human and animal hybrids

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:41 pm

Laws can be written either way.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:44 pm

Riiiiiight... So rape is illegal, and so would be the potentially resulting child? "Hi, son. What's your story?" "I'm illegal, mister."

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:21 pm

Thats a rather good point Deacon brings up. If cloning of humans is later ruled by all nations to be illegal and immoral, what of the potentially already born and developing clones? How can you hold someone responsible for their own creation?

Granted, I note and recognize the difference between chimeric animals and quote-unquote sentient human beings of scienftific construct. We're quite comfortable with terminating lab animals, after all. But we have to look at the larger-scale ethical picture. How are we to view the created offspring of these acts, regardless of what flimsy and ever-changing laws are applied? (Keep in mind that laws are not ethical truths, they simply seek to be as close to ethical truths as possible, in the ideal)

As far as terms of scientific progress? In my opinion, its the fine balance between facing fears in the hope of the greater good and the whole "curiosity mutated and atomized the cat". We push the envelope because the only other alternative is to cower in the shadows and always wonder, or to blind ourselves to truths. The hands grasp out at what flicker of lights they can find...and more often than not, they find out that they're gonna get burned. Its the human condition.

However, allow me to quote Lovecraft's rather striking comment on the same subject, one which always makes me wonder:

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

peter-griffin · Post by **peter-griffin** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:41 am

i am the best at threads!! see guys

i'm really happy such great discussion turned out. i won't bother to contribute in hopes that this way i cant possibly shit all over the thread with nonsense.

Zero_Point · Post by **Zero_Point** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:12 am

Hmm, blending humans with animals... I wanna exoskeleton! A blue one!

But seriously, I wonder how using animal genes to "improve" the human form would go...

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:24 pm

eyes of a hawk or owl
reflexes of a cat
proportional strength of an ant
fortitude of a komodo dragon
tailored pheremones

We could improve ourselves a great deal, but at the same time we would no longer be 'just human'.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:50 pm

Well, no longer Homo Sapiens, but if we'd be "human" or not, I don't think it's so simple to answer that question...

Nekra · Post by **Nekra** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:43 am

I'm curious, how can you fuck with something that doesn't exist, The arguement "You shouldn't fuck with gods will" is moot if your talking to someone who doesn't beleive in god, and then if you do believe in god, how do you know that doing this is part of his/her great plan?

That aside, why is there a big distiction between human and animal? humans are animals, were a subsection of the group animal. Granted we consider ourselves sentient and make out that makes us so much better, but does it really?

In Elizebeth Moons Serrano series, she has a conversation between two characters discussing "Registered Embrios" basically these are certified children of the parents whose genetic traits are chosen to either do a specific purpose or simply to have a good head start in life. Now why i'm mentioning this is because one of the requirements of these embrios to be legal is that all of their DNA comes from the parents. This would probably solve a lot of the arguements.
I fail to see the problem with giving a child a head start in life by having a healthy body and a quick mind.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:34 pm

[quote="Nekra";p="461200"]I'm curious, how can you fuck with something that doesn't exist, The arguement "You shouldn't fuck with gods will" is moot if your talking to someone who doesn't beleive in god, and then if you do believe in god, how do you know that doing this is part of his/her great plan?[/quote]
Is Nekra making up his own topics and refuting them in some sort of bizarre form of straw-man masturbation, or is he just replying to a really old post lost somewhere back in the mix?

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:48 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="460871"]Well, no longer Homo Sapiens, but if we'd be "human" or not, I don't think it's so simple to answer that question...[/quote]

The term you're looking for is Post-humanist or transhumanisim.

And no, Deacon, he's trying to make a metaphysical arguement upon the case of God's Will and human conflict with it. I'd have to agree with the second part of his first point: If God pretty much runs the show, how can anything I do NOT be part of God's will? Theres a difference between acting immorally against the doctrines of God (ie Embracing the destruction/overthrowing of Creation and reveling in sin while being concious of it, with no remorse or regret) and treading into areas of knowledge that demand ethical forethought.

Humans are, at least in part, animalistic, if not even animals in and of themselves. The distinction of where our humanity begins and the animal ends is one conversation more suited for spiritualists and philiosophers than scientisits...at least at this point. Maybe a bio-ethicicst.

And yes...how is the gentic modification and enhancement of a human being any different than the other 'born into' traits human beings get; born into a rich family, born to parents who are educated, born in a good town. Aren't THESE also choices that were decided FOR us before we were born or given right? How is messing with the very fabric of our flesh any different than these manipulations of our FATE itself?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:04 pm

[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="461343"]If God pretty much runs the show, how can anything I do NOT be part of God's will?[/quote]
That's a question answered differently depending on which religion/faction you're talking about. Some people will tell you that God voluntarily gave up a little of his control in order to endow us with free will.

Ruu · Post by **Ruu** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:22 pm

I think there's a distinction, for those of the Christian faith, to be made between God's will and what happens.

There's always the giant-killer question of "If God is so good, why does he let bad things happen?"

And the answer: There's a difference between God knowing something will happen and God wanting something to happen. Yes, God hates all sin, and if he really wanted to he could step in and declare divine martial law, but, like Deacon alluded, he allowed us to have free will. God doesn't want to make us follow his will, he wants us to do it on our own.

And, quite honestly, I think there are times where he actually does step in.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:14 am

And then punishes us eternally for stepping out of line. If that's really loving then I guess Stalin was a rather all-loving mofo, too...

Posted Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:15 pm:

Personally -stupulating God, then God gave us the intelligence to improve our lives, would His will really be not to?

Post by **Blaze** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 2:04 am

And the answer: There's a difference between God knowing something will happen and God wanting something to happen. Yes, God hates all sin, and if he really wanted to he could step in and declare divine martial law, but, like Deacon alluded, he allowed us to have free will. God doesn't want to make us follow his will, he wants us to do it on our own.

And, quite honestly, I think there are times where he actually does step in.

Your supposed "answer" is not only extremely lacking, but doesn't bode well for us that have other philosophies on the subject.

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:25 am

Granted, Deacon. That was more a statement of that very fact, rather than a statement of qualification.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know, we can only get pretty good ideas. Matters of faith are hard to slap onto matters of science.

Real Life Forums

human and animal hybrids

Re: human and animal hybrids

Re: human and animal hybrids

Who is online