Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Kerrigan · Nov 7, 2006, 01:52 AM

Right now, science is just begining to explore stem cell research. And as we've seen, various chimeras (part human, part animal) have been created, usually something to the effect of: 1% human, 99% rat/rabbit/cow/etc.

One must wonder though, if scientists are already creating chimeras this early on, what will things be like in the next couple of decades? In the next 20 years, I would be surprised if half-human half-animal creatures aren't being engineered in labs somewhere, for scientific purposes.

The whole thing reminds me of that book Oryx & Crake- the technology to create disturbing chimeras already exists, and at some point in the near future this technology will be abused.

What implications could this have for man's future?

Frankly, my entire moral foundation would be shaken if pharmaceutical companies started engineering races of pig/human hybrids, such as the ones featured in Oryx.

Salty · Nov 7, 2006, 02:36 PM

I'm always a little bit worries that people will decide to engineer some sort of slave race/class of people who are not intelligent but can fulfill basic menial tasks.

Kr0nos · Nov 7, 2006, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

What implications could this have for man's future?

Women with more than two boobs?

Doofy · Nov 7, 2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I'm always a little bit worries that people will decide to engineer some sort of slave race/class of people who are not intelligent but can fulfill basic menial tasks.

Like when you get a chav to tarmac your driveway, you mean?

turtle777 · Nov 7, 2006, 02:46 PM

Can't wait to get a personal ork.

-t

MacNStein · Nov 7, 2006, 02:51 PM

Paging Mr. Wells

G Barnett · Nov 7, 2006, 02:51 PM

Cat girls! Woohoo!

(or hell, a genetically engineered "Fran" from FF XII -- I'm easy, either way....)

Kerrigan · Nov 7, 2006, 04:16 PM

The furries will have a field day I guess. I'll still be creeped out.

sek929 · Nov 7, 2006, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I'm always a little bit worries that people will decide to engineer some sort of slave race/class of people who are not intelligent but can fulfill basic menial tasks.

Landscaping crews?

kmkkid · Nov 7, 2006, 04:26 PM

"I just saw a Pigman! A PIGMAN!"

nonhuman · Nov 7, 2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I'm always a little bit worries that people will decide to engineer some sort of slave race/class of people who are not intelligent but can fulfill basic menial tasks.

It'll be a good thing. It's the only way we can ever really hope to achieve equality (among humans) at a comfortable standard of living.

kmkkid · Nov 7, 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

It'll be a good thing. It's the only way we can ever really hope to achieve equality (among humans) at a comfortable standard of living.

What about robots?

nonhuman · Nov 7, 2006, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

What about robots?

Same deal for the most part. I think robots would actually be better so long as they can be maintained by other robots. I don't think the ethics would be any different though.

kmkkid · Nov 7, 2006, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I don't think the ethics would be any different though.

Except that a robot isn't a living creature, where as a half breed would be.

nonhuman · Nov 7, 2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Except that a robot isn't a living creature, where as a half breed would be.

No real difference in my mind. Animals are just biological machines. The only worthwhile distinction that I can think of is that animals feel pain, although presumably that would actually be an advantage because they'd be less likely to injure themselves through over-exertion than a machine that would be less aware of itself. As long as they aren't being tortured and pain isn't being used as a motivator, no problem.

Kerrigan · Nov 7, 2006, 05:49 PM

If animals are biological machines, and the line between humans and animals is blurred by genetic modification, then what is the incentive to treat fellow humans ethically? If men are willing to create chimeras in order to perform menial tasks, where is the line drawn? Anything above 50% human is to be treated with respect, and anything below is to be treated like a slave? This is too arbitrary, and frankly I find the implications troubling.

nonhuman · Nov 7, 2006, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

If animals are biological machines, and the line between humans and animals is blurred by genetic modification, then what is the incentive to treat fellow humans ethically? If men are willing to create chimeras in order to perform menial tasks, where is the line drawn? Anything above 50% human is to be treated with respect, and anything below is to be treated like a slave? This is too arbitrary, and frankly I find the implications troubling.

The incentive to treat other humans ethically is that humans are intelligent and very capable of overcoming whatever defenses you might have to kill you...

houstonmacbro · Nov 7, 2006, 06:06 PM

i was listening to coastTocoastAM one night and g. noory had this dude on that claims ancient engineers (around the time of the great flood) had already created such beasts. supposedly, God sent the flood not only to wipe out bad people, but to also wipe out all of the nasty critters that had been engineered like that.

hmm...

Tiresias · Nov 7, 2006, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Paging Mr. Wells

Don't you mean Mr. Huxley?

Gamoe · Nov 8, 2006, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

No real difference in my mind. Animals are just biological machines. The only worthwhile distinction that I can think of is that animals feel pain, although presumably that would actually be an advantage because they'd be less likely to injure themselves through over-exertion than a machine that would be less aware of itself. As long as they aren't being tortured and pain isn't being used as a motivator, no problem.

Yes, we and the beasts that be are indeed "machines", but there is an additional component to human beings and even beasts which robots do not yet possess, and don't seem anywhere near close to possessing anytime soon. There is no moral concern as to how you treat a robot, because it is neither an individual nor a being. It is a collection of sophisticated machinery.

The day that robots can actually think for themselves, feel emotions and gain a sense of self-consciousness (and not just simulate it) to become "more than the sum of their parts" is the day they stop being robots (and would at that point, become androids). Then, we would have to deal with the moral and ethical issues surrounding the creation and treatment of a new kind of being.

ghporter · Nov 8, 2006, 07:29 AM

Doesn't a chimera have to be an actual creature, not a mass of cells in a petri dish?

Dakar² · Nov 8, 2006, 07:35 AM

I'm sure at other point in our history there have been unrealistic worries about the use of certain technology.

I think this is one of those times.

voodoo · Nov 8, 2006, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I'm sure at other point in our history there have been unrealistic worries about the use of certain technology.

I think this is one of those times.

I agree.. this kind of genetic tech is way too complex to worry about today. We are so far from being able to program a living being.

V

smacintush · Nov 8, 2006, 07:58 AM

Oh how I long for the day…

Dakar² · Nov 8, 2006, 07:59 AM

Still an ass too short by my estimation.

Kerrigan · 08:35 AM

It needs more lens flare

Dakar² · Nov 8, 2006, 08:50 AM

Dammit, I was getting around to that.

Dakar² · 10:58 AM

GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!

smacintush · Nov 8, 2006, 09:07 AM

God I suck at Photoshop.

osiris · Nov 8, 2006, 09:10 AM

That's what we really need to bring world peace: A monkey with four lens-flared butts AND a Born to Roam T. Too bad it couldn't be made of solid chocolate too.

Dakar² · Nov 8, 2006, 09:22 AM

(Looks like I'll be occupied at work today)

Kerrigan · Nov 8, 2006, 10:56 AM

turtle777 · Nov 8, 2006, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Doesn't a chimera have to be an actual creature, not a mass of cells in a petri dish?

Oh come on, minor detail.

-t

bowwowman · Nov 9, 2006, 02:22 AM

2001 (HAL), Terminator (T1000), ST/TNG (Data)..........live & learn......

or NOT !

nonhuman · Nov 17, 2006, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

Yes, we and the beasts that be are indeed "machines", but there is an additional component to human beings and even beasts which robots do not yet possess, and don't seem anywhere near close to possessing anytime soon. There is no moral concern as to how you treat a robot, because it is neither an individual nor a being. It is a collection of sophisticated machinery.

The day that robots can actually think for themselves, feel emotions and gain a sense of self-consciousness (and not just simulate it) to become "more than the sum of their parts" is the day they stop being robots (and would at that point, become androids). Then, we would have to deal with the moral and ethical issues surrounding the creation and treatment of a new kind of being.

Robots are beginning have rudimentary sentience.