Please say I'm not the only one...

[Hatake Kakashi]

... who is disturbed by the ethical questions these new practices are raising. Granted, I know that we've been testing drugs out on animals (as well as other products), but now this? The implications of the effects of this stuff boggles the mind. I could see doing something like this in a growing vat or a petri-dish...

But not like this. Your thoughts?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050430/ap_on_sc/human_animal_mixing

[PyrosNine]

I'll admit this is quite wrong, but we need not worry about it getting too far out there. Animal DNA and Human DNA is quite far apart, so there's a fairly thin chance that we could use organ's made within them in ourselves for compatibility. Wonder what these sheep's life expectancy is? A human heart won't work quite as well in a sheep as in a sheep heart. And I'm fairly sure their liver is much better than ours. So we'll find this pursuit futile, and that it was simply spawned from scientists having too much free time.

[krunchyfrogg]

Sounds like you need to join:

http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00000/75/22/12257_m.JPG (Apologies if you haven't seen Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back)

[Cracked But Not Broken]

What do you mean disturbed, this is a major leap in science, do you know what could be accomplished with these experiments...

[PyrosNine]

No. Just... No.

Anyway to sum up my previous post, any organ made in these animals will be a human/sheep hybrid, and might not work well in a normal sheep or human.

[Azisien]

Yup, I see nothing wrong with this. At all. There will always be people who oppose these kinds of progressions through science, but they'll go through anyway. All power to them.

[Cracked But Not Broken]

No it wouldn't be a hybris their putting the dna/chromosones of which make the humans heart/blood/liver/whatever into the sheep, so it is not a hydrid, but the real thing, and a human heart probably would work better in a sheep than a sheep heart because are heart is more evovled and also built for a larger mammal. Just recently there was sheep which was geneticaly manufactured to produce human milk as apposed to sheep milk. not half and half, completely human milk. They could manufacture blood like this and save lives, they could make human brains and may be someday do a minor transplant and cure isolated brain diseases, sure it would be animal cruelty, i guess, But it could save thousands upon thousands of lives...

[Krylo]

The only problem I see there is the ethical commitee's decision to kill any animals that start to act like humans. If they become self aware then we're no better than they are and we don't have the right to kill them anymore. Even if we did create them as the bastard children of science.

But the hearts? livers? The healing mice with human stem cells? Who cares? A liver doesn't make a human.

Also: Krunchyfrogg--No spamming discussion, like that. You've been warned.

[Nique]

This seems wrong to me... I think there are some personal belifes that lead me to that conclusion, but even on the secular-logic side of it, I see more harm than good coming from gene splicing... (Now that I think about it... anyone ever see this in 'Batman Beyond'? ...Man, I'm such a 20-year-old-kid.)

[Ink_Blot]

This is a great thing for people. You could save so many lives that people will study it, even with opposition. So many deaths would be stopped by using organs or tissue from an animal.

Doctors have transplanted pig valves into human hearts for years, and scientists have injected human cells into lab animals for even longer.

These things are just steps in the natural progression of this study. If it continues, we could wipe out a lot of deaths in the world that are due to organ problems. Let me raise this example: A 45-year-old has cancer in one of his vital organs. It is very aggressive and is spreading quickly. He has tried kemotherapy and it didn't work. The only way for him really to live would be getting a replacement for that organ before it spreads through the bloodstream so there is a lot less cancer cells that they need to get rid of. Wouldn'tthat be a worthwile cause?

Another example: Scientests are growing organs in animals alot now so they have enough for the people who need it. Lets say that a baby is born with undersized lungs or a small heart. The baby can be saved because scientests grow hearts and lungs and have them ready for transplant now. Think of the mother's releif and her possible saddness if there had been no heart or lungs for transplant.

[Wjolf]

Genetic manipulation is just plain wrong! Sure, many cool and wonderful things could be achieved if used properly, but just look at our government here! What smart things have they truly done in the last ten years? Back on topic though, I have had to do many research papers covering genetic manipulation in all its forms for my classes, and they all end badly.
There are several articles about manipulating plants genetically, to make our cows and pigs have more meat on them and be more healthy for us in general, and the damn BT corn that was fed to them made them infertile! If humans had a chance to eat that meat, who's to say it wouldn't make us infertile, and thence wipe out the whole of humanity in the long run?
STUPIDITY!!!!

[Cracked But Not Broken]

Honestly your thread was pretty much stupidity, but thats just my opinion. Ya, those dudes are playing god and geneticly making a completely new species, half man-half sheep, but like krylo said, as long as they don't start to conciesly think, or become sentient, then there still sheep, and in the long run, if they werent geneticaly manipulated, they would end up being lamb chops and winter jackets anyways, so why not save a couple of thousands of lives in the run...

[Angelfire Blackwolf]

This isn't a new thing, people have been manipulating genetics for a long long time. Granted not in the same way as they're doing now, but by selective breeding of plants and animals to gain higher yields, more meat ect.

There have also been cases for genetic manipulation. I'll take as my example the manufacture of insulin for diabeties sufferers. Before the onset of genetic manipulation scientists found that pigs, and other animals could produce insulin that would be compatable with humans. So they took the pancreas from those dead animals and extracted the insulin that was prouced by them. This has been put aside now for the safer method of producing insulin through genetic manipulation of e-coli.

For those that want to know the theory and practice behind the production of insulin through genetic manipulation the scientific explanations are here (http://www.littletree.com.au/dna.htm)

That was just an example of how genetic engineering is actually not as bad as most people make out. It's not the root of all evil. Now back on topic.

I'll agree there are limits in what people should and should not do when it comes to trying to mix human and animal organs. There are rights and wrongs for example...

Doctors have transplanted pig valves into human hearts for years

I have no objection to this sort of thing, mainly because of the lives saved by the technique. There are also very little outcry over this... why? Because there's nothing percieved to be wrong with it. Other than the normal chance of rejection which people run the risk of in all transplant operations.

The other side of the coin though, implanting human organs into animals, well people percieve animals to be mindless and to see any sort of humanlike intelligence in an animal is a frightening thought. Still the fact remains that most organs are mindless.. it's only the brain cells implanted that could cause that kind of effect. What concerns me more if this is carried out is the possibility of animal diseases spreading to humans far more easily than they can do now.

Zanjani must first ensure no animal diseases would be passed on to patients. He also must find an efficient way to completely separate the human and sheep cells, a tough task because the human cells aren't clumped together but are rather spread throughout the sheep's liver

This is the case in point. An illness in a sheep, would not just be confined to the cells of the original animal, but will spread to the human ones because of close proximity to sheep cells. The disease will have an effective area to mutate therefore creating a more dangerous illness.

I think this needs to be thought out more fully before any such transplants go ahead.

(now forgive my rambling... )

[Phobic]

First off, this is a good thing. Granted, eventually we want to be able to grow organs for transplant in test tubes rather than animals, but for now the animals are a great advancement.

As for animals that think like humans, refering to the section about lab rats with brains made up almost entirely of human brain cells. This is in the grey area, but I personaly believe that the research that can be done into degenerative brain disease outweighs any moral issue involving a sentient mouse. But i agree this is very close to the line of being wrong.

As for the stuff about genetic engineering and this all ending horribly. I doubt it. We've been genetically engineering plants for years. If you eat tomatoes there is a fair chance that you've eaten at least one with jelly-fish DNA in it. There are many other similar crossings and tweaks we've done to other crops, and the human race isn't dead yet.

[Azisien]

The key of all that being YET!!! Ahem. Well, I'm actually for all this stuff, so we can pretend I never said that.

Humans have been genetically altering plants and animals for years, now all we need in that statement is the addition of 'hundreds of' right before years, and you've got it right.

The technology is getting better, but the goal remains the same.

You're afraid of sentient animals? What about sentient machines? Because we'll be at that level some day too (and probably in our lifetime). I'm confused, honestly. Are you jealous of the animal? Do you believe only humans deserve sentience? Oh wait...that would be bringing in the big bad R word.

To the people who think we are playing God. Firstly, *slap*, No R word! Secondly *slap*, no for a completely different reason. We don't have wings, but we took to the skies. Then we went to space. We have the minds to perform these amazing feats, why restrict ourselves because a bunch of ninnies are afraid of a squirrel that might beat them in algebra.

Need I remind everyone that animals gaining sentience by receiving human tissue is completely and utterly spectulative. Granted, they seem to have the grounds for the possibility. But then, I've got a lamp beside my fish tank, and I haven't seen my guppies Kamehameha yet.

Bad things will come of this area of study if the wrong people do the wrong things. But WHEN IS THAT EVER DIFFERENT ANYWHERE ELSE?!?!?! WHY BLAME THE FIELD ITSELF FOR THAT?!?! This computer sucks because I keep making it crash through my own lack of knowledge. Stupid fucking computer!

[Robot Jesus]

The only grounds I can think of for opposing this is as follows.

1 its open too abuse, we’ve seen too much science fiction. Please indulge our paranoia. This is reason for caution but does not apply to the moral argument in the slightest.

2 man is unique created by (insert name of imaginary being) and creating something like with would be an insult to (him/her/it). Surprised this hasn’t shown up yet, and I cant analyze in detail for what should be obvious reasons.

3 an animal might become self aware and that makes our philosophy towards mans place in the world really really complex. I think this could be solved if we created a self aware animal who actually wanted to be eaten, and could say so clearly

[Viridis]

That reminds me of 'The Restuarant at The End of the Universe' A cow walking up and offering what looked good today.

Yeah, this causes some real moral conumdrums... Animal rights activists would have a fit, try and counsel the animal...etc.

[Azisien]

I dunno, I'd probably be pretty proud if my guinea pigs started making little gnome people of their own. Carrying on the tradition, or something.

[Nique]

The only grounds I can think of for opposing this is as follows.

1 its open too abuse, we’ve seen too much science fiction. Please indulge our paranoia. This is reason for caution but does not apply to the moral argument in the slightest.

2 man is unique created by (insert name of imaginary being) and creating something like with would be an insult to (him/her/it). Surprised this hasn’t shown up yet, and I cant analyze in detail for what should be obvious reasons.

3 an animal might become self aware and that makes our philosophy towards mans place in the world really really complex. I think this could be solved if we created a self aware animal who actually wanted to be eaten, and could say so clearly

1. It WILL be misused in some form, so we have every right to be leary, with or without intrisic morality applied to it. History of scientific & technological advancment proves this.

2.Religious disscussions aren't allowed in the NPF, so why are you surprised? You're walking the line by calling the concept of God 'imaginery' anyway, so I don't think you need to bring that up. (Furthermore, a persons opinion on this entire topic may hinge on that belife/disbelife, and since we don't discuss that here, we come full circle and it is a moot point.)

3. I hope you aren't being serious.

[Hatake Kakashi]

My major wonder about this is merely thus:

We've figured out ways to preserve body parts during surgeries, how to sustain and even cultivate cells, organisms, and tissues within sterile environments such as petri-dishes and vats. I really don't see the need to include the animals in this sort of thing.

Forget religious arguments, forget morals or lack thereof, I'm talking about ethics and possible openings to diseases we would've never seen coming, bringing in a body part that, while made of our own cells, was grown and nourished in an environment completely foreign to that of the human body. What kind of risks are we taking?

[Carnivore]

Scientests are growing organs in animals alot now so they have enough for the people who need it. Lets say that a baby is born with undersized lungs or a small heart. The baby can be saved because scientests grow hearts and lungs and have them ready for transplant now. Think of the mother's releif and her possible saddness if there had been no heart or lungs for transplant.

Not to quibble, but a newborn baby in need of a heart and/or lung transplant would be put onto the Level Four status. (Or Level One, for the United States.) The child would get one within a few hours. It's not the obtaining of the organs, it's the operation and recovery that are more likely to cause death.

In any event, Genetic engineering isn't bad, but it can cross the line. It makes me feel a little ill to think about eating animals engineered to have more meat. (This is why I no longer eat fast food.) However, engineering animals to be able to have organs that could potentially be used for transplantation in humans, I have to say I'm in favour of.

[RedScar]

Hmmmm. Self aware animals. That would be intreresting. However it would be impossible to comnuicate. And a lack of comunication could lead to a war. Yes a war. You were all thinking it and you know it. However if they want to learn and educate themsleves like us then were okay.

The problem with aware animals is that what do they need to be aware of? All they need to do is survive. Man(meaning humans) has created realigon, socitey, politics, blah blah blah. Animals do they need to survive. That's it. Sometimes they have a idea and invent a new tool. But what do I know.

Anyways. I think it bad to use animals for organ farms. Sure it helps us. But you have to kill the animal for the organ. It just gives us less meat off that animal. However with human cells it closer to cannnibalism.

I'm fresh of of stuff. Except for a thought. If animals became aware like us and lived a bit like us. Can you imagine the racism?

[Krylo]

Hmmmm. Self aware animals. That would be intreresting. However it would be impossible to comnuicate. And a lack of comunication could lead to a war. Yes a war. You were all thinking it and you know it. However if they want to learn and educate themsleves like us then were okay.If they're sentient they could be taught to read. They wouldn't be able to speak, that is true, but writing and reading would be possible, if a bit difficult to teach.


The problem with aware animals is that what do they need to be aware of? All they need to do is survive. Man(meaning humans) has created realigon, socitey, politics, blah blah blah. Animals do they need to survive. That's it. Sometimes they have a idea and invent a new tool. But what do I know.Humans created all of that AFTER we got past our need to survive. Our intelligence allowed us to create tools, or, more specifically, weapons, which made survival easy. At that point we were able to think about other things and create society and all the things that come with it.

What did homo-erectus have to be aware over?

Anyways. I think it bad to use animals for organ farms. Sure it helps us. But you have to kill the animal for the organ. It just gives us less meat off that animal. However with human cells it closer to cannnibalism.That's assuming, with no evidence or even suggestion, that we'd eat the animals after organ farming...


I'm fresh of of stuff. Except for a thought. If animals became aware like us and lived a bit like us. Can you imagine the racism?...True, true... but maybe furries will finally be accepted?

[Cracked But Not Broken]

Hmmmm. Self aware animals. That would be intreresting. However it would be impossible to comnuicate. And a lack of comunication could lead to a war. Yes a war. You were all thinking it and you know it. However if they want to learn and educate themsleves like us then were okay.

The problem with aware animals is that what do they need to be aware of? All they need to do is survive. Man(meaning humans) has created realigon, socitey, politics, blah blah blah. Animals do they need to survive. That's it. Sometimes they have a idea and invent a new tool. But what do I know.

Anyways. I think it bad to use animals for organ farms. Sure it helps us. But you have to kill the animal for the organ. It just gives us less meat off that animal. However with human cells it closer to cannnibalism.

I'm fresh of of stuff. Except for a thought. If animals became aware like us and lived a bit like us. Can you imagine the racism?

I just want to point out a few things about the above thread:

Animals have commmunicated with humans already, it is a domestic gorrilla they taught english and ASL (American Sign Language) and its probly smarter than some humans of the same age, so war with the animals is unlikely.

Also when you mentioned the idea for a new tool, if you were talking about humankind, w/e, but if you were talking about animals, then you know very little. Aside from homo sapiens, and smarter primates, no animal has EVER, in the history of the world, EVER make a tool. You didnt really make it clear if you were talking about humankind or animals...

And the part of killing the animal and less meat, would you rather waste a little food or cure diseases that were considered incurable... honestly.

[Thanatos]

This isn't just about organ harvesting either. It's about medical testing. Yes right now the organs that are being created are mostly hybrids and unworthy for human transplant. But there are many diseases and maladies that testing on standard animals just isn't cutting it. Think of all the medicines which have been recalled recently because we didn't know about all the long term affects. Sure no side effects were seen in animals, but that's because there organs are completely different from ours. But if we tested these medicines on animals with hybrid or fully human organs, we might get more reliable results before we proceeded to human testing.
Also I think it's despicable that they are going to kill the animals that start showing signs of humanity. Why? We are tampering with genetics, we need to deal with the consequences. If we create a new species, that species still has just as much right to existence than any other. And if these animals start showing signs of sentience, then wouldn't destroying them constitute murder?

[PyrosNine]

You know, ethically speaking our mass breeding of livestock through science is somewhat bad, and our very need for spare organs comes from our desire to be damn nigh immortal. And the reason we need all that livestock and more organs is because our tampering with god's domain has led to our rapid expansion and crowding of the world. And come to think of it, we're very unethical creatures by the large part. And maybe the animals are smarter than us because they are wholly ethical and have no need of everything we've made ourselves dependant on. If all technology were destroyed in one fell swoop, a large majority of us would be dead shortly after, yet the animals would be fine, if not better. Except for those we've messed up due to our immoral actions for our expansion. Perhaps we're not meant to live longer than our bodies were intended to, and we do not truly need more years to live a happy life? Perhaps we must learn that death is an important part of being alive, and we need not live in fear of it? We have for years sacrificed anybody weaker than ourselves for our own personal gain, citing reasons as they are unimportant or it's neccesary for our good, while in the long run we're making our downfall. Eventually someone will take the initiative and go past the legal boundaries that have been set, and it'll either be the world's biggest blunder or we'll praise him as a hero, but it'll still be a bad move. Animals are made to die for us when we need them to survive, but truly and in the long run, we do not need the large quantities we use today, and we do not need to live that extra 30 years.

I am not an overly good person, I eat McDonalds and degrade myself in endless ways like everyone else, but I just want to say; we could at least try to stop the decline of our civilization, instead of citing it as an advancement. Cause one of these days it's going to bite the hand that's fed it for all these years. And it's going to take a rather unhealthy chunk out of us.

In short, I believe that science creating organs in animals for us humans is part of the worlds greatest evils, and i hope we'll one day rise above it. I can't do more than hope, I'm not very important, but at least I can say what I think.

(Addition Btw, Why do we worry about killing things that have "intelligience" when it's things with "intelligence" that can think up incredibly stupid things like atom bombs?)

[RedScar]

I just want to point out a few things about the above thread:

Animals have commmunicated with humans already, it is a domestic gorrilla they taught english and ASL (American Sign Language) and its probly smarter than some humans of the same age, so war with the animals is unlikely.

Also when you mentioned the idea for a new tool, if you were talking about humankind, w/e, but if you were talking about animals, then you know very little. Aside from homo sapiens, and smarter primates, no animal has EVER, in the history of the world, EVER make a tool. You didnt really make it clear if you were talking about humankind or animals...

And the part of killing the animal and less meat, would you rather waste a little food or cure diseases that were considered incurable... honestly.

First off. I've heard off the gorrilla. How ever did he carry out conversation or even complex conversation? Even if he knows the langue he has to know what the words mean. I do not know, please tell.

Now actually there are no animals that have made tools, but there are animals that have used tools. Like monkeys useing sticks to get bugs of of a stump.

On the lesas meat thing I didn't really mind haveing less meat. I just pointed that out, as it would reasult from it. After all not many people like liver.

PyrosNine, thank you. I've said this to people(not on the boards but in outer world). And they don't belive me. I would have put it here but it thought the same might happen. I mean whats wrong will animals being smarter than us. Humans only use 10% of thier brain. Could you imagine what we could do with just 50%? Ya I think the animals can be smarter.

Also the total wipe out of technollogy. That's why you learn to survive with tools. Personlly I'd like to live on just my own by a lake in northern Us, mabye southern Canada. It'd be a good learning experiance.

and last but not least. Do you think animals have multipule lanugues with in thier races? Humans have English, Japanesse, Spanish, ect. Do you think animals of diffrent regions have diffrent lanugues?

[PyrosNine]

The method of saying the words is different, but they speak one unified language, kinda. It's mostly their good way of expressing emotions or implying things. Like if you walk up to a dog and it growls at you, you know it's saying "Stay away!"

[Cracked But Not Broken]

First off. I've heard off the gorrilla. How ever did he carry out conversation or even complex conversation? Even if he knows the langue he has to know what the words mean. I do not know, please tell.

The deal with knowing a language IS understanding the words RedScar, they taught it English, and how to understand it, Primates have very advanced brains you know.


Now actually there are no animals that have made tools, but there are animals that have used tools. Like monkeys useing sticks to get bugs of of a stump.

Which would be why I said primates, which would include monkeys.


Aside from homo sapiens and smarter primates,
see I said it... :mad:

[Sato]

Here is my take on this:

1. If we eat the animal and respect the animal, I am okay.
2. No stem cells or stem cell manipulation. I am not killing human babies for mice to walk.
3. The organs will be used for good help for people and promote the common good.
4. We don't tamper with the sheep minds and make them self-aware and give them a soul and humanity. If we did hopefully on accident, they get full human rights.

[RedScar]

The deal with knowing a language IS understanding the words RedScar, they taught it English, and how to understand it, Primates have very advanced brains you know.

Ya they do. What I meant was not under standing it but understanding everything about it. If you have the hammer the nails and the wood but don't know what your doing, your going nowhere. Do the primates know what is what. I'm sure they know the word chair but do they know what a chair is? Would they be able to read 8-bit Theater? I'm try to ask questions, not attack, and I'm trying not to be stupid. Would there be a somewhat breif article or something on this I could read? And could you provide a link to it?


Oh, four number four on you list,(refering to the post above mine) I don't think we could make sheep self-aware, but if we did then we have to change it from full human rights to something else.

[CrazyBen]

Just out of curiousity, have any of you read the Robert A. Heinlein short story "Jerry Was a Man"? It talks about people buying custom genetically-engineered animals as status symbols (six-legged dogs, winged horses, miniature elephants that can read and write) and using monkeys with I.Q.'s in (I estimate) the 70-80 points range as laborors, raised to enjoy picking fruit or carrying boxes, and euthanized when they're too old to work, BECAUSE they're trained to enjoy work.

[Barahad]

I just feel the need to point out some terminological errors in this discussion. Most people have been asking the question: what would happen if animals were sentient?

To be as accurate as I can be: all animals are sentient. Sentience does not refer to self-consciousness, self-recognition, or even language: sentience refers to the ability to experience things, be they sights, sounds, smells, tastes, colours, pleasure, pain, etc. A cow is sentient. A human is sentient. A mouse is sentient. The difference is, that among these three creatures, only humans are self-aware.

Also, tool-making is not restricted to humans (Homo Sapiens). It is safer to say that tool-making is restricted to the genus Homo. Homo habilis (the handy man) is, if I remember my lessons correctly, widely regarded as the first user of tools; Homo neandertalensis used bone spears and fire: they were not humans, but close genetic cousins.

Finally, I would like to point out that ethics and morals are inseparable. Ethics have morality for an ultimate foundation. I won't go into too much detail, but it is important to note that if you are making an ethical judgment, you are also making a moral one.

As for the rightness or wrongness of this kind of chimeric blending of DNA...well, as in all things, it offers possible benefits and harms: it could revolutionize the way in which diseases are studied and treated; it could save countless lives, because organ donor rates (at least in Canada, where I live) are slowing and transgenic organs from these blended animals could save hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of people. There are also potential dangers involved in mixing DNA: diseases formerly limited to certain species because of genetic diversity could find, in these blended animals, the perfect place to mutate and jump the species gap. Many people worry about the next great influenza pandemic: transgenic animals could make that possibility much more likely, and potentially far more deadly.

As for my position on the matter of transgenic animals: I believe that the concept holds a great deal of promise for human well-being. However, at this point, I feel we are almost completely unprepared for this dramatic advance in science; because of, I feel that a reckless pursuit of the agenda will lead to more harm than good, which is why I feel that a conservative (being used with the meaning of 'cautious' or 'limiting') legislative agenda restricting the practice of genetic blending is - for the moment - the best option, and it should be enacted shortly. With a hardy regulatory structure in place, we can slow the rate at which this field of knowledge advances and give the public (and experts in the field) time to learn about and analyze most, or all, of the aspects of genetic blending. Once we have accomplished that sort of comprehensive consideration, it will become possible to re-examine the legislative leash: we can either lengthen it, shorten it, remove it entirely, or decide the science is too dangerous and cage it.

Forgive me if I seem to ramble in my point. I look forward to your responses.

[Dragonsbane]

You know, ethically speaking our mass breeding of livestock through science is somewhat bad, and our very need for spare organs comes from our desire to be damn nigh immortal. And the reason we need all that livestock and more organs is because our tampering with god's domain has led to our rapid expansion and crowding of the world. And come to think of it, we're very unethical creatures by the large part.

What if I don't believe in your god, why should his domain matter to me? As for immortality...you can miss out on that, if you want, but don't try stopping the rest of us. I nearly lost a close relative because there was trouble finding a replacement organ for him and this will ensure that never happens again.

Personally, I find the idea of self-aware animals repugnant. The organ-donor idea, however, I fully support, as well as scientific experimentation and research.

[Barahad]

Personally, I find the idea of self-aware animals repugnant.

Not to belittle your position sir, but I feel it necessary to point out that, in fact, human beings ARE self-aware animals, and consequently, unless you are willing to extend your statement to humanity, or amend your statement to somehow exclude humanity, it is an incoherent belief to hold.

In addition, I feel it necessary to point out that it is not enough to disregard someone's position simply because you do not agree with them on the matter in question. The very point of an ethical debate is to take into account someone's position, measure it, think it through in a logical and critical manner and then, if it is still found wanting in your eyes, respond with appropriate objections. One cannot simply say 'I do not agree with you, therefore you are wrong' and then assume the matter to be settled. If any progress is to be made in any part of human society, an open dialogue between opposing interests is needed.

[Nikose Tyris]

erg. ethical discussions about genetics. a breeding ground for hippie movements, which always breed out new anti-hippies. (and I am not insulting anyone in particular, I am insulting EVERYONE. including myself. so ha.)

open dialogue: when a mouse shows that it is capable of refuting an organ donation to a living, sentient human being, then shall I take note of it. however, this is not new research. this has been done before, but minus the genetic manipulation. for instance, some pig parts are compatible with human parts, and at one point were used to save lives. this is just making the process more efficient. Which is more valuable: raising a sheep to be slaughtered for lambchops, or raising it in a healthy enviroment, killing it mercifully, and using the harvested organs to save a human life?

IMO, A human being's life, no matter how shallow of evil that human is, is more valuable than an animals life. should we kill the animal for sport? no. that is evil. should we kill it for food? up in the air. some say yes, some say no. it's a choice thing. and should we kill an animal to save the life of a child who needs a liver transplant? I say yes. Would you let the child die to save a sheep, which is then killed and eaten anyway?

[Bosolai]

Just because something understands the language doesn't mean it will understand underlying humor such as satire or sexual innuendos. If they got to the point where they could communicate amongst themselves well enough to organize a war, though, they would most definitely be able to understand human culture. The language barrier would come down before a war could start.

As for using/making tools. Neanderthals took fashioned fire out of stone + stone + wood. Thats not too much more advanced than breaking a twig off a tree.

The diseases could most definitely pose a problem, but humanity has survived plague after plague. We can adapt an immunity or make a vaccine. If we do the latter, then not only do we save humanity, we help save countless animals at that.

When it comes down to the "My opinions are better than yours" debate, its not so simple as "You ignore me cause you like hearing yourself talk". Now, if someone is working on a cure to a disease for a loved one using rather unethical means, he has heard the opposing arguements. Over and over again. When someone really cares that much, it won't matter if 30 people give him the same reason not to, not if 50 people do, not it 5 billion. What it really comes down to is one person saying "I want to help humanity" or "I want to save my son" while the other guy is saying "Thats great, but don't do it this way, cause my beliefs say its bad" or "Tough, he's gonna die some day".

[Dragonsbane]

Not to belittle your position sir, but I feel it necessary to point out that, in fact, human beings ARE self-aware animals, and consequently, unless you are willing to extend your statement to humanity, or amend your statement to somehow exclude humanity, it is an incoherent belief to hold.

In addition, I feel it necessary to point out that it is not enough to disregard someone's position simply because you do not agree with them on the matter in question. The very point of an ethical debate is to take into account someone's position, measure it, think it through in a logical and critical manner and then, if it is still found wanting in your eyes, respond with appropriate objections. One cannot simply say 'I do not agree with you, therefore you are wrong' and then assume the matter to be settled. If any progress is to be made in any part of human society, an open dialogue between opposing interests is needed.


Touche, on one point. Let me rephrase that. Creatures that would not normally possess self-awareness, yet being born with it nonetheless as a deliberate result of human tampering. I suppose you could say I am amending my statement to exclude animals that already are self-aware, including humans.

I was not disregarding his position, hence my logical objection to the religious reference which he made in his post. In fact, more likely it is you disregarding my position, as you assume that I did not measure his opinion and think it through before responding. Furthermore, I was merely stating my opening opinion concerning the subject at hand in the second section, refuting his statement in my first. Perhaps you yourself should consider taking the advice you gave me?

[PyrosNine]

Well regardless of religious reasons, even with all the organ transfers in the world (aside from an entire body transfer) He's still going to die. You are not saving anyone. You are buying them extra time. A futile effort by a long shot. But I suppose, the most futile efforts are often widely considered noble.

[Gorefiend]

I gotta side with the folks who say this would be good on this one. For one, we've been genetically engeneering things for ages. Did you know that originally, corn was the size of a strawberry. Fosilized corn has been found. It is confirmed to be ancient corn, and it is the size of a strawberry. Every time you eat corn products, you are eating a genetically engineered food. Same with livestock. For ages we've controlled breeding of several animals to make them come out bigger, with more meat, or stronger to do more labor. We've controlled evolution before, and probably would continue to for a long time, even without science. The only difference is in the time it takes for the effects to be seen.

Point two: Animals producing human organs would help save lives. Is it not the sacred duty of any human to save the life of his loved ones? Every human is an infinite fountain of potential, especially at youth. Who are you to take that potential away? Who are you to say that he should not be allowed to live? And, moreover, for a sheep? (The rest of this post point would have contained several blatant religious referrences. None were very offensive, but they were removed just in case.)

Point three: The danger of creating a sapient mouse, to give an example, is one we should be wary of. I still am not comfortable with killing it, and wonder why it should not be given full human rights. After all, it is human in every way but body. What makes a human, if not his brain? If we weren't able to think would we be any different? No, right? So, if a mouse were able to think, wouldn't it, too, be a man?

Point four: The whole stem cell thing isn't for mice. It's for other humans. Besides, even while most babies are infinite potential, these embryos don't have much potential. They are spare embryos kept by couples who choose artificial insemination for whatever reason, and have them kept frozen in case they want another kid, or in case this one fails. Most often, they are left alone, or even just thrown away. Removing their stem cells gives them a purpose, a noble death, to improve the quality of life of another human being, one with more potential. The embryo probably would not have had much of a life had it been born anyways, and frankly, what is the point of bringing more humans to this earth than we can feed and keep alive? I'd rather save him the suffering to be had, and cure a human's paralysis while at it.

[Mashirosen]

Just popping my head in to remind you that religious issues need to be left out of the conversation -- you're doing good so far, but just in case...

[Hatake Kakashi]

*crickets chirping*

ROFL! Way to kill the discussion, Mashi :cool:

J/K. It looks like it was winding down, but at least you make a damned good convenient target.