I find it funny that some of the same people who are more than willing to abort (kill in some peoples opinion) actual humans, but are unwilling to kill a few animals for the advancement of humanity
Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
281–290 of 384 posts
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#282I know that Hacker News is a place of serious discussion only, but is nobody going to mention that the first picture of a "brain" looks more like my own small ding dong?
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m curious if you feel this way about human abortion?
No, that's why I find it hard to describe how I feel. I'm pro choice. It's not my place to tell someone what to do with their bodies or the fetuses they're carrying(please don't get into an abortion debate because of this, i'm not going to answer any comments going on about that to avoid things getting out of control), but this still makes me feel uncomfortable. This is something different, this is the first time thi…
(Speaking purely logically; not morally; I am not claiming belief of these statements one way or the other)
If you believe that:
A) a mother may choose to let someone end the life of her own human fetus; and
B) animals have no right to control their own bodies,
then I don't see why there's any dissonance to believe:
→ a human may choose to end the life of an animal's human-like fetus.
It does not violate (A): the human-like fetus is no more special than a human fetus. It does not violate (B): the mother's right to control her own body/fetus does not exist, since the mother is a non-human animal.
Do you see it differently? How so?
I suppose one could make the case that, a human mother/embryo is a single symbiotic organism, which expresses its collective will through the mother. This new animal mother/human-like embryo symbiotic organism should be afforded some of the same rights as a fully human mother/embryo, but is unable to express its will due to the limitations of the mother. Therefore the embryo's right to life, which it could normally choose to waive through its human mother, is violated, since its animal mother is unable to communicate as much.
But I'm guessing that's not how you (or anyone else) are looking at the situation.
(Personally (and I'm not making an argument here, just an observation), as someone who believes (A) but not (B), I can't get agitated at this study; by my moral measure the violation of the animal mother's rights is way tamer than so many other ways animals' rights are violated in the name of science.)
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't give it credit, like it's trying to gain balance, but functioning ecosystems do maintain a balance. Most of our climate problems have come from humans disrupting this. If you take any functioning healthy ecosystem on earth, one generally less tampered with by humans, you'll find from a microscopic, right up to a macroscopic level, the life in those ecosystems have adapted to function together. If you want to…
> If you take any functioning healthy ecosystem on earth, one generally less tampered with by humans, you'll find from a microscopic, right up to a macroscopic level, the life in those ecosystems have adapted to function together. You're still taking essentially a static view of a dynamic system, because you're looking at too small a timescales. What we see as "natural balance" is essentially a freeze-frame of nature…
Also most of the issue with environmental disruption is the same issue as say, when an asteroid slams into the planet: sure, life survived in some form, but a lot of the dominant species didn't.
Human industralization is that sort of a problem - rather then a slow multi-generational change in equilibria, we're looking at rapid change which simply wipes species out (because if you can't have a generational change, you can't have any evolutionary adaptation).
The domestication of dogs for example is something humans definitely did to the native biosphere - dogs don't exist today without us. But it took at least 20,000 years to do. Not 300.
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
These scientists essentially created what may have been a new species, that perhaps would have had similar sentience to us and had them terminated after 100 days. I don't think that there is any evidence that other animals don't already have the same sentience as humans do. I agree that this is unethical, but other forms of using lab animals or factory farming in my opinion are equally unethical in my opinion.
Well, we do need to classify sentience... it’s not a Boolean yes or no. I agree with you that modern factory farming is disgustingly inhumane. But creating and slaughtering a species that can learn at the same rate as humans is uncomfortably close to slaughtering human babies, which is a line that perhaps all of society can agree cannot be crossed.
Terminating a pregnancy at 100 days is nowhere near "slaughtering babies".
If there's a moral issue here, it's about the experience we put the monkey mothers through to conduct this experiment since they cannot reasonably give consent for it and are at a sentience level where this is a reasonable concern.
From reading the article, given the value of this research, I think the concerns were adequately addressed - namely, the fetus was not brought to term, it was removed via C-section, the monkeys seem to have been adequately cared for emotionally, and it's a reasonable statement that simian miscarriage is a concept they would understand to some degree and thus not be overly distressed by the process. These were marmosets, not chimps so this is a reasonable level of precaution due their sapience level.
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#286I find it hard to describe how I feel about this. These scientists essentially created what may have been a new species, that perhaps would have had similar sentience to us and had them terminated after 100 days. The cat's out of the bag with this research so to speak now. Someone's bound to do this again The part about whether they should have been born or not, which was the ethical thing is what tears at me. Is it…
I feel pretty simply, I feel a sense of sadness at the kinds of 21st century problems my kids and their kids are going to have to deal with. At some point in the next 25 years I expect there to be a 'procedure' available, which consists of cultivating a persons stem cells from their bone marrow, using a genetic editing technique to add and/or delete and/or "correct" certain genetic sequences, and then to have a "bone…
If you don't have any genetically-afflicted ailments, hell if you're still a healthy 18-35 year old, then I'd say maybe layoff on the moralizing about the some imagined pure beauty of letting "nature" take it's course with the human species.
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#287I am overwhelmed with curiosity about what the animal would have been like if it had been allowed to live. Imagine that it was smart enough to speak or resemble humans even more closely than monkeys already do... imagine how earth shattering that would be. An entire race of beings to reconcile with. I wish they had let it live.
I wonder what political ramifications this would have. Say these monkeys were intelligent enough to have conversations with and they had thoughts and opinions on the world, but they weren't quite as smart as humans – they couldn't do advanced maths and were intellectually closer to young children – would we deny them the right to vote? Would we deny them employment rights? Etc... If we did on what grounds would we do…
Rights can already taken away from people who are declared legally incompetent [1]. Similar procedures could be used to give rights to monkeys that can prove mental competence (e.g., are able to meaningfully communicate and show an understanding of money and property).
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#288"My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task, and the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?"
https://alphacentauri.gamepedia.com/Sheng-Ji_Yang
God, AC was a great game!
My favorite quote was:
"I sit in my cubicle, here on the motherworld. When I die, they will put my body in a box and dispose of it in the cold ground. And in all the million ages to come, I will never breathe, or laugh, or twitch again. So won't you run and play with me here among the teeming mass of humanity? The universe has spared us this moment."
Anonymous, Datalinks
Accompanies the Habitation Dome facility
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#289I find it hard to describe how I feel about this. These scientists essentially created what may have been a new species, that perhaps would have had similar sentience to us and had them terminated after 100 days. The cat's out of the bag with this research so to speak now. Someone's bound to do this again The part about whether they should have been born or not, which was the ethical thing is what tears at me. Is it…
>shouldn't we take responsibility for the results of our creation? "I gave you life, I will take it" - Taras Bulba.
Um... Taras Bulba really should not be quoted in support of "responsibility"...
Re: Scientists grow bigger monkey brains using human genes, replicating evolution
#290I am overwhelmed with curiosity about what the animal would have been like if it had been allowed to live. Imagine that it was smart enough to speak or resemble humans even more closely than monkeys already do... imagine how earth shattering that would be. An entire race of beings to reconcile with. I wish they had let it live.
I wonder what political ramifications this would have. Say these monkeys were intelligent enough to have conversations with and they had thoughts and opinions on the world, but they weren't quite as smart as humans – they couldn't do advanced maths and were intellectually closer to young children – would we deny them the right to vote? Would we deny them employment rights? Etc... If we did on what grounds would we do…
>Say these monkeys were intelligent enough...
Great questions, we will need some good answers soon. Not so much for the monkeys, but for AI.