This is great news. Anything that advances science should be done. I don't necessarily understand those that are having a moral panic at this news.
Ok Dr. Mengele.
This is an extremely naive take that ignores some dark history.
Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
131–140 of 250 posts
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#132These 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…
You're assuming they're opposed to human testing, so you see the first statement as, "animals are people too" instead of "humans are just animals."
From there, the second statement a solution to a legal problem they have, and not the moral one they don't have.
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure the idea that drawing a line somewhat arbitrarily implies there shouldn't be a line is a straw man. Who is arguing this? The quote from the article advocates for more stringent morals--that beings that aren't fully human should be given similar moral weight as humans. It also suggests, more broadly, that we should reconsider both where these lines are drawn and if they should really be lines instead o…
I took issue with the quoted part: "it is unclear why it is important for us to preserve the view that biological humanness is both necessary and sufficient for full moral status." Notice how they said both "necessary and sufficient "? When both are included, there's an implication here that it might be possible for someone to be fully biologically human and yet without full moral rights - that, for example, someone…
>That's dystopian. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith on the part of the author.
I think you are. Because while your examination of the logic is sound as far as it goes, I think you stop where the author trusts you to continue.
The idea that humans don't deserve full moral rights is so unpopular that author trusts you to infer that they hold some other view. Along the lines of "maybe there are non-human species which deserve full moral rights as well."
I will deliberately not get more specific than that about what the author, because if I did I would probably be bringing the details of my own views rather than theirs. But for myself, it seems highly plausible that other species with highly sophisticated individual social behavior may be able to suffer in ways we're used to thinking of as unique to human experience. And I think there are other people, maybe not yourself, who might accept this plausibility if they are forced to confront the reality of human chimeras.
Of course, there's also the priests, and I expect a very different reaction from them.
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#134These 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…
People need to have the freedom to do research. If Galilio agreed to stop researching due to protests, we wouldn't be here today.
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#135This is great news. Anything that advances science should be done. I don't necessarily understand those that are having a moral panic at this news.
I don't feel morally panicked by this, unless the goal is to have "human-like" animals to experiment on. However, saying anything that advances science should be done is a crazy take. I do not believe that people should be tortured, that people should be given drugs against their will, or even be forced to take part in experiments.
It depends on which ethical viewpoint you have. There are two major ones:
The deontological (Kantian) view is that anything that is wrong is so implicitly such that anyone doing something wrong is morally wrong regardless of consequences; murdering a criminal to save thousands in the future would be wrong implicitly.
The utilitarian one says that the ends justify the means, that if one were to murder a criminal to save thousands, it would be morally right.
There is not necessarily a right answer as this argument has been going on in philosophy for a long time, but I'm a utilitarian. If people need to be experimented on in order to advance science, then let it be so. You seem to be less so on this side or even on the deontological side.
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#136This is great news. Anything that advances science should be done. I don't necessarily understand those that are having a moral panic at this news.
Ok Dr. Mengele. This is an extremely naive take that ignores some dark history.
Mengele's experiments didn't really advance science, most of the experimental data was useless after the Allies examined them. So it's not necessarily the same thing.
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#137Earlier 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
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural only one sub-item of these fifteen definitions of natural say "no human intervention".
Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature
Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual"
According to this, murder is in fact quite natural.
I don't like arguments about definitions, because they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Four observations like this, and more, I suggest Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It’s a phenomenal book about inspecting humanity from an outsider perspective
https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/ishmael-daniel-quinn/11018186... Second the recommendation.
Added to the list!
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sikh temples unconditionally offer free meals to all without concern for a recipient's religion or economic status.
Religion and charity are voluntary. You can choose to donate to charities that will most effectively utilize your donations. You don't have that choice with a state, and the outcomes are not always good. Even in Democracies, the state social services are often such inefficient massively entrenched institutions that they are resistant to change.
Religions also serve as bulwarks against increasing state power. Depending on your perspective this could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm more concerned about the great harm an unrestrained state can inflict on the world than what good it may be able to do.
Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab
#140Full metal