Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab • Hacker News Board

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#101

Post by albatruss » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:50 AM UTC

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #85

nvrspyx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone that doesn't abhor religion, the following isn't meant as argumentative, but rather curiosity: > Religion serves a very important role in society and we abandon it at our peril. What "important role" might that be? I don't see the necessity of religion and don't think there's anything inherent of religions that can't be supplemented by the surrounding culture.

In my travels around the U.S., I encountered many institutions helping the disadvantaged, and almost all of them were religious, mostly Christian or spiritual. I don't know any other organization or entity feeding, clothing, listening, aiding those who need it, day in and day out, giving time and effort and resources without expecting anything in return. No photo ops or social media posts. With Christianity supposedl…

By just helping people?

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#102

Post by em-bee » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:53 AM UTC

dqpb wrote: post #52

deertick1 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow what a ridiculously asinine and misleading comment (the qouted comment, not the HN comment). The moral reprehensibility of such an experiment is not the result of humans treating any other species as lesser, morally- rather, it is because it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes. To bring a sentient being into the world which is created by human engineering proces…

> 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

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#103

Post by flaviojuvenal » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:55 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #74

sebmellen wrote: post #63

I am by no means whatsoever an Alex Jones listener or fan. But he's been laughed at for proclaiming that human/animal hybrids are being "developed" for some time now (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa9jXkVpnw0 , for example). It's scary to see this article because it's essentially "proving" Alex Jones right. This is a very bad precedent. The issue at hand is serious, but it's obscured because of the comedic/craz…

If he referenced some good reasoning, he'd be proven right. If he's just screaming random ideas often enough that one turns out to be true... he's still just screaming random ideas. (Also turning frogs female is not the same as turning them gay - if he meant that it would propagate harmful stereotypes)

Exactly, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#104

Post by anthk » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:57 AM UTC

rsyring wrote: post #49

zokier wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much brain capacity those terminated embryos have though??

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?

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#105

Post by brbsix » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:58 AM UTC

Edman274 wrote: post #64

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?

It would absolutely be immoral to genetically engineer a human to be born so that their gender identity and their biological form don't match. It would absolutely be immoral to genetically engineer a human so that they need to have organ transplants. It would absolutely be immoral to have scientists in the lab spend years doing research on how to create a human being that will be born needing to use a prosthetic leg.…

If the technology were readily accessible to conceive what could be referred to as a "super human" (without genetic disorder, resistance to disease, no predisposition for mental illness, superior athletic ability, high IQ), would it absolutely be immoral to conceive a human being via an entirely natural process?

If it is absolutely immoral to genetically engineer a human being that would require an organ transplant then it would seemingly also be immoral to not utilize readily accessible technology that could have prevented such a disorder, no?

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#106

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 3:00 AM UTC

0_gravitas wrote: post #27

Awesome, love this bit mentioned: ``` “It is sometimes argued that … [the creation of part-human chimeras] will undermine an important moral view: that it matters, morally, which species we belong to,” the report reads. ”This argument assumes that we ought to preserve the view that boundaries between species are fixed, natural, and morally relevant, with full moral status reserved exclusively for humans. Yet even if…

[deleted]

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#107

Post by jerry1979 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 3:00 AM UTC

dqpb wrote: post #52

deertick1 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow what a ridiculously asinine and misleading comment (the qouted comment, not the HN comment). The moral reprehensibility of such an experiment is not the result of humans treating any other species as lesser, morally- rather, it is because it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes. To bring a sentient being into the world which is created by human engineering proces…

> 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.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#108

Post by forgotmypw17 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 3:02 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #100

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my travels around the U.S., I encountered many institutions helping the disadvantaged, and almost all of them were religious, mostly Christian or spiritual. I don't know any other organization or entity feeding, clothing, listening, aiding those who need it, day in and day out, giving time and effort and resources without expecting anything in return. No photo ops or social media posts. With Christianity supposedl…

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.

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#109

Post by forgotmypw17 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 3:02 AM UTC

albatruss wrote: post #101

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my travels around the U.S., I encountered many institutions helping the disadvantaged, and almost all of them were religious, mostly Christian or spiritual. I don't know any other organization or entity feeding, clothing, listening, aiding those who need it, day in and day out, giving time and effort and resources without expecting anything in return. No photo ops or social media posts. With Christianity supposedl…

By just helping people?

Who is going to do it?

Re: Human-monkey chimera embryos created in lab

#110

Post by deertick1 » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 3:03 AM UTC

rxhernandez wrote: post #97

deertick1 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that reasoning about morality without an irrational, faith-based approach leads to a "slippery slope" if you will of reasoning. Essentially, I believe that the fundamental utility of religion is that it provides a framework for morality which is external to logic : therefore it allows one to establish moral barriers which cannot be cross regardless of any logical rationalization. This is important when consid…

Empathy stops people from doing awful things pretty regularly. Moreover, many religions allow people to subvert their empathy w.r.t. people who don't fit heteronormative standards. Hell, some sects of Christianity are pretty awful to women. I don't see a use for religion other than to allow people to skirt their responsibility in having/maintaining a mature line of empathy.

Empathy can also lead you to make destructive decisions and fallcious moral reasonings.

Truly though, any sect of christianity that abuses non heteronarmative people or women is not living by the law of the bible.

I know this sounds like a "no true scotsman" fallacy but really, If you read the bible, 100% of awful christian behaviour is in spite of the bible, not inspired by it.