The dawn of the Chimera

Remove all ads!

How do you know?

 

They'd better leave cloning alone. Is it bad to create a mouse with a human ear on its back, used for a transplant? I can't say.

Is it bad to create a human with, let's say, a snake tongue or tiger claws or wolf fangs? Yeah. Hybrids are even worse.

As for the soul in human cloning, I can't say. Is a lab-made human really a human person? If yes, then it must have a soul. If it's not a human person but a collection of cells, then it doesn't.

How about creating human (supposedly) beings from genetic material collected from the dead? Is it a copy or a separate human? It surely is not the dead person per se, you can't call a soul back.

There many answers missing here and there's a lot of potential for wrong beyond what we can imagine.

 

Perhaps the art of creation should wait until we actually ascend to Godhood...

 

Actually I wouldn't mind the claws or fangs... would be great fun at hallows eve.

Frankly I don't see the problem with experimenting with this branch of genetics. If somehow they can mix certain characteristics of different animals or even put some 'human' cells into an animal and produce 'helpful' medical and commercial products more power to 'em!

They've been working on mixing spiders and goats of all things. The aim of this was to 'milk' spidersilk from the goat-spider hybrids giving us an infinite source of incredibly strong metal (spidersilk being one of the most durable substances on earth).

However, I'm agnostic so I'm for all those 'nasty' genetic experiments that seek to defeat cancer, cure HIV or improve livestock growth.

 

I think it's a sick idea, and the people who came up with it should be hung.
Really, i hate messing with the works of nature.

 

Well, humans have been genetically modifying organisms since they settled down and started selecting crops and doing cross-fertilisation... And as told earlier, also in nature hybrids exist... Lion/tiger hybrids, mules and such... So it can't be that unnatural

Tell that to us when you're lying in a hospital waiting for a car-accident so you can get that life-necessairy donor organ, while there are 500 people before you in line...

Imagine that we can genetically manipulate animal, so the organs can be transferred to save humans lives? Why would you oppose that?

(And btw, the article goes only about genetically modified animals so they can either be used as experimental animals (to test drugs and such, with a higher degree of accuracy)...)

I don't know whether you actually opened your eyes today, but there is a huge shortage to donor organs (going from kidneys to hearts to simple blood)... If this can help us decrease that shortage, it only helps us... And thus should be applauded and not be opposed...

 

It is not fair on the animals, it should be opposed.

 

Like livestock, Sarevok? Spending their entire lives waiting for the inevitable 22. to the head or butchers mallet? You'd better be a vegiterian, Sarevok or your argument holds no water. You'd better not have any leather products either.

Most of our modern technology, medicines and standard of living can be contributed to our ancestors being 'unfair' to animals - keeping them in bondage and using them as slaves. In this case it's just another form of slavery.

 

And letting people die while there is a valable alternative is fair?

Yeah right...

Do you think our ancestors made or that we are going to make a wrong decision if we decide to continu using animals to prevent loss of lives?

 

Hell yeah, let people die instead of killing animals. Why does the human deserve to live and not the animal? At least animals are not constantly destroying the planet they live in every day of their lives.

 

Well, Sarevok, I'd pick a human over an animal any day. If you want to narrow it down you could simply say that a human has the potential to live longer than an animal (bar a few) so a human's life is more valuable than an animal's.

But I'll take the George Bush argument and say: you're either with us or against us.

 

Sarevok, actually, animals do constantly destroy their environment.

 

yeah, beavers... mink...

 

And after this is the part when you go: "Do you know what I hate most, Mr Andersssssen? It's the smell."

As for me, I don't really oppose or condone this stuff but I'm with Abomination and the others on this one. I'd choose a person over an animal any day.

 

You know, I don't think human beings are actually destroying the planet. We might be messing up the environment, which is our environment and of course the animals' environment, but the earth and organic life forms will still be around. Heck, some organisms have probably flourished, like the rat or the cow (if you consider flourishing the ability to pass on your genes, which is what we're making our livestock do). Even if we manage to do something crazy like nuke every piece of land and kill ourselves in the process, there will still be bacteria and insects that will surive, and evolve over the span of eons, in accomodation to oil spills, air pollution, etc.

Okay, on the real topic, I would like to point out that dozens of years ago, urea was sythesized, thus disproving the idea that there were some things only animals or humans (as creations of God or otherwise) could produce. A while ago, a virus was created in a lab. And of course, man has bred mules and has had his fun with animals (not that the latter resulted in anything real, although the results sometimes pops up in mythology).

But frankly, I don't think there will be that much controversy over this ten years after I make this post - stuff about the Middle East and the American president will probably dominate "Alleytalk," since there will probably be a long way before anyone dares to do something like that (definitely governments stepping in). If it ever comes to some sort of human-animal hybrid, I hope that they will be treated as mentally retarded people, who at least receive care and attention from caring individuals.

(I apologize for this post, which is pretty bad as far as rambling posts go here.)