| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GnarlyArbitrage
575 Posts
Scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Centre produced the animals, known as chimeras, by sticking together between three and six rhesus monkey embryos in the early stages of their development. I thought this was impossible, mixing different gene types and producing life, even thought they were all primate genes. This is a really big step in science, and hopefully one we get to really explore. There's just too much knowledge to pass up. | ||
|
OniGami
Japan140 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/southpark/images/1/1e/4assed_monkey.gif) Okay now that thats out of the way.. what the hell man lol. Point of order- they're all rhesus monkies so they aren't actually chimeras. Amazing none the less. | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
| ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
| ||
|
Junichi
Germany1056 Posts
Ok, more serious: This is great! I hope scientists all over the world really get to explore the possibilities this opens up. | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
| ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
It's good advancement, but we'll have to ask the question of how ethical this is every step of the way. | ||
|
gosuMalicE
Canada676 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:32 Chaosvuistje wrote: Amazing, imagine all the possibilities! If I had the power to unethically forge creatures together I would definitely get a bird with 4 heads just so they never stop chirping. It's good advancement, but we'll have to ask the question of how ethical this is every step of the way. How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen. | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
| ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
| ||
|
FractalsOnFire
Australia1756 Posts
| ||
|
juked
United States691 Posts
| ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
| ||
|
Azera
3800 Posts
| ||
|
morninglightmountain
United Kingdom23 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/saro/flymonkeys/monkeyl.gif) I'm not really sure what the use of this is tbh, they say it has 'huge implications for science' and then don't elaborate. I bet i'm not going to benefit from this in my lifetime for sure... | ||
|
kickinhead
Switzerland2069 Posts
| ||
|
gosuRob
United States319 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:06 DigiGnar wrote: Here you go. I thought this was impossible, mixing different gene types and producing life, even thought they were all primate genes. This is a really big step in science, and hopefully one we get to really explore. There's just too much knowledge to pass up. Mules. They are crossbred between horses and donkeys. Although, this is definitely a huge step, especially if there are no significant mutations. | ||
|
Friedrich Nietzsche
Germany171 Posts
| ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:18 Junichi wrote: Great.... now it's just a matter of time till we have flying tarantulas.. fml... DUDE, shut the fuck up, i will kill myself if that day happens. I dont know whats so very great about all this tbh, "lets fuck around with genes trololol" ? Or will it allow for some epic way of creating cures for things? Creating spiderman = bad. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 06 2012 18:31 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The ethical problems with this are astronomic, but from a philosophical stand, interesting. I say they push this to its very limit and see how deep down the rabbit hole goes. Are they modified rabbits digging these holes? | ||
|
b0lt
United States790 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:09 Probe1 wrote: Okay now that thats out of the way.. what the hell man lol. Point of order- they're all rhesus monkies so they aren't actually chimeras. Amazing none the less. All chimera means is an organism with cells that have different genomes. Anyone who gets a bone marrow transplant is a chimera, because white blood cells are created from stem cells in bone marrow, so they'll have genomes matching that of the bone marrow donor. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
| ||
|
WarChimp
Australia943 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:37 gosuMalicE wrote: How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen. Just because they are animals doesn't mean they don't deserve rights. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:06 DigiGnar wrote: Here you go. I thought this was impossible, mixing different gene types and producing life, even thought they were all primate genes. This is a really big step in science, and hopefully one we get to really explore. There's just too much knowledge to pass up. Chimeras are not really that new and happen to exist also naturally. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On January 06 2012 18:21 aksfjh wrote: Mules. They are crossbred between horses and donkeys. Although, this is definitely a huge step, especially if there are no significant mutations. This isn't combining species. As poster above notes, a chimera simply means you have cells/tissues with different genomes. This happens a lot in people just by chance, actually. There are extreme examples like Blaschko's lines, but it's much more common that you simply have a random subset of tissues that are fully or partially a distinct genome than the majority of your cells. It's essentially being composed of yourself + a twin or sibling's genes, but in the same person, and it makes absolutely no difference. As an example, chimerism is one possible scenario that produces different colored eyes, but I'm not sure it's the most frequent source. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 06 2012 18:21 aksfjh wrote: Mules. They are crossbred between horses and donkeys. Although, this is definitely a huge step, especially if there are no significant mutations. Chimera's are not crossovers between species, there is no mixing of genomes. They are basically n (mostly 2) separate organisms within one, or more specifically the resultant organism is composed of cells where each cell has one of the n genomes. EDIT: I tried to explain it with my own words not using too much space, but frankly failed, wiki will probably have proper definition that should be easily understandable  | ||
|
Teim
Australia373 Posts
| ||
|
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
| ||
|
Flingoko
Denmark68 Posts
| ||
|
HaruRH
Singapore2780 Posts
| ||
|
Greggle
United States1131 Posts
| ||
|
Aruno
New Zealand748 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
To all the people who say "omg maybe one day we'll put two people's genomes together!". We won't. We can actually already do that NOW. We could probably make chimeric humans, RIGHT NOW, if we wanted to do so. They wouldn't be healthy in all likelihood, but the concept has been around for a while. To those interested, chick-quail chimeric animal studies have proven very useful in the elucidation of the neural crest stem cell population, a potential source of neurally-derived stem cells analogous to the hematopoietic stem cell of the blood system. Could be useful in fixing cleft lip & palate malformation pre-natally, thereby mitigating the need for expensive reconstructive surgical procedures. | ||
|
antilyon
Brazil2546 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:55 morninglightmountain wrote: Pffft, TL had this figured out ages ago. + Show Spoiler + I'm not really sure what the use of this is tbh, they say it has 'huge implications for science' and then don't elaborate. I bet i'm not going to benefit from this in my lifetime for sure... I don't know how to explain with details, but basically, you could use animals to produce a whole new human organ. If this is ethical or not, is a whole another story. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
NOobToss
United States92 Posts
the next obvious step that REALLY would have widespread implications would be to make inter-species chimeras, such as human-primate chimeras using human and primate ES cells, since we are related to them. but, that in itself would be VERY VERY controversial, that i don't really see it happening. however i don't think there will be widespread genetic knockout studies done in primates in the near future because the cost of primate upkeep and adhering to institutional regulations regarding animal ethics and treatment will be prohibitively expensive. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 07 2012 02:09 NOobToss wrote: chimeras are produced routinely in mice when people want to breed mouse knockouts. they do this by injecting the only advance is that this could be done in primates, which frankly is minuscule. the next obvious step that REALLY would have widespread implications would be to make inter-species chimeras, such as human-primate chimeras using human and primate ES cells, since we are related to them. but, that in itself would be VERY VERY controversial, that i don't really see it happening. however i don't think there will be widespread genetic knockout studies done in primates in the near future because the cost of primate upkeep and adhering to institutional regulations regarding animal ethics and treatment will be prohibitively expensive. re: avian studies, chick-quail chimerics | ||
|
NOobToss
United States92 Posts
On January 07 2012 02:11 FallDownMarigold wrote: re: avian studies, chick-quail chimerics gotcha. i'm frankly uncomfortable with primate-human chimeras tbh. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 07 2012 02:13 NOobToss wrote: gotcha. i'm frankly uncomfortable with primate-human chimeras tbh. Yep, I don't see much use for that right now tho anyway =) I think if anything it'd be a good proof of concept experiment, but I can't think of any particular advantages that could be gained from a human-primate chimera that couldn't be gained from other simpler chimeras | ||
|
Disarm22
United States151 Posts
| ||
|
Erik.TheRed
United States1655 Posts
| ||
|
Taekwon
United States8155 Posts
| ||
|
Coal
Sweden1535 Posts
| ||
|
Atheist
186 Posts
The more humanity increases its knowledge, the less relevant God becomes. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On January 06 2012 19:21 HaruRH wrote: This discovery is very scary. One day, they might be able to start combining genomes of humans, resulting in superhumans... Which isn't scary but absolutely awesome. | ||
|
Tacky
Sweden21 Posts
This is cool cause it's done on monkeys, it's hard to manipulate mammalian and in particular primate embryos. | ||
|
frequency
Australia1901 Posts
| ||
|
exShikari
Australia237 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
Chimera=/=hybrid In a hybrid, Every single cell in the organism has the exact same genes from both parents (with the parents being of different species). In a chimera, Some cells in the organism have one set of genes, and other cells (in other parts of the body) have other sets of genes. So what the scientists did is they got 6 monkey embryos of the same species, and merged the Embryos. So when you get the adult, some parts of the body will have the genes from one embryo, and some from others. This happens to some degree naturally. You have a few cells in you that have your mother's genes (picked up while you were in the womb, and were able to survive) Your mother has a few cells in her that have your genes, picked up while she was pregnant. This is not Genetic engineering/combining genomes/ etc. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 07 2012 03:40 Krikkitone wrote: You have a few cells in you that have your mother's genes (picked up while you were in the womb, and were able to survive) Your mother has a few cells in her that have your genes, picked up while she was pregnant. What the fuck? Am I the only one that is missing something here, or is this dude completely wrong? What do you mean we have foreign cells from our moms with distinct genomes, inside our bodies? Where are they? Are they functional contributors to anything? In which regions do they grow, or survive? How do they survive? Do they have a stem cell population that replenishes them? Why don't they die off? Are they located in a niche in which multipotent progenitors can be induced to exist at certain times? | ||
|
Amaterasu1234
United States317 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:55 morninglightmountain wrote: Pffft, TL had this figured out ages ago. + Show Spoiler + I'm not really sure what the use of this is tbh, they say it has 'huge implications for science' and then don't elaborate. I bet i'm not going to benefit from this in my lifetime for sure... Bringing back saber-toothed tigers! 'Cause that'd be sick! | ||
|
iamahydralisk
United States813 Posts
| ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:37 gosuMalicE wrote: How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen. you're an animal too. To claim you are not is a fallacy religion has pushed since the beginning of time. Animals feel pain. animals have brains. you have a brain (presumably). you feel pain. ethics derives from concepts of right and wrong. | ||
|
Xalorian
Canada433 Posts
Fucked up. So many gift at christmas, tho. | ||
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
| ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:55 morninglightmountain wrote: Pffft, TL had this figured out ages ago. + Show Spoiler + I'm not really sure what the use of this is tbh, they say it has 'huge implications for science' and then don't elaborate. I bet i'm not going to benefit from this in my lifetime for sure... Could there be a better thread to unleash the hordes once again? But yeah, not sure what the goal here is. I don't mind experimenting on animals as it's a necessity to science, but this is just weird. I can imagine a few potential uses in the future for mixing genes in such a way I suppose. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:09 Probe1 wrote: + Show Spoiler + Okay now that thats out of the way.. what the hell man lol. Point of order- they're all rhesus monkies so they aren't actually chimeras. Amazing none the less. Point of parlimentary inquiry. did the previous speaker just correctly use parlimentary proceedure in a TL thread? Sorry, I had to. Now back to the thread: Mr. Speaker I call for the orders of the day. + Show Spoiler + in biology apparently a chimera is any individual with multiple sets of DNA... | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 07 2012 03:42 FallDownMarigold wrote: What the fuck? Am I the only one that is missing something here, or is this dude completely wrong? What do you mean we have foreign cells from our moms with distinct genomes, inside our bodies? Where are they? Are they functional contributors to anything? In which regions do they grow, or survive? How do they survive? Do they have a stem cell population that replenishes them? Why don't they die off? Are they located in a niche in which multipotent progenitors can be induced to exist at certain times? They are a very small number scattered around, nowhere in particular (becoming whatever tissue type they are located in. They act just like the rest of your cells. (same with yours in your mother) [who if she had boys as a Very Very small percent of cells with Y chromosomes in them] | ||
Shellshock
United States97276 Posts
| ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:09 Probe1 wrote: Okay now that thats out of the way.. what the hell man lol. Point of order- they're all rhesus monkies so they aren't actually chimeras. Amazing none the less. I think hybridizing DNA makes them chimeras | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
Bond(i2)
Canada926 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 07 2012 05:49 Bond(i2) wrote: Could we potentially use this theory to reproduce or maybe regenerate organs? If so, think of the implications O.O Yes. Sort of. Basically this 'theory' involves stem cell/developmental/regenerative biology, which is definitely relevant to regenerating injured tissues, or maybe even making full organs | ||
|
bubO
United States367 Posts
Science! | ||
|
sviatoslavrichter
United States164 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On January 07 2012 07:55 sviatoslavrichter wrote: So we could genetically engineer super soldiers then? This is Not Genetic Engineering This is Not Hybridization There is no Change to any DNA/genomes/genetic information/code, etc. | ||
|
NOobToss
United States92 Posts
On January 07 2012 03:42 FallDownMarigold wrote: What the fuck? Am I the only one that is missing something here, or is this dude completely wrong? What do you mean we have foreign cells from our moms with distinct genomes, inside our bodies? Where are they? Are they functional contributors to anything? In which regions do they grow, or survive? How do they survive? Do they have a stem cell population that replenishes them? Why don't they die off? Are they located in a niche in which multipotent progenitors can be induced to exist at certain times? actually there is a very very small niche-like field (pardon the pun xD) studying fetal-maternal chimerism. it was basically discovered that there were some cells present in a mouse fetus that were of maternal origin and followup studies basically using a mouse mom with a GFP-knock in mutation bore some pups that had some non-germline GFP+ cells (or is it the other way round? my memory fails me). but again, its a really really small field and no one really knows what are its implications. EDIT: there is apparently a wikipedia article on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism | ||
|
hytonight
303 Posts
On January 07 2012 02:36 Erik.TheRed wrote: someone found a philosopher's stone? wont bring nina back........damn you scar | ||
|
Iodem
United States1173 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fnw0k.jpg) Perhaps my dream of owning and riding a gryphon may come to fruition! | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On January 07 2012 08:17 Iodem wrote: Perhaps my dream of owning and riding a gryphon may come to fruition! LOL Iodem. I know you have a really active wonderful imagination, but unfortunately the reality is this is a really simple development that has nothing to do with hybridization. Depressing I know. Just like when I found out the majority of research in nanotechnology isn't about tiny robots that can build things like in Total Annihilation, but more about making mundane advances in reduced grain size for materials either through mechanical work or some ion-firing backsplatter deposition process. Yay materials engineering | ||
|
Sephy90
United States1785 Posts
On January 06 2012 18:33 Capped wrote: DUDE, shut the fuck up, i will kill myself if that day happens. I dont know whats so very great about all this tbh, "lets fuck around with genes trololol" ? Or will it allow for some epic way of creating cures for things? Creating spiderman = bad. Holy fuck you just ruined my day. | ||
|
tetrismaan
Denmark302 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On January 07 2012 07:55 sviatoslavrichter wrote: So we could genetically engineer super soldiers then? You've never played Return to Castle Wolfenstein? The Germans already did  + Show Spoiler + I'll be really, really sad if someone's taking me seriously. That said, why are people talking about genetic engineering? While this is kinda screwed up, it isn't anywhere near as fucked as some prospects hoped to be achieved by genetic engineering like creating new types of hybridized animals and stuff. All that was done here was [uselessly] putting 6 sets of parent DNA into one monkey embryo. :| Like another guy said, all this seems like is "lol let's fuck around with genes trolololo". It seems useless at best; just screwing around with things for the sake of doing so. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On January 07 2012 04:00 Humanfails wrote: you're an animal too. To claim you are not is a fallacy religion has pushed since the beginning of time. Animals feel pain. animals have brains. you have a brain (presumably). you feel pain. ethics derives from concepts of right and wrong. I don't believe that I am an animal. I believe I have a soul and that I was created in God's image and this is what separates human beings from animals. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change who is right and who is wrong. Neither side will ever convince the other. I found your post incredibly disrespectful. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, but I think its important to be respectful of everyone's beliefs in an effort to foster open discussion. Talk about yourself, talk about your beliefs, but don't tell me what I am and am not. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 07 2012 08:01 NOobToss wrote: actually there is a very very small niche-like field (pardon the pun xD) studying fetal-maternal chimerism. it was basically discovered that there were some cells present in a mouse fetus that were of maternal origin and followup studies basically using a mouse mom with a GFP-knock in mutation bore some pups that had some non-germline GFP+ cells (or is it the other way round? my memory fails me). but again, its a really really small field and no one really knows what are its implications. EDIT: there is apparently a wikipedia article on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism THIS IS SO COOL! I did not know about this at all. Btw, the GFP lineage test could go both ways depending on how the experiment is designed, so you are right regardless of your memory in my book :p | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On January 07 2012 10:02 Joedaddy wrote: I don't believe that I am an animal. I believe I have a soul and that I was created in God's image and this is what separates human beings from animals. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change who is right and who is wrong. Neither side will ever convince the other. I found your post incredibly disrespectful. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, but I think its important to be respectful of everyone's beliefs in an effort to foster open discussion. Biologically, humans are mammals. But humans are incapable of so many mental and psychological faculties completely nonexistent in other creatures that the only offense I find is comparing a species so high as humans to filthy brutes (sure, we can act misanthropic and/or smart alecs and note how many unimaginably degenerate humans there are that they may as well be as stupid as other animals, but let's not do that). To deny that humans are mammals is to deny simple biological classification of general groups that have certain physical traits in common :S. There's no offense in it at all. You see, the argument you should have made is how humans are sapient, capable of judgment, capable of using reason to determine behavior rather than being dominated by instinct like other creatures, abstract thought, intellect, and tons more things that specifically differentiate us from every other form of life on this planet. But when you bring up the "made in god's image" stuff written by ancient Hebrew religious fanatics some 25 centuries ago, you're shooting yourself in the foot.  | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On January 07 2012 09:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: You've never played Return to Castle Wolfenstein? The Germans already did + Show Spoiler + I'll be really, really sad if someone's taking me seriously. That said, why are people talking about genetic engineering? While this is kinda screwed up, it isn't anywhere near as fucked as some prospects hoped to be achieved by genetic engineering like creating new types of hybridized animals and stuff. All that was done here was [uselessly] putting 6 sets of parent DNA into one monkey embryo. :| Like another guy said, all this seems like is "lol let's fuck around with genes trolololo". It seems useless at best; just screwing around with things for the sake of doing so. Yeah, they only did it for kicks... Seriously, why do people think anything they don't understand must be useless? | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On January 07 2012 10:12 nam nam wrote: Yeah, they only did it for kicks... Seriously, why do people think anything they don't understand must be useless? Self satisfaction and pride. Something don't make sense to you? To fuck with it, can't possibly be good or useful! But ya in all seriousness, this is an example of genetic engineering in a broad sense, and tho it might seem like its just "trololol", it is the future of medicine. | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
Made-to-order children inc! | ||
|
iloveav
Poland1478 Posts
On January 06 2012 17:37 gosuMalicE wrote: How could this be unethical they are animals, unless they stared doing it to humans, which I highly doubt will happen. Then i guess if some Alien comes and does that to you, you would not blame him right? Assuming he thinks you are from an inferior race. | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
On January 06 2012 18:31 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: The ethical problems with this are astronomic, but from a philosophical stand, interesting. I say they push this to its very limit and see how deep down the rabbit hole goes. I wish there would be no such thing as Ethics, nowadays its mostly a tool to delay the inevitable (scientific progress), which is good for humanity. | ||
|
nathangonmad
United Kingdom317 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OM7Lq.png) | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
On January 07 2012 10:47 bgx wrote: I wish there would be no such thing as Ethics, nowadays its mostly a tool to delay the inevitable (scientific progress), which is good for humanity. Well if you don't have some ethics, then you get things like what happened during World War II, and similar events in the past. We did actually further science with those actions, we know things we didn't know before, but was it worth it? Not in my opinion, we don't want to further science despite the cost, cause it would be bad for humanity, not good for it. How about just skipping all the phases of testing for a new drug and just testing them on humans that are gonna die from terminal diseases. We can say they are all terminally ill, and they are mandatory supposed to take these drugs that are untested, so that we can discover cures at a much much faster rate. I don't think that would fly with most people. But if you mean people saying don't do this stuff because it's like playing god, I can get behind you, that's not a justifiable reason. Also not do dive into a deep discussion on ethics, cause it is way off topic, but what If I were to take your genetics, and the genetics of say.. your spouse and start producing crazy offspring mutations with it. Sure it's not exactly what happened in this case, but I mean, that would probably piss you off right? I'm all for scientific research when your furthering medicine, I've got a sense of self preservation, but testing on animals for the hell of it upsets me, and i'm not even sure where to draw the line. Overall these chimeras are interesting, but I don't see the huge deal about them. Too the post below mine, pigs have the intelligence of about 2 year old children, should we test on your 2 year old children? I'm not saying give animals tons and tons of rights, but to blatantly treat every living thing like it's shit unless it's human is just an old practice that is archaic and inhumane. | ||
|
gosuMalicE
Canada676 Posts
On January 06 2012 18:59 WarChimp wrote: Just because they are animals doesn't mean they don't deserve rights. Animals cannot conceive of the concept of rights and thus cannot have them. | ||
|
insectoceanx
United States331 Posts
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jx-KCnvjTuI/R7Lrclaeh-I/AAAAAAAADJw/GU1wiw5Xs8c/s400/goatDM0802_468x391.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_chimeraGeep have existed since 1984. I learned about them from Radiolab | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6226 Posts
On January 07 2012 11:04 gosuMalicE wrote: Animals cannot conceive of the concept of rights and thus cannot have them. Really? I'll be the first to say the amounts of red tape you have to cut through to do anything at all to a mouse, let alone a monkey, are bordering on ridiculous, but that's an absurd statement. Does someone's 18 month old daughter deserve rights? 'Cause she sure doesn't know what they are. | ||
|
PaqMan
United States1475 Posts
| ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On January 07 2012 10:47 bgx wrote: I wish there would be no such thing as Ethics, nowadays its mostly a tool to delay the inevitable (scientific progress), which is good for humanity. But scientific advances create ethical controversies and debates. Abortion, eugenics, genetic modification...technology doesn't solve the ethical problems it creates. Abortion, for example, is a debate created by advances in science (or rather, made relevant by those advances). Ethics allows us a mechanism to determine what the proper path of moral behavior is. Scientific progress isn't inherently good for humanity. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 07 2012 10:02 Joedaddy wrote: I don't believe that I am an animal. I believe I have a soul and that I was created in God's image and this is what separates human beings from animals. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change who is right and who is wrong. Neither side will ever convince the other. I found your post incredibly disrespectful. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, but I think its important to be respectful of everyone's beliefs in an effort to foster open discussion. Talk about yourself, talk about your beliefs, but don't tell me what I am and am not. He can tell you that you are animal and not much you can do about that, especially since he is right. Unless you actually are a plant, bacteria or virus. Being an animal does not change that you are also human. As for his main point which was not about religious views per se, but about morality/ethics, concepts of right and wrong are based on empathy and fairness. Thus animals feeling pain and you being capable of empathy makes needless suffering of animals wrong. If you would like more formal explanation, needless suffering of animals leads to increased suffering not only of those animals, but in long terms also humans, so again it is wrong. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 07 2012 10:47 bgx wrote: I wish there would be no such thing as Ethics, nowadays its mostly a tool to delay the inevitable (scientific progress), which is good for humanity. Ethics is a "study" of morality. Your wish to be rid of ethics is nearly equivalent to abolishing of morality. And by morality I do not mean what thousands of years old books consider moral or immoral, but basic concepts of right and wrong. Quite terrifying prospect. | ||
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
Still : nice find science! | ||
|
guldurkhand
Netherlands71 Posts
Experimenting with animals is okay if there is pain involved. but only if there is a better cause like helping humans. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Rain Stormgate 7567Horang2 2265Hyuk  1535BeSt 758EffOrt 695Larva 522Mini 390Soma 380Stork 357Soulkey 230[ Show more ] Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing2216 B2W.Neo1723 hiko1284 crisheroes351 Pyrionflax236 Lowko173 ArmadaUGS86 Liquid`VortiX53 KnowMe0 |
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
RSL Revival
WardiTV European League
RSL Revival
WardiTV European League
FEL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
