Science taking things too far.

Remove all ads!

A friend found out about Mike the Headless Chicken. It's a chicken without a head being kept alive on injections. It still moves and does averything but It doesn't even know it's alive - how can it feel anything? I think it is unfair what is being done to it.

Also scientists reckon they can keep a human head alive away from the body. This I think is wrong as it would be able to feel things, able to think, hear and probably see but would be helpless and be experimented on. It would still be a person and would probably be in pain. It wouldn't even be able to speak.

Why do scientists try things like this and even want to? It isn't right, it's unfair on what is being experimented on. Chickens have heads for reasons and heads have bodies for reasons.

 

A person is defined on the emotions it has, without a head it is not a human, merely a bunch of chemicals, like a biochemical robot.. It can not have pain either, since all the nerves lead to the brains were it is processed, and is defined as pain, sound, vision, touch, etc. Without the brain it will not feel pain

Last I heard, they were trying to prove the non-exisctance of a soul, by sticking a tube up in a rats arse and fill it with liquid nitrogen (ouch). This was done so fast that the rat "died" in less than a half second. Later they warmed the rat up and it was alive again.
Still proves nothing IMO

This type of science still freaks me out though

[ December 20, 2002, 23:28: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Why would scientists want to go about trying to prove the supposed non-existence of a soul? Science and faith are not two diametrically opposed issues, despite the fact that there are scientists out there who completely reject religion, and vice versa.

Science is nice. Religion is nice. Can't they just get along?

And as for preserving chicken heads and sodomizing rats with liquid nitrogen tubes - I fail to see how that benefits society in any way.

[ December 21, 2002, 05:27: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

Sounds like a bunch of scientists trying to play God. I'd like to know at what point have they proved there is no soul. Outside of faith mixed with a little reason, you can't prove the existence of the soul, so how do they expect science to prove there is no soul?

 

Speaking about playing God, the first "cloned" human baby will be born in IIRC January, gosh, it will be freak and will probably not get older than 1 year

 

If scientists are proving that there is no soul they've probably lost theirs believing that. I am not against science or religion but I do think there is such thing as going to far in them. It always seems to be an argument between them though, even if they re in some ways simular, I think they can learn from each other.

If the baby is a freak then it should fit in, will it be a freak in body or mind? Both or neither?

Killing things just to revive them? It's pointless, why? Did a scientist get bored and say "Hey let's pump nitrogen up it's arse and see how quickly it dies - we'll just say we're seeing if it has a soul!" I mean, how pointless is it? If someone is trying to prove something that much with so little then I think something musn't be right, either they have a hate or fear of something, or there is another reason They can keep it to themselves!

 

I have to agree with you, some things are just going too far. The rats are also alive and have the same emotions we do, we have no right to do these things just to prove something that does not need to be proven. What difference does it make if we have souls or not. It's a pointless debate that exists only for the gratification of the debators and has long since stopped having any meaning. I believe the soul exists but only as an energy field generated by the brain's electrical activity but that's my belief and I don't care what anyone else thinks or believes. Generally what others believe is not important, when what others believe has no effect on you either way you have to question the motivation of the people trying to affect this. Overall I believe this is an interesting topic for debate and light experimentation but going any further appears to be truly pointless.

 

I don't wish to sound evil, but you have to remember that one day, one of you or a loved one will require a life saving treatment or such. The research which is needed to perform these operations and treatments also need fine tuning.

To fine tune, you need to experiment. Im afraid that SOME of these practices are falling into the term of "The end justifying the means."

I say SOME, because sometimes the experiments are just cruel, but others ,just might be necessary.

We have come a long way from testing stupid ethics on creatures, but life is just cruel in the way that sadism is allowed to be utilised in the experimentation of drugs on animals.

One point, however, is that all drugs need testing. Im sure people would agree there, whats the point of saying that "This injection can cure cancer" Yet it is a mere placebo. So what, exactly, DO we use for testing these drugs.

Rights protesters from all angles would say "No don't test drugs on....!! Its cruel" I say that it is also cruel to use unrefined drugs on a person which could be lethal to them, because they haven't had the proper test run on them.

Im not on anyone's side, im just stating what I believe as the facts. Its my belief that the human race is quite evil in its ethics, its selfishness and its greed. It just seems like a bleak future, when nuclear destruction is a button push away. And how did the nuclear weapons come to be? From the wrong kind of testing of science.

 

Why, if I really loved her/him I´ll just let her/him die.
Not to sound cruel, but I just want someboy I love to live as he/she should.

 

i don't think that today science is good at all... we could have been better out without it... stick a tube in a rat ass... when they can at least try to stop HIV, AIDS and Cancer... and the making of the A-bomb... that is the dumbest thing ever made... that just pisses me off...

 

I agree that drugs and such should be tested on animals before they are given to humans. At what point though do these tests cease to serve a purpose? Testing animals for a soul? My understanding is that animals don't even have souls. This sounds more like something a thirteen year old boy would do in the basement with his chem set than something that research scientists should be doing.

 

They are Ivanji, and they just found a "good" medication for HIV, but finding a cure for AIDS is almost impossible

Oh and to piss you more of, HIV was brought into the "human world" by science, they looked for a good blooddonor and they tried monkeys, these creatures carried HIV..
How ironic, you try to do something good for humanity and then you just bring a disease into the world

[ December 21, 2002, 16:38: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

Question - Why test things FOR humans on other animals?

I think that some science is causing more harm than good.

If drugs need to be tested then why can't they get volunteers? It seems a bit pointless giving a creature a human illness that it's body will treat differently thne testing something designed for humans on it. Mot problems are humanly made, I don't mean to sound stupid when I say this, but - Nature proveds.

People are thinking "What?" but if you look you will find something eg. Stinging nettles and Doc leaves. At one point Daffodils were thought to have a cure for cancer.

Also I recently heard that herbal stuff will be banned because medicine companies are losing money to them.

 

To make an omelet you have to crack a few eggs. If something can be done I think it should be done. All to the furthering of humanity. Without science, much of which was viewed as ethically and morally abhorrent when conducted we would still be living in caves trying to hunt down a moose for dinner. I am pro most things that man can do, sure sometimes things are done wrong and unnescessary suffering come to pass but when all things are considered all things developed are done so to stop somekind of suffering. Oh well I have rambled enough but none of the examples above strike me as very wicked, testing cosmetics on animals is a better example I think. As cosmetic has no real practical use.

 

Because if you test it on humans, you get trouble with Amnesty, UN and the EU..

I´ve seen tests on rabbits were soap is sprayed into the rabbits eyes to see if it irritate.
One test, maybe two per rabbit, ok, if it has to be done..
But testing over and over till the rabbit goes permantly blind, because restrictions want clear results that it really irritates and not just gives red eyes, uhm nah .

If things will really help in the evolution of mankind, then it should be done, moral should not interfere..

But things like shoving a liquid nitrogen tube up a rats arse will not help in evolution of mankind, and is therefore unnecesary animal abuse, or merely "divine" *ahum* actions to see if we can play god without screwing up

[ December 22, 2002, 11:54: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

In many peoples view we are the superior race on this planet. Did rabbits give us technology? Did beagles (how I envy them, as many smokes a day as they want all free ) erradicate smallpox (and also give us all AIDS doing so) ? Have they built cities that are renowned places of education and commerce? No, it was humans. Have they developed an opposable thumb? No.
Well thats what those scientists are looking for in subjects they can't test on. Basically "they're only animals" and therefore it's ok for them to be tested on.

Has science went too far though? Well a microchip almost finished being tested that would restore sight to about 80 % of blind people doesn't sound too far to me. A gas that is leathal for about 14 hours, kills any animals it encounters by blistering their lungs and having them die in agony and drowning in their own blood does. Where do you actually say yes? If you had at the development of that gas the microchip to restore sight wouldn't have been invented. Don't you find it amazing how far things have advanced in a century? each time a leap being taken during and right after a war that engulfed the globe? Science is here to stay, as are it's methods. And with each war it leaps forward IMO. Has it went too far? My answer to that would be no, because in human nature there is no too far, only the driving will to know, learn and understand more. And as for this soul thing, I'm actually amazed that the concept of a God has survived the twentieth century given it's events.

 

Guys I hate to burst your bubble here but Mike The Headless Chicken was an event that happened back in 1945. It was in Colorado, here's Mike's homepage: http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/

 

LOL now thats a good story .
It still doesn't actually change the debate about has science went too far though? It does put a cloud of doubt over whether scientists will be able to do that with humans soon though. But then people thought DNA would never be unravelled etc etc

 

I really don't think science itself has gone too far. It's made plenty of helpful contributions, and surely will continue to. The only fuss I have with it is when it does something that seems utterly pointless (such as with the rat and liquid nitrogen). Also, I don't need scientists (or skeptics, debunkers, etc.) telling me that they've "disproved" the existence of a soul, the existence of a God, etc. Science cannot prove or disprove those things. Science is only a convenience we have to make our lives better (or worse).

As for scientists "playing God" with animals, humans, diseases, etc., I don't think that they're playing God at all. If they can create life, destroy it, manipulate, etc., I have no problem with it so long as it's got a good end to it. If scientists give AIDS to a few rabbits (or even humans), and learn how to cure it by that research, shouldn't that be done for a greater benefit?

[ December 22, 2002, 23:43: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

The problem I have is when science decides to give us all a big risk of AIDS through something that's supposed to help us. Not a lot of progress for stopping it has been done really, and it won't be the last blunder it makes. Giving it to rabbits? Hey they're not human (see above rant) so who cares?
Science won't stop as C'jakob pointed out, and I don;t think the smallpox virus will be the last blunder either