Slashdot Mirror
UK Moves To Allow Human Hybrid Experiments
penguin_dance writes "The UK is apparently rethinking its ban on human hybrid experiments. If approved by regulators, '[t]he move opens the door to experiments involving every known kind of human-animal hybrid. These could include both "cytoplasmic" embryos, which are 99.9% human, and "true hybrids" carrying both human and animal genes.' Previous calls for an outright ban on all human-animal embryos outraged scientists, according to the article, who believe that 'work on human-animal hybrid embryos will greatly speed up progress in stem cell research.' The report claims there will be a provision for regulation of the research to incorporate any 'unforeseen developments.' Let the Island of Dr. Moreau comparisons begin!"
Woof! er..... I meant "Hi"
Given my experience on most Friday nights, animal-women hybrids already exist.
I'm such a bitch...
Summation 2
Reminds me of Patricia Piccinini, an Australian artist who made a a set of sculptures called "The Young Family".
http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/31/Patricia_Piccinini/249/
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That comment from G.W. Bush on human-animal hybrids was kind of dismissed as whimsical religious paranoia. However, maybe the man had a point after all.
The next generation of terrorists may have tentacles.
Table-ized A.I.
When the X5s are ready.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
He is hung like a horse! No, I really mean it Tiffany!
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
Yoko Ono's dream of having an octopus child may become a reality.
Table-ized A.I.
I call dibs on the first of the Crab/Human hybrid.
Sorry, Dick Cheney is prior art
-1 Flamebait
Table-ized A.I.
I for one welcome our new [insert zoo]-human-hybrid overlords.
Table-ized A.I.
Let me get this straight.....I can fuse a human with a shark, but I can't pop down to Game (even if I *am* watched on CCTV every step of the way) and pick up a copy of Manhunt 2?
Boy, am I glad I fled that crazy, crazy country for a saner place to live.
At last the species-dysmorphic among us will have some way of making things right. Plus it would be neat for those of us who like the idea of anthropomorphic animals.
Bart: god shmod. I want my monkey-man!
The standard of science reporting is now so low that journalists should be deprived of access to modern medicine and technology until they do better, though given the usual standard of their education they would just end up banging rocks together and trying to brew cider from windfalls till the end of time.
One of the funniest comments I've ever seen on slashdot. I've thought the same thing myself, if a bit less eloquently, far too many times to count.
Everything will be taken away from you.
In the U.S. stem cell research and cloning are perfectly legal. The ban is on federal funding because it is morally questionable.
IOU one (1) signature
>But allowing a human hybrid to come to term (If possible) I am against.
I will never understand that point of view. If that being is secured a place in a good family (as pet or child), then what is the ethical problem?
Why is it more moral for a child to be created by rape? A crack whores illicit child? A drunken chance encounter? a one night stand?
What is it people abhor so much about a child or a new species created on purpose?
In common speech the word "animal" is used to refer to animals that are not humans. There is really no way that anyone did not understand what they meant.
You really are just trying too hard.
sic transit gloria mundi
I think kdawson needs to find a better news source. The BBC reported this story more than a month ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6978384.stm
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
This is the first step towards in what I think, will be the next human revolution. It is only a matter of time before this was going to happen. The human has almost evolved naturally to what it can be, we are almost as tall as we can sustain. Genetic engineering will be the next evolution, it will take us past what we, the human race, can evolve to. But is the human race ready to abandon morality? If we can live for extended period of years will we still reproduce, or if we can replicate. If we do so, will be helping the human race become better by remaining here for long periods of time, or hinder it because less people means less diversity in the ways we think. Does science end, when we can manipulate, create, and destroy any form of matter?
...human-animal hybrids if he could have sharks with lasers? i, for one, opt for shark-technology hybrids!
"Behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with seed of man and seed of beasts."
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Same here. It always struck me a bit like someone who'd prohibit minorities from having kids because they might face the hardships of racism. A kinder, gentler, eugenics movement. Though, even above that it always strikes me when people even think it's possible for it to happen in the conceivable future. The kind of hybrid's we're talking about aren't exactly the most viable fish in the sea.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The goal of a science journalist is to communicate information. "Human-animal hybrid" pretty much perfectly describes what is going on here to the majority of people, and I'm sure nobody who isn't trying damn hard to be pedantic would bat an eye at the slightly non-technical definition.
Who gets to decide what is a pet and what is a child?
Who gets to decide what is human and what is not?
Who gets to decide if its okay to use hybrids for testing purposes since they resemble humans so closely?
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions. Maybe i'm just so cynical that I expect people to fear anything that is near human but not quite.
A child borne of a rape/one night stand is still a human.
You mad
When you start adding things who knows what is going to happen, there could be unforeseen consequences that could make life very hard socially, physically and psychologically.
they make the live action Thundercats movie. I can't wait to see the picture of Cheetara!
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
The problems with this kind of research are ethical. So let us consider possible advantages. What is this research for?
a) Rare diseases. Many people die in poor countries because there is no proper health care. Why fund research with possibly far reaching ethical dilemmas that might one day cure some rare disease when there are millions to be saved?
b) Common causes of death. We now reach an average age of around 80. That's enough. There is no point in following Faust's example with the risk of getting us in troubled waters.
My conclusion: The disadvantages outway possible advantages. These outraged scientists (BTW, I am one, just in another field) just cry for more money. This line of research is not going to give us more insight into nature, nor is it morally acceptable at this point.
The furry are coming.
Resistance is futile.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Human-Animal hybrids are banned?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't humans.....animals?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
"Your ass shall be seized in front of you, and it shall not be returned to you."
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I bet the military would jump all over this if they could get some human/dog hybrids to sniff out terrorists, or human/eagle hybrids for enhanced eye sight, etc.
--"Forget the nectar of the Gods, just give me some Mountain Dew."
1. We're already experimenting with animals, including almost-humans (apes). They have similar self-appreciation, feelings, pain and confusion like you. We're only less sympathetic since they're not EXACTLY like us. But they are, in fact, more like us than we suspect.
2. Experimenting with human embyos, experimenting on people will dramatically further science and improve life for the rest of us (billions). It means we need to come to terms with the fact that humans are animals as any, and experimentation is required. But how do we do that without allowing for genocide? Not simple problem, but unless we solve it, we'll all be victims to save the few from being victims.
This has been going on in secret for years. How else do you account for Gordon Brown?
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
>Yuch. Chowing on someone who tastes like crab is not pleasant.
Girls get really offended when you crack out the Thousand Island Dressing, no idea why.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I don't like abortion at all, but as far as I understand there's no suggestion that these embryos will even be implanted or allowed to get past a few cell divisions.
I sense a great disturbance in the force... like a thousand raging furries just got one simultaneous hard-on... I for one welcome our new anthropomorphic overlords.
First post = troll. Cleverly worded post designed to enrage others = flamebait.
Technically they're not hybrids either, because they just mix up the starting stem cells and don't actually mix up DNA. So they're not animal-human and not hybrids.
Let's just call them FRANKENSTEINS, or ABOMINATIONS (caps are mandatory).
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
What is it people abhor so much about a child or a new species created on purpose?
There are lots of good reasons to be worried about this. First, there's no way of knowing what the long term medical, biological, psychological etc outcomes would be for the child. There's clearly no medical need at the individual level for this sort of thing (there might be at the social level, but that doesn't count in medical ethics). There's also no notion of consent, you couldn't retrospectivly ask the child whether they agree to be an experiment. So ethically, at the moment at least, it's a non-starter, even within the existing rules of medical ethics.
I agree though that the "ewww" reaction and the 'abhorrence' is a bit irrational and is not a good basis for policy.
Having said all this, medical and biological sciences will advance, and one day we're going to have to deal with this sort of thing as a real possibility. We should be starting to get the ethics sorted out now.
Who gets to decide what is human and what is not? I hate these arguments. I mean, who gets to decide whether the unusually intelligent should be given freedom or forced to invent things to service the rest of us? Who says the unusually strong shouldn't be forced to do manual labour? Who says slavery is wrong? Who gets to decide that people that suffer from deformities shouldn't be put on display and exploited for public entertainment? These are all things we've already worked out the answers to.
The real question should be: who gets to decide that a trait which has been added to the genome by scientists purposefully rearranging DNA is unnatural and makes something inhuman (and thus not subject to existing moral codes), while the odd mutations that have been caused by exposure to radiation, or pollution, or bad drugs, etc. are natural, and that those that bear said mutations are clearly still human? Who gets to decide if its okay to use hybrids for testing purposes since they resemble humans so closely? I always want to add, "Right. Who gets to decide that death row inmates, or the mentally retarded, or people who's skin color varies from our own should not be used for medical experiments?" to that one. This isn't anything new in terms of moral issues. Next! Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions. Humanity could answer those questions just fine if it could assert reason over the urge to declare everything an us or a them, often over the most trivial of differences...but I'm really not arguing with you because I don't have any faith in the general public's ability to think clearly about this. Maybe i'm just so cynical that I expect people to fear anything that is near human but not quite. Yeah. With you on the cynicism.
For the record, I don't think avoiding the issue is right either - regardless of the fact that, yes, we're going to screw things up no matter how we approach this (or any other) new field. I mean really, imagine where we'd be if mankind had just sat around discussing the ethical issues of fire, as opposed to learning what it is and how to harness it. True, we'd never have burned all those people at the stake, but... A child borne of a rape/one night stand is still a human. Obviously, I think this only gets dragged into the discussion to counter the argument that we shouldn't create creatures that could only face a life of pain and misery - because it's kind of obvious that we're already perfectly capable of taking care of even the most unwanted of our own, though we don't always choose to do so.
I'd buy an animal-woman hybrid if they can produce the body of a teenage girl with the brain of say a cat. Finally a date that is impressed by going to a buffet and that just wants to go home and spend some time licking and petting.
Okay - so I'm married now so I guess I couldn't buy one. I just don't think my wife would let me keep a pet that looked human and especially not one that tended towards being an attractive nude female. It'd be awful hard to explain to the kids too.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Recently we had the case of journos talking up Craig Venter's research as producing "artificial life". I had to read his own original comments to see that he never made that claim, and in fact his own comments agreed with my own Slashdot posting on the subject.
Science is not common speech, and attempts to make it so result in misunderstanding and sensationalism. I don't know who modded this "informative" (presumably the same people who moderated me "overrated" because that doesn't get metamoderated, but whoever you are, you clearly know diddly squit about biology.
Pining for the fjords
Technically they're not hybrids either, because they just mix up the starting stem cells and don't actually mix up DNA.
TFA seems to be talking about actual hybrids (they mention that chimeras will be allowed as well, though).
sic transit gloria mundi
"as I don't mind abortion within the first trimester". Well, that's big of you.
Do you think the unborn child MINDS being cut up while still alive? Gee...
Empathy obviously isn't your strong point...
"I'm Barf, half-Dog and half-Man. I'm my own best friend!"
-
http://www.egyptgiftshop.com/images/papyrus/paintings/horus3_large.jpg/
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Well over 50 years ago a British author, wrote of the angst of slave owning and the first requirement of de-humanizing the property. Migrant workers, mine workers, homeless, illegal immigrants; they make us uncomfortable to the degree we find them human and worthy of sympathy. And to the degree we think them less than ourselves, we de-humanize ourselves. In Cordwainer's world, the lovely C'mell helps a young man find his humanity at the expense being a member of the overlords. On the other hand it was genetically enhanced apes that won in a different world.
You posted good questions, but my take on it will be: maybe it depends on the being's (degree of) humanity. If the being is able to reason and choose freely (as in his/her/its destiny), then I feel that we ought to treat him/her/it as an individual person with dignity and respect. I'd object strongly however, on treating a being as a pet, when that being shows humanity (in the sense I've described above and others.)
:P
I'll avoid your questions about the morality of a child created by rape as I'm quite unsure of the answer myself, but I don't think my conscience can handle me killing an embryo whose form I recognize as something similar to my own - a human. Just as I can't in clear conscience allow a being whom I recognize similarly human-like qualities (reason & free will, not just of form) to be treated as something less than how I should be treated.
But then again... I have been brought up, and is a Catholic, so my conscience will be tainted/influenced by some of its teachings.
Sorry if my post doesn't make much sense, English isn't my 1st language.
Makes you wonder where they draw the line on zoophilia. Will a 95% guy with 5% horse genes (yes, right there..) be able to legally fsck a 68% girl with a pony-tail?
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
im liberal, im humanist, im netizen, im even new ager, kind of hippie, but thats way too much. WAY too much.
Read radical news here
Well, if this research goes through, we'll have to start worrying about whether the child MINDS being born as essentially a real-life furry... Would you rather abort that or deal with the possible problems later(housebreaking, not humping random people's legs, weird fetishes, etc)?
OSx86 FTW
The government has been experimenting with pig-men since the 50's.
Should we just rename Earth to Rapture right now and get it over with?
Seriously though, I think if we get into these waters we may end up triggering some kind of genetic arms race- I can't even imagine.
I also agree with some other posters- don't we have bigger medical crises to spend money on? How about clean drinking water and fighting malaria in Africa?
Is this really a question of ethics, or just fueling our beliefs that our beloved pets must have emotions/souls? By imposing our own human mannerisms on top of their default primal, instict-driven, action-reaction behavioral patterns, we delude ourselves into thinking our pets would really bother to think twice about eating you alive if the "easier" food sources suddenly became scarce. Sure, you might be able to stop one of them, before the main course starts, but not without enduring a decent amount of damage to your flesh.
So, big man... do your ethics of convenience come back after you committed yourself to snapping the necks of puppies and kittens to sustain your own wellbeing?
8==8 Bones 8==8
We spend multiple millions of years crawling out of the primordial ooze to walk on two legs, develop opposable thumbs and a brain large enough to create a civilization that dominates our planet, and now we're gonna start going BACKWARDS? What the hell were the last several million years of evolution for?
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The report claims there will be a provision for regulation of the research to incorporate any 'unforeseen developments.'
It's Ripley with a flame thrower.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
This is just further proof that everyone on Second Life is a nerd.
The fate of mankind is ib the hands of the creativly maladjust...
1) BBC (once a trusted institution) caught fabricating programming, not to mention what the other broadcasters get up to. 2) Crime massively on the rise, with no police action, they are too busy pulling over the sensible middle class for driving 40 MPH in a 35MPH zone. 3) BBC cutting 2500 staff, mainly in 'Factual Programming'. See item 1). 4) Extremist entities being given more airtime than others who have a more constructive and honest message. 5) General massive dumbing down of our society with a focus on replacing ethics with hard wired technology and business before democracy. Those living in the UK who care will understand what I mean. What is ironic, is that most of the complex illnesses that these hybrids may or may not cure are caused by our lifestyles. Just look at all the cancer causing materias in the typical household cupboard. Not to mention the polutants in our environment, such as PCBs etc. Let's tackle the cause, not spend billions fixing things. IMHO!
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Firstly CCTV everywhere, then ID Cards and now we're even creating Human hybrids like Hitler's human-dog experiments!
"and i for one, welcome our new hybrid overlords..."
...since 60% of my genes are the same of those of a drosophila (fruit flies). BTW I also share 90% of my genes with mouses, not to mention that 98% with chimpanzees. I also have 30% of the genes of yeast, which makes of me a human/fungi hybrid I guess.
No really, people using terms like "human/animal hybrid" or "chimera" when talking about DNA modifications are probably trying to scandalise more than inform.
>Who gets to decide what is human and what is not? We all do. It is not a requirement that we treat a new species badly, nor is it a requirement that you need to be a different species for you to be treated inhumanely(vividly demonstrated by a couple of regimes 60 years ago.) I think an interesting result of human/animal chimaeras would be a better understanding of what sentience and consciousness is. Which hopefully would force us to begin a species rights movement. There must be some criteria based on mental capacities by which we can justify why human rights apply to humans but not to buffalo for example. >I don't think humanity is currently ready to answer those questions. Maybe not. But the wrong way of getting to that point is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I'm not listening". We are already creating GMO's. We have bred horses, cows, dogs & more to exhibit traits we want. Now we are just considering adding human traits. I do not think there is anything inherently unethical about playing with DNA. It is just chemistry. Ethics become a problem once the being is brought to term. Then we must have a set of rules/laws regarding how it must be treated and its rights. I will argue that if we have rules like this then bringing this new "human" to term will not be any less ethical than the scenarios I outlined earlier.
I'm fully in favor of genetic experimentation on genetic experimenters.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
...the furries are going to love this.
Coming to you live from another dimension.
don't be pussies!
Our evolution depends on our technology. I think we are to evolve ourselves through all this fun stuff.. "cyber enhancements" to bio-engineering.. bring it. To be afraid of creating new strains of human/animal hybrids makes for a boring world.
If were going to have to battle off any cylons or strogg... first we need to make them! w00t
Kill your TV
You say: "Know why Jesus was sexy?"
Everyone says "why?"
You put your arms out to either side, fingers curled inwards, and say "coz he was hung like *this*."
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Those who don't learn from Dark Angel are doomed to repeat it...
What a sensationalist headline. The reality of this research is that it's already occurring. For many years we have been trying to create animals with human organs so that tests can be done.
Ages ago when I was still in elementary school I remember a fund drive to buy mice that could grow human tumors. Recently they created mice with human livers and I remember a story about pigs with human blood (just think, disease free blood of any blood type, no transfusion risk because the pigs could be kept in a disease free environment, and no need to keep a huge storage of spoiling human blood). This is the human-animal hybrid used in research, it's still a mouse, it's just got human organs instead of mice organs. With a full hybrid, such as I listed (a mouse with all human organs) drug research can be done without the risks of harming people. Current drug trials on animals don't accurately predict the effects because the metabolism is different. Many more drugs could be tried with much more accurate predictions of success without moving to the phase 3 human trials. This eliminates the risk to people and it helps drug companies bring better drugs to market quicker.
But hey, in some states in the US is is legal to buy genetically modified fish that glow under a black light (http://www.glofish.com/). I have heard that in CA they are banned. So I guess some day we will have genetically modified dogs and cats that can talk, so we know what they are thinking.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
If the experimenters get to torture and kill these 99.9% humans, does that mean that we get to have a slave race?
> Well over 50 years ago a British author
Cordwainer Smith was a University of Pennsylvania professor, writing under pseudonym, of course. Paul Myron Anthony Linebarger was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, not anywhere in Britain.
BTW, I think that underpeople were made by manipulating animal DNA rather than fusing in human DNA. This is why the 7th Reich was able to make robots to hunt down and kill them.
The brain can't even differentiate pain/sight/touch/warmth/cold/etc. The brain is still "learning" it's connections. When babies are born most of their lack of eye "sight" is that their brain is still learning to see. A better analogy would be, do you think that vegetable of a person minds being cut up while still alive? not a perfect analogy, but better. They don't know who they are, they can't effectively feel, but can react to stimuli. They're no more human than your skin cells that you shed every day or kill when you scratch an itch. But habitual abortions are gross and some kids need to learn self control. Most of the "pain" that we feel if we're about to die, is that *we* know we're alive and what's going to happen. We *understand* what is taking place, we're not just reacting based on what genetics has decided what makes us most likely to survive but thoughts. I don't think most infants at 1st trimester lay claim to knowing one self and understanding life/death. eg. I'm not scared to die, I'm scared to suffer while most animals would rather suffer than die.
Not sure if this entry is a troll, but I'll bite anyway (I'm not even going to address your if statement):
There are two problems with your argument--law and society:
You can continue to poke holes in my questions by talking about the unfairness of the law, the way humans treat other humans already (racism, sexism, other prejudices, etc.), but the problems will reach a different order of magnitude with hybrids. Producing hybrids without some proper framework in place is irresponsible.
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
Even your average mentally retarded person is much smarter than apes or dolphins. In fact, the average mentally retarded person is even capable of posting on Slashdot. It's true that the animals you mention show signs of intelligence- and as a result most people have problems experimenting on or eating them. Why do you think we have 'Dolphin Safe' tuna, but not 'Shark Safe' or 'Other Fish Safe' Tuna? Dolphins aren't much cuter than fish, but they are obviously much more intelligent.
All life has value, but some life is more valuable than others. Even plants have the ability to perceive their environment, communicate, and adapt, but you're not advocating we shouldn't eat plants.
There are a few humans who are so mentally disabled that parrots and dolphins are smarter than they are. (Terri Schiavo would be the best-known example). It's very hard to argue that they are human in any sense other than genetically. Our legal and ethical system are (and should be) designed to give genetic humans the benefit of the doubt, however. Since more than 99.99% of living genetic humans are smarter than any non-human animal we've seen, it makes sense to assume that all genetic humans are until proven otherwise. (Technically small human infants know less than a mature dolphin, but they are still smarter, since they can learn information faster. By the same token, dolphins are smarter than my computer- my computer may have more information stored than a dolphin's brain does, but it's incapable of learning like a dolphin can). Posting Anon because I've already moderated in this discussion.
> Stem cell research should be legal
It is legal in the USA.
> and funded by the government
Adult and Umbilical Cord stem cell research can be, as well as Embryonic stem cell research on the approved cell lines.
> because it has the potential to cure MANY diseases.
Embryonic stem cells have only been demonstrated to have the potential to cause MANY cancers.
Adult and umbilical stem cells have produced numerous therapies being applied today.
Thus, all the noise is made about embyonic stem cell research (because it turns abortion into an actual GOOD thing, as opposed to unfortunate but legal, which is the best that most people view it).
> I don't mind abortion within the first trimester.
Some, OTOH, are blithely unconcerned.
> UK Moves To Allow Human Hybrid Experiments
Ha! Contrary to America-haters' bitchin' about George W. Bush, rural America has been engaged in human animal hybrid experiments for generations.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
ahhhhh...The line between reality and Planet of the Apes becomes a little bit smaller!
We didn't evolve "better-than": we evolved "different-to". Sure, we are better at some things, but many animals are better than us at other things. wouldn't you want the best of both worlds?
Just look at what Monsanto and the rest do and tell me that more good will come out of it than bad. They always say things like "we're going to feed/heal/save the world" with this, but when you look at what they actually do, they are lying (or not telling the full truth).
There are zillions of things that are possible to research. Given the limited resources we have, there are far better things to spend it on than this.
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done yet. Perhaps it should be done much later. Or perhaps it shouldn't be done at all.
Example of stuff that shouldn't be done for a long time (if ever) - say there's technology to give everyone the power to kill everyone else (give everyone an antimatter power supply). If there are billions of people what are the odds of someone deciding to just kill everyone else? Your options would be extinction or restraining lots of people against their will.
Maybe in the future this hybrid thing would be good, but I find it hard to believe that people would do much good with this right _now_.
There are plenty of inventions in the past that we would have done better without.
As more and more things become possible, we should start really thinking hard on what our priorities should be. Assuming that the free market will take care of it all is foolishness.
hahaha
For a minute I was thinking about "Ripley's Believe-it-or-not storing the humanimal hybrids", but still well played.
You should be modded higher.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"We should be starting to get the ethics sorted out now."
:) ).
Yeah. As the power we have increases, we should be spending more and more thought into whether we should do something, rather than blindly just doing the first possible thing without considering the long term consequences.
After all, just because we don't/shouldn't do something now, doesn't necessarily mean that we can't/shouldn't do it later.
And it is also true that if we do some things now, it could stop us from doing lots of other things later (like living
People can already create custom viruses for less than USD1 million. If the costs drop lower and we don't have the ethical, social, legal etc safeguards in, bad things WILL happen (as it is, I think that one is too late already, but that doesn't mean we should give up thinking about other stuff).
http://hillarynutcracker.com/completelynuts.html
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
Or vivisection. Or human-embryo hybridization. The human race has survived for quite a while without these technologies so far. Why do we need them by next Thursday, ethical downsides be damned?
Just a thought. I know it's radical. Call me crazy.
Oh, who am I kidding? Just press X to Harvest. It's not a real little girl, is it? I trust Atlas.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Trust not a man who's rich in flax / His morals may be sadly lax
If they're half human though I might feel bad eating it.
Where's your silly version of ethics now?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
...this research will someday lead to the development of a tentacled plant-like love-beast But, but...if we don't make tentacled plant-like love-beasts, then by the time I have grandkids>Producing hybrids without some proper framework in place is irresponsible. I totally agree, but I want us to work out that framework not just disallow hybrids. In nazi germany(yay Godwin) Jews were treated horribly. Was the correct and moral course of action: a) Rework the laws and society such that Jews were treated as equals? or b) Ban jews from having children? I am sure you would agree that the first option is the only moral one. What is it then that makes the difference with hybrids? A different order of magnitude with hybrids? I have a hard time imagining anything an order of magnitude worse than the almost successful attempt at wholesale extermination of a race during the 1940's. I agree that it is going to be problematic and there probably will be some people who will never come to terms with having hybrids living among us. But, I believe it will be a minority. Most Germans today have no problem living with Jews and most white americans can share a bus with black people. We cannot let society be governed by a minority of nutters.
From a personal point of view, if i could have a mouse grow me a new heart valve, and not wait to see if someone dies beofre me, so i can continue living, I would be happy. such things are already possible, but not allowed. But even this small part of animal & human research leads to other ethical questions. How long to we keep replacing people parts? What does that do to the world's population over time? And the first one to call me a hybrid gets it right in the kisser!:)