human and animal hybrids

[Blaze]

So Blaze, is it then just as morall reprehensible for a parent to make their child study as it is to genetically "set them up" to be able to learn better? Is it just as wrong for a parent to make their child participate in sports as it is for them to genetically provide the child with a more athletic body? I'm not sure if you're fully thinking through the ramifications of what you're saying

Only if studying has a direct effect on the child's physical person, as well as an irreversable effect.

I could make my kid go out and get some excersize. That's fine. But I don't feel I should be, for instance, forcing him to take performance enhancing drugs.

[Fixer]

[quote="Blaze";p="450968"]I could make my kid go out and get some excersize. That's fine. But I don't feel I should be, for instance, forcing him to take performance enhancing drugs.[/quote]
Ok, THAT was a lame example. Go back to sleep and get some rest and come back when you feel better oh ill one.

Exercise is legal, performance enhancing drugs are not.

You seem to believe that the physical body causes a person to be who they are. Every physical imperfection is a facet of their personality. You may be right, you may be wrong, we are never going to figure that one out.

{I call this part the law of parenting}
As a parent, it is our responsiblity to provide for our children the best possible life they can possess within the allowance of the law (the law being the imposing of cultural and ethical beliefs of those around you).

Genetically modifying your child before birth does not violate the 'law of parenting' so long as genetically modifying your child does not violate the law, which I believe does at this point.


Now, BACK ON THE ORIGINAL TOPIC... we are talking about animals with human genes, not humans. There are laws that say what someone can and cannot do to animals. There is nothing against the law (that I am aware of) that prevents chimeric animals from being produced as long as they are not mistreated.

[Mr.Shroom]

Actually, there aren't any laws about chimeric animals period. Hence the freakout. No standing regulation, methods of enforcement...alot of the same problems we have with larger scale medical equipment and the like.

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="451092"]Actually, there aren't any laws about chimeric animals period. Hence the freakout. No standing regulation, methods of enforcement...alot of the same problems we have with larger scale medical equipment and the like.[/quote]

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration will probably rapidly "fix" this "problem" ... Leaving other, better countries to pursue it, and putting us even further behind in the realm of science... and we as a culture/nation are ALREADY fucked enough, there.

:fume:

[Deacon]

It's always kind of interested me in a morbid sort of way how "progress" -- especially of the scientific kind -- is accepted and pushed for its own sake, like people don't like to decide whether it's right or wrong or whether it should be done.

[Blaze]

Has Jurrasic Park taught us NOTHING?!

On a more serious note, that's back to where we were before. And I agree. Just because you can does NOT mean you should.

[Grumlen]

I agree. Just because one can do something doesn't mean they should. But when the results of said action could have potentially life saving results should we still not do them? If you were in a situation where you could risk your life to save a friend's, should you? But wait, just because you can save your friend doesn't mean you should. Your rule doesn't apply the same to all situations, it relies on the potential results, risks, and costs associated with that action.

The issue here isn't that we should do it just because we can, but whether we think it will be ultimately beneficial. I think it will. My only concern is what will end up being legally considered a citizen. Such a ruling could open the door for a multitude of things, not the least of which being artificial sentience in computers. That is, of course, a side not to the determination of what sentience truly is and what possesses it. Should any sentient being be considered to have the full rights of a human being? Religion would probably have a LOT to say about that one.

I'm all for chimeras assuming they're handled responsibly and treated with the respect they deserve given their capabilities.

[StruckingFuggle]

[quote="Deacon";p="451487"]It's always kind of interested me in a morbid sort of way how "progress" -- especially of the scientific kind -- is accepted and pushed for its own sake, like people don't like to decide whether it's right or wrong or whether it should be done.[/quote]

Well, I think the only time it can be really WRONG is if it's going to likely hurt people. For example, building deathrays for the heck of it, not such a good idea. If you're going to build something that can be used as a death ray, make sure there's a need or a use for it ... (some would say it's always wrong, but then I'd bring up the argument of the nuclear bomb again and point out that then we wouldn't really be having this conversation, y'all.)

It SHOULD be done, I think, if it's not going to hurt anyone, and raising difficult questions doesn't count. There's a lot to learn, a lot to discover, and if people want to discover it, what's the problem? If people want to spend their own money, or that of investors, no one should really stop them... (but I do think that patents for "science" should have their exclusivity reduced, at least for anything related to biology or space flight, but that's a different argument)... I'm all for the betterment of humanity.

As for federal money, I think it should be spent some on science, but only funding research into things that will have benefits, probably tangible ones, for the citizenry and/or the world as a whole.

[Blaze]

Now, we won't get back into the discussion reguarding self-aware and cognizent beings. I think we've already covered how we each feel about that.

But as to the rest of them, what if we start in on this, and find there's really no medical or scientific benefit? It doesn't help anything but learn how to create more Chimeras, and they don't help anything but how to create even more. Then what? Should the process be stopped before it gets out of hand? Before somebody takes it too far? Before it becomes, "Who can make the Brundlefly?" (I have no idea why I used the "The Fly" reference, but I like it. )

[StruckingFuggle]

You know, I thought we established that "someone could take it too far" isn't a valid argument ...

As for "we might find out the only benefits are how to make better chimera!" ... so? We might also find a lot of other things. We won't KNOW unless we TRY, and at least, heck, we could make better chimera, which could in turn be useful for all sorts of who knows whats.

That, and it's just goddamn cool.

[Blaze]

But where do you put a stop to it? Never? Just because it COULD potentially have cool benefits. Not because it's likely?

You know, I thought we established that "someone could take it too far" isn't a valid argument ...

I don't recall establishing anything of the sort.

[StruckingFuggle]

You don't put a stop to someone's freedom to do what they want (research), until it's going to clearly and only harm someone or some group of people against their will.

Other than that, I think you're free to (paraphrasing homer), 'break the surly bond of genetics and punch God in the face!'



As for "someone could take it too far, and use their freedom to HURT somebody!", I'm going to again bring up the issue of gun control. You know, someone could use thier ownership of a gun to hurt someone! To even kill someone, or some multiple of people! I had thought we had agreed that that wasn't an argument, unless you're "making decisions for other people". What happened to "you can own a dangerous gun", or even "You can't put a chimp in my head on the premise that I MIGHT break the law!" ? What are those based on, other than the idea that "mere possability" is not an argument? Or even, going back to gun control, high probability?

(but if the genetically engineering your kid in the womb, or programming 'this sperm and this egg to make that embryo', is that same, is up in the air, so let's step treat that issue as an exception to a general rule, hm?)

[Grumlen]

Blaze, if you want to use the arguement of "It could be taken too far," then lets talk about medicine shall we? The knowledge that we have developed while finding ways to cure diseases and save lives can and has also been used to create deadly bio-weapons. Thus, should we have never started studying medicine inthe first place because it can lead to results that aren't beneficial? Nuclear power is another example. So is dynamite. So are a lot of things. If we never developed a branch of science just because it could have bad results, we wouldn't have even developed tools such as the sharp rock used to help cut or grind food because it could also be used to stab someone. THATS why the "someone could take it too far" arguement is inherently flawed.

[Blaze]

Blaze, if you want to use the arguement of "It could be taken too far," then lets talk about medicine shall we?

I didn't WANT to use that argument. It came up. And don't seek to say that I said things SHOULD be prevented because they could be bad. I said no such thing. I merely said we had not established that in every case, they should be allowed even though they could be bad.

It appears somebody edited it out, but there was an argument in this thread to the effect of technology that could be used to make a death ray.

[Grumlen]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="451574"]Well, I think the only time it can be really WRONG is if it's going to likely hurt people. For example, building deathrays for the heck of it, not such a good idea. If you're going to build something that can be used as a death ray, make sure there's a need or a use for it ... (some would say it's always wrong, but then I'd bring up the argument of the nuclear bomb again and point out that then we wouldn't really be having this conversation, y'all.)[/quote]

Didn't get edited at all, and in fact was only about 6 posts ago.

Besides, even i it is discovered to have no "positive" benefit, keep in mind that such things are all in the eye of the beholder. One man's trash is another man's treasure and all that. There may not be any medical benefits to said technology, but it would most likely have, at the least, the capability to improve the quality of life. Some people might really enjoy the idea of having, say, a sentient cat as a friend.

I think a lot of this can be summed up in a single quote once said to Queen Elizabeth when she asked what use a scientific discovery was if it had no practical application: "How much use is there for a newly born child?"