that word, I am not sure they know what it means
Hmm... complaining about medical eithcs. So are you a supporter of Josef Mengele by any chance? Or any of his ilk?
The main reason most people seem to be against this is, at what point is the chimera no longer an animal? At what point does it qualify as human or sentient? Doing this blurs the line and that is what they are afraid of.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Go hug some trees.
Are you sure it's in sheep? I mean... That sounds exactly like a Pigoon! (Hope you've read Oryx & Crake by Margaret Atwood... =P)
João Pinheiro
Having really smart animals around certainly would change things and make the religious dogma that some sort of omnipottent god(s) controls everything a joke ashow the obvious flaw in such superstitions.
With advanced biotech, we could soon see (in about 50 to 100 years), people customizing themselves, like looking part wolf etc. With nanotech and biotech, we soon will be able to slow, then stop and reverse aging, you could have a bodybuilders body with out having to do all that exercise, have a really smart brain and be able to customize your look with a new body layout every year!!
Just the possibility of a human mind bouncing around inside a sheep's head is a scary proposition. As opposed to the current state of things with millions of humans walking around wearing sheep's brains...
"Foxxy babes!" At least if they start dabbleing with more then just sheep. =P
Personally, I think it's a good idea. If we can put a human brain into say, tigers. With smarter tigers evadeing hunters, they might be able to get off of the endangered species list.
On the other hand, haveing a human-level intelligence in a non-human animal would be a recipe for mass discrimination. Hell, humans still can't handle people in it's own species with different skin colors or even a different race. So any hybrid would be at the very bottom and discriminated against. It would give even politicians and hookers someone to look down on! *shudders*
Maybe that sheepboy skittles commercial wasnt computer edited.
There are already sheep brains in humans. Just look at how many people voted for Kerry or Gore.
Now that Bush has made the political (rather than scientific) decision...
Well, at least you can't call Bush's tactics sheepish. That seems to be his main complaint with liberals.
Maybe someone has been messing with their genetic makeup.
... welcome our new sheep overlords!
Just the possibility of a human mind bouncing around inside a sheep's head is a scary proposition.
Why is it that all the things that I find incredibly frightening these days, one half of my brain also finds impossibly hilarious? If Douglas Adams were alive today he'd be writing Guide entries about exactly this sort of thing.
If he didn't already. Remember the animal from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe...?
... is off the menu.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
Kramer was right!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"Speaking of language and "humanity", which is more human: a human raised by wolves [wikipedia.org] or an ape that's learned sign language [wikipedia.org]?" God created the man as a man so naturally he is a human. As far as perspectives and thought processes he might be more animal than the ape who learned a form of human communication.
Growing human brains in sheep would be...
:)
baaaaaaaad.
While many limits on stem cell research exist in the United States
This is a lie, and a particularly silly (yet widespread) one at that.
Go check your facts. There are no limits on stem cell research in the U.S. There is a ban on federal funding for such research, but that is not anything remotely near a total ban. Private companies can pursue whatever research they like without hindrance of this.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Based on the results of the last election apparently there are a lot of people in this country with sheep's brains.
Since you were talking about sizes of skulls, I assumed we were talking about this scientifically...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What makes this an ethical dilemna is not "finding the boundary" between humans and animals. Humans (god if it's a religious dilemna) CREATED that line. When it comes down to it, what most people seem to mean is "does it seem like it can be socialized fully?"
One thing I am really sick of is this idea the media seems to have of "bioethics" as some kind of received truth handed down from authorities whose credentials are never discussed. No one ever talks about the ethics that these "bioethics" are supposed to be derived from.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
What's your name little one?
A-a-a-a-a-a-bi N-o-o-o-ormal...Baaa Raaaam Eweeee!!!
= 9J =
If there is one thing on this earth that genetic enginearing should listen to, it's the scream of a squeamish woman who has just found a cockroach in her...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
from humans who act like sheep? Now we have sheep that might act like humans. The only problem I see is that we (eventually) might not be able to tell the difference.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Chimera raids! Sorry if this is a little off topic, but it's the only thing I can relate.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
All of the sudden that commercial isn't as funny as it used to be...
Well as long as the sheep don't start saying "Daa-a-a-addy" then chimeras might be OK.
Q:Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?
A:Sheep can hear zippers.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Isn't it the Brits that do that?
Akarsz Magyar Gentoo fórumot? Akkor
WHAT??? o_O
They won't be culling the humanlike critters. Only the ones still naive enough to show it, after seeing their buddies getting the ol' hypodermic o' doom.
In other words, they'd be forcing the evolution of smart sneaky mice. And won't that be a good thing, boys and girls?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I second that. Let's have a look through history at what all of the human-brained sheep have done so far:
The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Hundred-Years War...
Yup. You just described Christianity. They are described in the Bible as Sheep, no?
This is what happens when you put human brains in sheep bodies: "City Gent: Good afternoon.
Rustic: Afternoon.
City Gent: A lovely day isn't it.
Rustic: Eh, 'tis that.
City Gent: You here on holiday or...?
Rustic: Nope, I live 'ere.
City Gent: Oh, jolly good too. (surveys field; he looks puzzled) I say, those are sheep aren't they?
Rustic: Ar.
City Gent: Yes, yes of course, I thought so...only...er why are they up in the trees?
Rustic: A fair question and one that in recent weeks has been much on my mind. It's my considered opinion that they're nesting.
City Gent: Nesting?
Rustic: Ar.
City Gent: Like birds?
Rustic: Ar. Exactly. Birds is the key to the whole problem. It's my belief that these sheep are laborin' under the misapprehension that they're birds. Observe their behavior. Take for a start the sheeps' tendency to 'op about the field on their back legs. (off-screen baa-ing) Now witness their attempts to fly from tree to tree. Notice that they do not so much fly as...plummet. (sound of sheep plummeting) Observe for example that ewe in that oak tree. She is clearly trying to teach her lamb to fly. (baaaaaa...thump) Talk about the blind leading the blind.
City Gent: But why do they think they're birds?
Rustic: Another fair question. One thing is for sure; a sheep is not a creature of the air. They have enormous difficulty in the comparatively simple act of perchin'. (crash) As you see. As for flight, its body is totally unadapted to the problems of aviation. Trouble is, sheep are very dim. Once they get an idea in their heads, there's no shifting it.
City Gent: But where did they get the idea from?
Rustic: From Harold. He's that sheep there over under the elm. He's that most dangerous of animals, a clever sheep. He's the ring-leader. He has realized that a sheep's life consists of standing around for a few months and then being eaten. And that's a depressing prospect for an ambitious sheep. He's patently hit on the idea of escape.
City Gent: Well why don't you just get rid of Harold?
Rustic: Because of the enormous commercial possibilities should he succeed."
Now they can justify their sheep-shagging rituals.
"Why is this scary? Because it's new? Are you a luddite?
What is most obviously concerning to me about this type of work is a risk of encouraging human-adapted forms of animal infectious agents, such as animal viruses.
Some of the barriers to cross-species infection arise because of cross-species differences between functional proteins -- proteins of the immune system for example.
These chimeric animals appear to provide some human-identical proteins in an environment where infective agents normally endemic to the non-human animal can live in time-extended association with the human materials. There is a potential for undesirable (for humans) evolutionary adaptation of infective agents in this scenario.
-wb-
And how would you feel if someone decides they want cells from your mom, without her consent?
Ok, that's not realistic. But imagine yourself as someone else a few decades from now. Imagine your mom is technically considered a chimera because she was created through genetic engineering combining human and animal cells, and that you are therefore the descendant of a chimera.
When we have real chimeras, do you think animals showing human mental traits will be treated as humans? Probably some will, some won't.
It will blur the line, and some people will use it as an excuse to question whether, for example, certain "races" of people we consider human should still be considered fully human enough to have basic rights, like the right to life and self-determination....
Think that can't happen? Do you really think we're completely past the times of treating, to pick an example, "black" people as though they're sub-human and therefore not entitled to the most basic human rights? (Substitute any labelled group of humans for "black").
I think the existince of chimeras will be used as yet another excuse for all sorts of horrors.
-- Jamie
These heavily modded sheep are growning human-like organs such as livers, hearts, and blood I suppose if I had to grow human-like organs I would be growning to. sorry had to be done.
... the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior...
In soon to come news:
Professor Greely has been executed last night for crimes against rodenthood, after his final appeal being rejected by the supremouse court. He was also denied pardon by the world president, Brain.
Channel 8 brings you the following exclusive footage from professor Greely's damning laboratory video tapes, released to the public for the first time:
(Camera zooms to three mice in a cage: Pinky, the Brain, and their little known brother Artsy)
Artsy: Look guys, it can't get any simpler. I'll just draw the proof of the Pythagorean theorm on the side of the cage. They will realize we are intelligent and let us out of here. Now, give me some room to work here - I draw better than you two...
Pinky and the Brain move to the other side of the cage, while Artsy starts drawing...
*SPLAT*
The Brain: From now on, what we'll do every night, Pinky...
(Camera fades back)
All hail the coming of our human-brained underlords!
...nah can't be bothered.... I'm too tired.
/. should really reserve the nick "sheep" for the ...
first thinking sheep
... a clever sheep. He's realized that a sheep's life consists of standing around, waiting to be eaten, and he's hit upon the idea of escape.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Forget Pinky and the Brain. Try a famous SF author from the sixties and seventies, Cordwainer Smith, and the memorable C'Mell.
I want to see fundamentalists discuss whether a human-feline cross that can speak has human civil right, or if they're property.
mark
At least not from the point of view of the patient. If you had your brain moved to another body, to you, it would be a body transplant.
On a more serious note, was anyone else distrubed by the fact that it was recommended, concerning human-brained mice, that they monitor for signs of humanlike behavior in human-brained mice, and if they find such behavior, they were to... immediately kill the mice?
Obviously not - our society has determined that the appropriate course of action is to starve the mouse to death over the course of a couple weeks.
"Little Nicky (2000)":
We're all gonna die!
To everyone else: check the post linked to throughout this comment. mbrewthx called his sister "very good looking." That's right - this guy has evaluated his sister's appearance and come to the conclusion that he would hit it. Perhaps he has. Perhaps he's tapped that ass till mom came home and caught them. Man, what a fucking pervert...
mbrewthx, kill yourself!!!
"But isn't it a scientific question to determine at what point a human life begins?"
LOL
I'm all for science, but this statement is impossible to uphold. By its very nature, it's an ethical thing, NOT a scientific thing.
You yourself gave some exmples of that. All over the world, there are myriad of 'ages' at which a foetus is considered worth the protection of human life...and they useally all have something scientific for it. But it *can't* say WHEN something should be considered human life, purely based on science, because it depends on the premise one takes.
For instance, if you consider a foetus 'human' when it starts developping a brain, then science can say when (more or less) this happens, yes...but there is nothing inherent that would indicate it's only THEN that it should be considered human.
and in fact, it doesn't: some take the development of the spinalcord as basis, some the developement of nerves, etc. For all this 'fine lines' there is something to say, and science can indicate when it happens...but it never will be able to determine WHEN a human becomes human, because that depends on your definition of what it is, what defines a human.
I for one, concluded that the most logical one would be when the melting of the egg and spermcel occurs (thus, when the cell is neither a spermcel, neither an eggcell, but something that, if conditions are set right, will, eventually, turn out to become a full blown baby and even an adult later in life.
Mind you, that I'm agonstic, so I didn't base myself on any religious dogma or such. I just find that, of all suggested 'boundaries', this really makes the most sense, at least when using logic. It's also (in current times), I'm quite aware, impossible to uphold in a pragmatical sense, since you can't actually force women to keep their baby/foetus - unless you derive them of essential liberties (which, as a libertarian, I wouldn't like to see happen).
This makes it a VERY though ethical dillema, in my view. Basically, one kills one human for the comfort of another, but there isn't really anything one can do to stop it. So, it might be that abortions are ethically wrong (for a change the religious bunch might be right), but their is no real solution to the problem.
One counterargument about the "sperm swimming" thingy; you are making a factual error. Let a spermcell and an eggcell 'swim' in ideal condictions, and both will die at *their* end of the life-cycle, which is rather short (72 hours for sperm, I believe). So, on themselves, neither one has the possibility to become a human person. Once combined, it might. Since this is the first instance, and a pretty clearly defined one, it's also the most logical one. None of the other alternatives are really as convincing.
The same is true with animals that have human brains. At some point, one comes to the ethical barrier, and that point can't really be determined by science alone. One could try, and say that something which doesn't have the same thinkprocesses as a person shouldn't be considered a person. But, following that logic, one must be consistent, and decide that all creatures without those processes are not humans (and thus, eligible for testing/harvesting/whatever). But then: do babies have neural processes that makes them a person? What if chimeras have the same level of brainactivity? And what IS the level of neural activity or behaviour before it to be considered human anyway? What about creepers (don't know if that is the correct english word); humans that are born without the frontal lobes (or other parts of the brain, or ganglions)? Those are, in effect, not anything else then on the level of animals or even plants. So why not just experiment on those handicapts? Why should a human body with no human brain deserve more protection then an animal body with a human brain?
As you can see, those issues ARE nothing but ethical dillema's, and science can't really help us with it, because you first need a premisse to start with.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"What happens is if we deem them to be close enough to human, we will give them "human rights."
Which is exactly where ethics come into play: when is 'enough', enough?
"We would not kill a human being to harvest their organs (in theory), so we would extend the same courtesy to the sheep. If they become sentient, who knows, maybe they'll get to vote. That's what happened when we finally realized that black people and women were sentient."
Which, again, points EXACTLY to the problem (and the fact it is an ethical issue): blacks have suffered tremendously during hundreds of years because of the bias (and accordingly treatement) whites had about them. None of it was ethical right or justified. So, one might argument that things, eventually, sort themselves out (though, even for blacks today, it hasn't completely) - but in any case, it doesn't make it right what happend, and it also doesn't mean it wasn't and isn't an ethical issue.
It is entirely possible we will treat chimera's for hundreds of years, just as we treated blacks in earlier times. THAT is why we have to prevent it in front, and not have the attitude of "we'll see where it leads to". You just can't aford such attitude when there is the possibility you are killing intelligent animals. I don't know what ethics you uphold, but I, for one, consider killing sentient beings as immoral.
And yes, it's difficult, especially with chimera's, to know where the fine line is drawn. I would say, there is little to counterargument when it involves liver, hart, blood, etc. But it DOES become problematic when you speak about human brains. Sooner or later, you *will* create something that maybe isn't human, but ain't an animal neither. I fail to understand how someone fails to understand this IS an ethical problem, better to be considered in advance, then letting it abide and abuse themfor centuries 'like with the blacks'.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"In short it isn't just human neurons which make us human but the whole brain development system at work in babies."
;-)
If it's the 'whole brain develoment system' which makes a human human, logic dictates that mentaly handicapt individuals, like, say, those that miss their frontal lobes (creepers in english, I believe), are not humans neither.
Thus, again following the same logic, it would be fully justified breeding or cloning such handicapt 'persons', and testing on them. In fact, it would be MUCH easier and efficient, to actually use those humans (which aren't humans in accordance with your definition) then to take animals. In any case, since at least some handicapts do not posses a "whole brain development system", those aren't humans, and experimenting on them pose no ethical questions.
Agreed?
(I won't invoke the Nazi's, because then the debate is over, I've heard
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"blacks have suffered tremendously during hundreds of years because of the bias (and accordingly treatement) whites had about them. None of it was ethical right or justified."
You are using today's morals and standards and retroactively applying them. Keep in mind that 200 years ago, in the Western world, Africans were thought to be animals. If you had black skin, you were not human. That is how they saw the world and they acted accordingly. TO say that is is morally unjustified is assuming that our morals today are correct and theirs were wrong, but as I said before, public opinion changes as do social standards. Today we would not accept someone going to Africa, kidnapping a 10 year old boy, and bringing him back as slave labor. That is because now we believe that Africans are not animals, but human beings. It took some bloody revolutions to get that sorted out.
If you're concerned about preventing "unethical" treatment of chimera, consider perhaps the way we treat animals in general. We get very high and mighty when speaking about the differences between humans and animals, but don't pause to think about what we're saying. We try to define "human" in all sorts of ways, but we're really always just circling the issue. We talk about intelligence, but I doubt anyone would deny that Terry Schiavo was a human being just days before she died. However, my girlfriend's parakeets are more intelligent than she was right before she died. Or, if you'd argue that Terry really wasn't human at that point, look at severely retarded people. They may have a vocabulary of several dozen words and are capable of basic emotions. We call them human. But apes can have vocabularies of a few hundred words and show complex emotions and basic social structures. Yet they are apes, monkeys, animals.
Or perhaps it is our social interactions that make us human. But we form social connections with non-human beings too. We talk to our dogs and cats. They help us when we're upset. And, in fact, more likely than not you wouldn't think to harvest organs from those creatures even though they have nothing that resembles human characteristics.
If it is strictly biology that makes one human, then the ethical argument has no standing whatsoever. "I will respect this other creature because it has a head like mine, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and opposable thumbs." That (among other traits) is what it is to be biologically classified as homo sapiens, not human. Our biology is not inherently better, because birds can fly, octopi have eight legs, and horses are bigger, stronger, and faster than us. The only thing you can claim truly sets us apart is our brain, which I mentioned before doesn't really have to be all that powerful in order for us to classify the organism as human. If you can think of other classifications that aren't heinously superficial, I'm open to hearing about them.
So I throw your question of ethics back at you. Where do we draw the line? If sheep are able to show sentience at all by doing more than just reacting to their environment (although there is an entire branch of psychology that says that's exactly what humans do), does it become morally improper to slaughter them when it was fine before? Why is it acceptable to kill them now even if they don't have thought that we are able to discern? Will Americans 200 years from now look back at us and describe our treatment of animals and plants as neither "ethical, right or justified"?
We stuff around with genetics the way toddlers play with daddy's guns: we don't know what the hell we're doing. Some are foolish enough to think they understand it, but humans are hardly beginning to understand the simplest of aspects of biology.
Let's just be a bit sensible about this stuff. Think about the issues involved. Get the benefits without problems that outweigh them.
Okay we done taken your moggie and put 18" paws, lowered the ride, put a fat pipe on the back, installed an X-Box and given that old black fur a new flame/chrome twist. Oh and be for I forget. "I for one welcome our new super intelegent day-glow sheep overlords"
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
You do realise that many would consider that your viewpoint is rather a-moralthen anything else, I hope?
I can't subscribe to many of your statements, because I do not agree with the premise you start with. I do agree with the logic behind your reasoning, however.
But, as I said before, that is, on its own, rather subjective.
You take the suffering it causes etc. as guideline, but there is nothing inherently objective about that. One could as well argue, that the suffering of others don't matter, and the only thing of importance is what you (as a perpetrator) feel. If you don't feel bothered, then everything is ok. That way, Nazi's can kill jews, because they're jews, whites can kill blacks, because for them the color of their skin makes the essential difference, not the suffering that they cause to their victims or their relatives. A pathological serial killer could kill everyone, but as long as he is happy, and that was his premisse, he is not doing anything 'wrong' or 'unethical', viewed from his stance.
So, you see, consistency can be achieved, even though allmost all people (exept perhaps the peretrators) would think it is unethical. Therefor, I think it's necessary to agree on a premise first. I, for one, am of the opinion that the unsettling effect it has on people or relatives, is not the determining fact, when you try to establish a rationale for a consistent ethical behaviour.
I can exept that premise (as a matter of logic) is used by people, as long as they don't contradict themselves. But frankly, I doubt many could. Let's say YOU *are* on an island with a depressed human being. Would you really kill that man/woman/child? I doubt it. Maybe you could argue that's because you would feel guilty, but the perverse effect of that kind of ethic is, that those with the least morals behave the most ethical. In that view, a ruthless killer who feels no remorse or guilt, who kills people (that have no family/friends, and aren't missed) in their sleep, could be considerd as being a very ethical person.
I really can't subscribe to that premise. Yes, it is true that, if all people considered killing a 1 year old as being normal, one could argue it's ethical (within your reasoning). But, basically, that's what large groups of people have said about other groups of people, when they massacred them. And if you don't recognise blacks/jews/etc. as people, and their feelings not as 'real human feelings', basically, you can't say they are unethical nor inconsistent, viewed from their perspective.
Viewed from my ethical system (and premise), they most definately ARE, however. To know what premise is more correct, one would have to look at the inconsistencies when that premise is applied, me thinks. For instance, if you consider jews as not being human, but you define the human race in a biological context (where species can interbreed), then you will have trouble explaining how it is possible that a jew and a german can have a child, if one is of the human race, and the other not. this is true for every premise. If you find my examples of the murderer/nazi's etc., as being showcases of unethical behaviour, even when following your reasoning, then there is something wrong with the premise (or with the reasoning).
So I do belive it's possible that one can discern the better of the used premises, but on the other hand, it can't be excluded that some premises and consequent reasonings are fully consistent, yet, diametrically oposed to another, equally consistent viewpoint.
I don't see that quite in your reasoning, however. For instance, you say:
"This too explains why one might want to immediatly kill any chimera exhibiting human traits, since it would be maturing from childhood hopefully it could be killed before realizing its situation."
If you consider this ethical behaviour, one should consider killing (handicapt) babies, before they realise their situation, as being ethical too. When you claim that that would be unethical, because it evokes distress with other people, then the killing of chimeras is unethical too, because it causes distres with me (and aparently a lot of other people, seen the responses). So, whatever way you turn it, it is either ethical, or unethical, in *both* cases.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---