What Do You Call Animal + Human Dna? :o
<div class="IPBDescription">Ethical Irresponsibility! :D :D :D</div> <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/29/human.animal.mixing.ap/index.html' target='_blank'>Can you tell me how to get, how to get to illegitimate children of man street?</a>
My god. Are there no boundaries? Ok, so I am panicking (a sure sign of this would be my obscenely akward post, it's how I "deal" I guess) and not giving this much thought. Of course we've been doing it for years. Mice right? Testing things on mice to see if it works on people is far more efficient if the mouse has human genetics added to it. But please someone tell me that we're walking a thin line, so I don't have to think I'm the only one who feels that way.
You see, once we climb the evolutionary hierarchy, what kinds of animals we put human dna into and the kinds of dna we put into them, well that just starts to get blurry. The National Academy said to "kill all mice that exhibit too much human behavior, or human personalities." What happens when you get something that thinks for itself. Kill it? Is it right to kill it? Does it deserve to live? Is life suffering for it, or would the real injustice be to not allow it to live?
See I'm scared, but I could just be asking too many questions.
My god. Are there no boundaries? Ok, so I am panicking (a sure sign of this would be my obscenely akward post, it's how I "deal" I guess) and not giving this much thought. Of course we've been doing it for years. Mice right? Testing things on mice to see if it works on people is far more efficient if the mouse has human genetics added to it. But please someone tell me that we're walking a thin line, so I don't have to think I'm the only one who feels that way.
You see, once we climb the evolutionary hierarchy, what kinds of animals we put human dna into and the kinds of dna we put into them, well that just starts to get blurry. The National Academy said to "kill all mice that exhibit too much human behavior, or human personalities." What happens when you get something that thinks for itself. Kill it? Is it right to kill it? Does it deserve to live? Is life suffering for it, or would the real injustice be to not allow it to live?
See I'm scared, but I could just be asking too many questions.
Comments
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I can forgive farmer ben, I've lived by him for years and we ALL knew what he was doing. It's herr doktor Von Zeigfeld and his transmogrants that I don't know what the hell to do with.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
SO HAVE YOU >;E
Oh no. No you don't. Human life is sacred because people choose to call it sacred. No religion has to tell me to value human life. I choose not to kill people because I value their time on earth just as I value my own, empathetically speaking.
You can't just say "people only value human life because of religion", that's just not true. Nor is it right. Ethics != Religion. I refuse to start thinking that way without basis.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I SLIPPED OVER OK!!!
You can't just say "people only value human life because of religion", that's just not true. Nor is it right. Ethics != Religion. I refuse to start thinking that way without basis. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have two world wars as proof that people don't value human life at all. I know I'm being the devil's advocate here, but can you argue against that?
You can't just say "people only value human life because of religion", that's just not true. Nor is it right. Ethics != Religion. I refuse to start thinking that way without basis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have two world wars as proof that people don't value human life at all. I know I'm being the devil's advocate here, but can you argue against that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not proof. Why? Because that's a generalization. Did everyone want a war? Every man, woman and child? It's an assumption rather than proof. You assume that because people are capable of war, they don't value life. This is wrong in that they are simply holding something to be more valuable than life, on an INDIVIDUAL basis. The guy in charge holds his ideals to be more valuable than human life. The guys fighting in the pits hold their lives to be move valuable than others. Who can fight survival instinct?
This isn't war. This is an atrocity of genetic purity. People will value human life on a more stable basis when they aren't fighting for their lives.
That'd rock.
(movie reference yay!)
And seriously guys, I don't see the problem here. Human beings make other human beings all the time, you don't need a degree in gentic engineering to do that (just a few bucks worth of booze). You're outraged just cuz hypothetically at some far off point in the future we'll start making humans that are genetically different than the ones hanging around now? So what? So eventually people will be made that are not the same as the ones being made now, that haooens all the time too. You're probably genetically quite different than early man, so why should you not be genetically different than later man? The only problem would be that if when such people are first introduced into society they are not excepted or respected. But lemme tell ya, that's not science's problem, that's society's problem.
[edit] Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the concept of that is pretty darned awesome. But you all already knew that.
I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't care, in fact, I would think it was cool...
Unless the guys they did tests on are complete jerks with a huge ego because they can hover without flapping.<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/style_images/TSA_Skin-975/icon2.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't care, in fact, I would think it was cool...
Unless the guys they did tests on are complete jerks with a huge ego because they can hover without flapping.<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/style_images/TSA_Skin-975/icon2.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plus, cyborgs > gengineered mutant freaks.
They can hover without flapping, but I can shoot lazers out of my eyes!
Awesome. :-)
Which is where science steps in. I've heard about particle accelerators (SP?) making particles that simply didn't exist anywhere but on paper up until that point. If we can make particles, why can't we make a perfect genome?
I demand cat DNA!!! I want kitty ears... I guess a tail could be neat too :p
[edit] Oh yeah, forgot to mention that the concept of that is pretty darned awesome. But you all already knew that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I'm not outraged so much as scared. Cause creating a mouse that can think to the degree a human can, and then ordering it's imminent death scares me.
I'm not one of those genetic purests or something. Don't get me wrong. We are way different from early man, and will be different from later man. I'm just not sure I want later man to be a result of genetic experimentation. That defies nature doesn't it?
The positive aspects of this are awesome, yeah. The idea that this is possible is amazing and cool yes. The fact that this could be a huge step towards solving hundreds of diseases is also great, truly.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+May 1 2005, 09:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ May 1 2005, 09:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In evolution, there is no such thing as the status quo. Arguably, a genetically perfect species would no longer evolve, as any change to their genes would diminish their chance of survival, and would therefore not endure. But no such species exists yet, and so evolution goes on. In an ever-changing system, there is no such thing as genetic purity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A genetically perfect species cannot exist. Because it is not perfect unless it can change.
-----------------------
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+May 1 2005, 09:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ May 1 2005, 09:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hmmm if they're experimenting on introducing human DNA to animals I wonder how long before we might see the opposite?
I demand cat DNA!!! I want kitty ears... I guess a tail could be neat too <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You already defy nature enough. No need to add to your crimes, O vile one. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I demand cat DNA!!! I want kitty ears... I guess a tail could be neat too <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh God... do not let the furries get their hands on this.
...
<span style='color:red'>BACK, FOUL DEMONS!</span>
Seriously, though, I'm all for improving the human genome for stronger, faster, and smarter people, but not as some insane cleansing thing like a genocide or that movie GATTACA. Therefore, I don't think humans should have animal genes unless they offer a desirable, non-cosmetic trait.
Get in line babe, the rest of the internet will be wanting that too methinks. I better start saving up for that procedure now actually.
Humans are immensely imperfect creatures. Practically every physical trait we posess (except for the opposable thumbs) is inferior to other animals. How 'bout cat or owl eyes, which see way better in the dark? Add in some squid DNA: In their eyes, the blood vessels and nerves don't run on the outside of the photosensitive layer, but on the inside. This means they don't have to gather somewhere and pass through - which is where our blind spot comes from.
Our sense of smell is quite simply underdeveloped. Now one might argue that having a stronger sense of smell poses some disadvantages along with the advantages - but you can always just pinch your nose.
Spiders have four pairs of eyes. Three of them are used to give them an excellent field of view, the last one is used to focus on objects of interest. No more getting hit by cars as you cross the street because you didn't see it approaching.
And so on and so forth. Splicing animal DNA into our own could present us with a stunning range of possible advantages. What's the use in resisting?
That's the second thing I thought of.
The first thing I thought of when I read this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just in case, Greely said, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behavior and immediately killing any that display human-like behavior.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was THGTTG.
<a href='http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002SDY1M/026-5733163-3270855' target='_blank'>They can fill the ear with cheese and then it can walk around as a buffet.</a>
Humans are immensely imperfect creatures. Practically every physical trait we posess (except for the opposable thumbs) is inferior to other animals. How 'bout cat or owl eyes, which see way better in the dark? Add in some squid DNA: In their eyes, the blood vessels and nerves don't run on the outside of the photosensitive layer, but on the inside. This means they don't have to gather somewhere and pass through - which is where our blind spot comes from.
Our sense of smell is quite simply underdeveloped. Now one might argue that having a stronger sense of smell poses some disadvantages along with the advantages - but you can always just pinch your nose.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then again I was watching some thing on cats on the discovery channel, while they can see better in the dark their nomral day time vision is a bit fuzzy and they dont see color properly. Human color vision is pretty much one of the best in the world.
Anyways, if we had better smell, then no more police K9 Units, we can do it ourselves lol. Although we would probably still need the K9s for use as an "unbiased tool/witness".
I wouldnt mind having regeneration of limbs though like starfish do in the case that i ever loose one of my arms or legs.