Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

newatlas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 250 posts

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#111

Post by dqpb »

em-bee wrote: post #102
dqpb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes I disagree on two parts: 1. I think it’s immoral to oppose the creation of sentient beings. 2. If we create sentient beings, those beings will have been created by a natural process, because we (and our actions) are natural processes.

the common definition of a natural process is one that happens without human intervention. you are applying a different definition that is problematic. by your definition murder could be considered natural

Murder is natural. I never said everything natural is good. I merely said that everything is natural.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#112

Post by deertick1 »

jerry1979 wrote: post #107
dqpb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes I disagree on two parts: 1. I think it’s immoral to oppose the creation of sentient beings. 2. If we create sentient beings, those beings will have been created by a natural process, because we (and our actions) are natural processes.

For the purposes of moral evaluation, why would you say that our actions fall into the "natural process" bucket? I would place our actions in the "unnatural process" bucket because our actions involve unnatural language which comes from a combination of intention, objectivity, and abstraction.

What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans. From a purely deterministic point of view, I totally see his point honestly.

Ive often thought that the dichitomy between human action and natural processes is a false one.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#113

Post by arcticbull »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #108
arcticbull wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some would argue it's the role of the state to look after the disadvantaged. This model works very well in much of the OECD. Conflating religion and welfare is not a winning combo imo. Further, the state can do so in a way that doesn't impose, foist or solicit religion on the poor.

I've never seen religion foisted or solicited in any way you suggest. I HAVE seen the state fail to help after burning through millions in many places.

If I wanted to provide help to the poor without involving my religion, I would do so by donating to charities that aren't religious, or I would do so away from church. Religious institutions help the poor in part as a recruiting drive. That doesn't mean the poor don't benefit, of course, but it is opportunistic IMO.

> I HAVE seen the state fail to help after burning through millions in many places.

Sure, but that's a red herring. It's fair to say both have a checkered past.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#114

Post by deertick1 »

anthk wrote: post #104
rsyring wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much brain capacity does a human adult have after a catastrophic brain injury or significant dementia? Are you sure you really want this to be the basis on which we decide the morality of terminating life?

How many humans did I kill after jerking off?

0 but you killed some sex cells.

Really dissappointed at the level of flippant and useless commentary in this thread. HN is inching closer to a tech oriented reddit every day.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#115

Post by [deleted] »

PostOnce wrote: post #88
mullingitover wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you finish reading the article? > After 10 days, there were 103 of these chimeric embryos remaining, but by day 19 only three still survived. After that, the embryos were terminated before they developed any further. Clusters of cells can't be 'tortured in a lab,' there are plenty of legitimate problems in the world to be outraged about but this really isn't one of them.

Okay, on day 19 three of them are clusters of cells, how about day 280? How about year 5? I think the argument is that a majority of people would find it unethical to continue to develop viable embryos, and even more unethical to conduct research on them were they to mature.

[deleted]

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#116

Post by deertick1 »

Nasrudith wrote: post #41
protomyth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the lesson is can we stop trying to prove him correct. I am getting a bit sick of conspiracy theories going from "that's absurd" to "oh, hey, about that, uhmm, we are actually doing that".

Idiots are like Nostradamus because their incoherent ideas can cover a very large space of possibilities. Especially when steelmanning is taken too far and goalposts are allowed to slide from "this specific resturant is selling child sex slaves in their basement (when in reality it doesn't even have a basement because Washington DC is swampland)" to "my political opponents are all child molestors based upon a torture…

Lets be real here, Alex has made a lot of really specific allegations that turned out to be true : he's also said a lot of complete fucking nonsense, but he never "moves the goalpost" ie he doesnt make claim A and then when B turns out to be true he makes claim B. Rather he makes claims A B and C and then B turns out to be true.

Sounds trivial but it is not. He actuall has said a lot of shocking and true shit way before it was public knowledge : e.g. he's been talking about epstein since way before any mainstream media was.

Recently he has been saying that the government is using methods of intravenous dmt injections to talk to interdimensional aliens in order to obtain next gen technology. Inb4 that's true. (/s)

(But only kinda /s )

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#117

Post by warent »

brbsix wrote: post #93
PostOnce wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, on day 19 three of them are clusters of cells, how about day 280? How about year 5? I think the argument is that a majority of people would find it unethical to continue to develop viable embryos, and even more unethical to conduct research on them were they to mature.

Research is already performed using human fetal tissue obtained from aborted fetuses. How is this significantly different? "A majority of people would find it unethical to continue to develop viable embryos" seems contradictory to the current legal status of abortion in the US. Perhaps it is unethical but worth doing regardless?

Just how many women create a fetus and abort it in the name of science? Human embryos are not manufactured for experimentation. What you're talking about is completely orthogonal.

Now, breeding/manufacturing animals for experiments is awful and morally complex--ethically unclear (at least to me). But the line must be drawn somewhere, and we can very easily draw it at manufacturing human-monkeys, human-pigs, or human-anythings.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#118

Post by duxup »

caconym_ wrote: post #67
themgt wrote: post #60

These chimeras pave the way for more accurate models of human biology and disease The goal, the team says, is to make better models for studying biological development, evolution, disease progression and treatments. "As we are unable to conduct certain types of experiments in humans, it is essential that we have better models to more accurately study and understand human biology and disease," Interestingly, the revie…

It seems contradictory to suggest at the same time that a) these hybrids might teach us that the line between humans and animals isn't as stark as a lot of people think, and b) these hybrids will not be human and therefore will be suitable for medical research that could not be ethically performed on "real" humans. If you buy the former, it seems to suggest we should be going in the opposite direction with the latter…

I think you can think the line is closer than we think, but still believe there is a line.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#119

Post by drukenemo »

I know I’ll be downvoted, but here it goes: there’s an implicit and unavoidable act of rebellion (to a potential God), in this and other similar scientific research.

Even if you’re atheist, you cannot escape the underlying reference to a Biblical story: I want the freedom to be like a God.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#120

Post by jerry1979 »

deertick1 wrote: post #112
jerry1979 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purposes of moral evaluation, why would you say that our actions fall into the "natural process" bucket? I would place our actions in the "unnatural process" bucket because our actions involve unnatural language which comes from a combination of intention, objectivity, and abstraction.

What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans. From a purely deterministic point of view, I totally see his point honestly. Ive often thought that the dichitomy between human action and natural processes is a false one.

> What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans.

If we define "natural" to mean "things that happen", then sure, I would see no difference between natural things and human things. But we use the word "natural" to separate some of our actions from the actions of animals.

I think we could come up with a list of things that people do that animals don't do. Looking at actions from the standpoint of culpability, intentionality, objectivity, language, and planning might shed some light on what actions we would consider "natural". For example, feeling attracted to another person would fall under the "natural" category because we would not consider ourselves "culpable" or "use intention" for such an action. Another example: desire paths made by humans in the grass would probably fall under the "natural" category because people do not plan the paths with language or use objectivity to create the paths. We simply walk "mindlessly" and the paths spring up from under our feet. Another example: asking a stranger for directions would fall under the category of "unnatural" because we need to use language and an objective view of the world around us to engage with another person to share information.

Post reply on HN