6 ms·

Obviously this is a long, long way from a functional brain being grown. But I have to wonder where the moral line is drawn when you're talking about growing an

Obviously this is a long, long way from a functional brain being grown. But I have to wonder where the moral line is drawn when you're talking about growing an organ that (may-or-may-not) hold the ability to form a level of consciousness.

alfredallan1 8y ago
If I may be so bold, I think that line will get pushed farther out every generation - who will simply accept past work as the then status quo ante. Just a hundred years back, cloning would have been considered morally reprehensible. Today, many people accept it as fact. Each generation only pushes the boundary just a bit (in the grand scheme of things) further; and only things far beyond the immediate realm of practical possibility seem thoroughly abominable. There’s also the possiblity that the distaste that a culture/era has for such things is based on the extent to which it has been raised with religious values - which typically tend to deem the work of creation to be in the domain of the divine, not the mortal. As either distance from organized religion grows, or religions adapt their values, future generations exposed to such teachings may find such things to be acceptable as long as they’re not used for “bad” purposes.
- XorNot 8y ago
  When was cloning considered morally reprehensible? By who's standard are you taking as an authority here?
  - alfredallan1 8y ago
    Here’s an article from as late as 1997. “Why Human Cloning Is Immoral” https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=180 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec... 2001 - "Catholic Church Condemns Human Cloning" https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-11-26-22-catholic-66407622/549352.html https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-11-26-22-catholic-6640... 1998 - Churches Condemn Plan to Clone Humans https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0113/011398.feat.feat.2.html https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0113/011398.feat.feat.2.html I never spoke as an authority, just made some remarks.
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      Surveys of populations have been shown opposition to the idea too. The idea that the Catholic Church might be considered a moral authority to any significant number of people is troubling. https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-human-cloning.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-huma... https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-human-cloning.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-huma...
      - conception 8y ago
        "The idea that the Catholic Church might be considered a moral authority to any significant number of people is troubling." You mean outside of the 1.2 billion Catholics?
        lostlogin 8y ago
        No, them specifically. The recent developments in Ireland seem to me to be a result of people questions the word of that institution, and that’s a good thing.
  - sekh60 8y ago
    I lack any citations, but I remember when I was young and there was a decent amount of talk of ethics on the news in Canada about Dolly the sheep.
- economistrator 8y ago
  Luckily this is not the only direction: > To test his theory, he nailed his wife’s dog to a board and chopped it open while the poor thing was still alive. https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/29/descartes-dissected-his-wifes-dog-to-prove-a-point/ https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/29/descartes-dissected-his...
  - ericd 8y ago
    >Descartes never married, but he did have a daughter, Francine, born in the Netherlands in 1635. https://www.biography.com/people/ren-descartes-37613 https://www.biography.com/people/ren-descartes-37613 Not sure if the rest is credible...
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      It might be a misunderstanding. In many languages, there is one commonly used word that translates (out of context) to "wife", "unmarried partner" and "woman" at the same time.
      - dotancohen 8y ago
        אישה That's the word the Bible uses for Eve. It means all three words, as you've mentioned. Being biblical, this form of speech is not uncommon in many European and Middle Eastern cultures and languages.
        transmissible 8y ago
        Further reading: Helena Jans van der Strom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Descartes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Descartes
        seszett 8y ago
        (edited to match parent) Her mother was Helena Jens, and she was already married to another man at the period this article talks about. Descartes was also back in France while she was still in the Netherlands. Although Descartes did vivisect animals for research purposes, I think it's safe to say that this particular account is an invention.
FrozenVoid 8y ago
There no explicit need for a "Complete brain". Here is example of functional network with 25k neurons: Rat brain cells organize, learn to control electrodes and fly a fighter jet in a simulation. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.h...
everdev 8y ago
The quick answer is to say it's not ethical. But what if the brain is given full autonomy and ability to communicate with others and then let the brain decide if it wants an organic or machine body?
- opportune 8y ago
  In several decades it may be possible to transplant such a brain into the body of a brain-dead human (preferably an infant Neanderthal brain into a brain dead human infant), which could alleviate a lot of ethical concerns from the start
- dqpb 8y ago
  I disagree. The quick answer is to say it is ethical.
  - everdev 8y ago
    Why? If you create a conscious brain and leave it in a container, keeping it perpetually alive just to study it, that sounds pretty cruel. I'd imagine it would be like being in a conscious coma. Lack of social interaction is known to be damaging to people, so who knows what kind of distress an isolated brain might be in.
- candiodari 8y ago
  I don't think you should be so quick to call something moral or not. Let's take your statement and apply it to a few real life situations ... So what you're saying is we should take anything with a brain, figure out what it's answer would be to "do you want to be alive ?" and then support that decision ? Boy, you must hate abortion ... (just saying that those things obviously have a brain, and every last kid on the planet will say they want to be alive, so those embryos being aborted can be easily assumed to either be conscious or at least said to be rapidly becoming conscious, and we can be likewise sure they want to be alive as well. Human embryos have functional brains 20 days after conception, which is just barely after a woman would become aware of a pregnancy, and we support abortion up to 6 months or even later, at which point a human embryo has a brain with more functional neurons than almost any animal on the planet, and more than every dog, cat, primate, dolphin) (and just to defend this research, any research that gets us closer to being able to grow specific tissues - especially neural tissue - has the potential to alleviate the suffering of a great many people that have damaged nerves and/or brains) But we all know how we judge morals in practice. Things that can complain get preference. Brains in jars won't complain. Nobody will ever make a picture of them showing big eyes behind bars. There will never be a scream or panic reaction available in full-color video of them. So they'll be abused, even tortured, even for very little gain. Because that's how humans judge morality ... in practice. If you believe otherwise, good luck explaining the morality of abortion.
dqpb 8y ago
Where is the moral line drawn when it comes to using vague morality arguments to discourage research?
filoeleven 8y ago
The same question should be asked about research animals today then, as detailed in a sibling thread. “Brain grown on a dish” sounds preferable to “rat with a drilled skull.”
- dnadler 8y ago
  This question is asked and discussed rigorously any time a study that involves animal testing is proposed. At least it is in a scientific research setting in the US. There are boards dedicated to ensuring that the potential scientific benefit is sufficient to warrant whatever suffering the animals will endure. Obviously this is subjective, but the point is that these issues are considered in detail.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    If you submitted a human to the same level of suffering, it would be considered torture, so this is kinda moot. Our systems are currently considering animals as not remotly as sensible or worth as us. This is true for food production, science, pets, etc. Actually our entire society exists because we delegate part of our suffering to other organisms, including other humans. Be it with pollution, war, drug testing, cattling, slavery... It would be foolish to pretend to have the moral ground unless one lives a very primitive life, but I think it's important to know the implied cost of our ways. It's saner, and more honest. As an annecdote, I recently worked on a software dedicated to study epilespy episods on mouses. The experiment induced epilespsy on the subjects. When discussing about this, the scientist handling the mouses told me not to worry because the ethics commity was making sure it was done properly. At this moment I though we, as a specy, add a dark humour touch to every thing we do.
vinchuco 8y ago
https://youtu.be/vjuQRCG_sUw https://youtu.be/vjuQRCG_sUw

alfredallan1 8y ago

If I may be so bold, I think that line will get pushed farther out every generation - who will simply accept past work as the then status quo ante. Just a hundred years back, cloning would have been considered morally reprehensible. Today, many people accept it as fact. Each generation only pushes the boundary just a bit (in the grand scheme of things) further; and only things far beyond the immediate realm of practical possibility seem thoroughly abominable. There’s also the possiblity that the distaste that a culture/era has for such things is based on the extent to which it has been raised with religious values - which typically tend to deem the work of creation to be in the domain of the divine, not the mortal. As either distance from organized religion grows, or religions adapt their values, future generations exposed to such teachings may find such things to be acceptable as long as they’re not used for “bad” purposes.

XorNot 8y ago
When was cloning considered morally reprehensible? By who's standard are you taking as an authority here?
- alfredallan1 8y ago
  Here’s an article from as late as 1997. “Why Human Cloning Is Immoral” https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=180 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?rec... 2001 - "Catholic Church Condemns Human Cloning" https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-11-26-22-catholic-66407622/549352.html https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-11-26-22-catholic-6640... 1998 - Churches Condemn Plan to Clone Humans https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0113/011398.feat.feat.2.html https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0113/011398.feat.feat.2.html I never spoke as an authority, just made some remarks.
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    Surveys of populations have been shown opposition to the idea too. The idea that the Catholic Church might be considered a moral authority to any significant number of people is troubling. https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-human-cloning.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-huma... https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-human-cloning.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/5098/americans-oppose-idea-huma...
    - conception 8y ago
      "The idea that the Catholic Church might be considered a moral authority to any significant number of people is troubling." You mean outside of the 1.2 billion Catholics?
      - lostlogin 8y ago
        No, them specifically. The recent developments in Ireland seem to me to be a result of people questions the word of that institution, and that’s a good thing.
- sekh60 8y ago
  I lack any citations, but I remember when I was young and there was a decent amount of talk of ethics on the news in Canada about Dolly the sheep.
economistrator 8y ago
Luckily this is not the only direction: > To test his theory, he nailed his wife’s dog to a board and chopped it open while the poor thing was still alive. https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/29/descartes-dissected-his-wifes-dog-to-prove-a-point/ https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/29/descartes-dissected-his...
- ericd 8y ago
  >Descartes never married, but he did have a daughter, Francine, born in the Netherlands in 1635. https://www.biography.com/people/ren-descartes-37613 https://www.biography.com/people/ren-descartes-37613 Not sure if the rest is credible...
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    It might be a misunderstanding. In many languages, there is one commonly used word that translates (out of context) to "wife", "unmarried partner" and "woman" at the same time.
    - dotancohen 8y ago
      אישה That's the word the Bible uses for Eve. It means all three words, as you've mentioned. Being biblical, this form of speech is not uncommon in many European and Middle Eastern cultures and languages.
      - transmissible 8y ago
        Further reading: Helena Jans van der Strom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Descartes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_Descartes
        seszett 8y ago
        (edited to match parent) Her mother was Helena Jens, and she was already married to another man at the period this article talks about. Descartes was also back in France while she was still in the Netherlands. Although Descartes did vivisect animals for research purposes, I think it's safe to say that this particular account is an invention.

FrozenVoid 8y ago

There no explicit need for a "Complete brain". Here is example of functional network with 25k neurons: Rat brain cells organize, learn to control electrodes and fly a fighter jet in a simulation. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.h...

everdev 8y ago

The quick answer is to say it's not ethical. But what if the brain is given full autonomy and ability to communicate with others and then let the brain decide if it wants an organic or machine body?

opportune 8y ago
In several decades it may be possible to transplant such a brain into the body of a brain-dead human (preferably an infant Neanderthal brain into a brain dead human infant), which could alleviate a lot of ethical concerns from the start
dqpb 8y ago
I disagree. The quick answer is to say it is ethical.
- everdev 8y ago
  Why? If you create a conscious brain and leave it in a container, keeping it perpetually alive just to study it, that sounds pretty cruel. I'd imagine it would be like being in a conscious coma. Lack of social interaction is known to be damaging to people, so who knows what kind of distress an isolated brain might be in.
candiodari 8y ago
I don't think you should be so quick to call something moral or not. Let's take your statement and apply it to a few real life situations ... So what you're saying is we should take anything with a brain, figure out what it's answer would be to "do you want to be alive ?" and then support that decision ? Boy, you must hate abortion ... (just saying that those things obviously have a brain, and every last kid on the planet will say they want to be alive, so those embryos being aborted can be easily assumed to either be conscious or at least said to be rapidly becoming conscious, and we can be likewise sure they want to be alive as well. Human embryos have functional brains 20 days after conception, which is just barely after a woman would become aware of a pregnancy, and we support abortion up to 6 months or even later, at which point a human embryo has a brain with more functional neurons than almost any animal on the planet, and more than every dog, cat, primate, dolphin) (and just to defend this research, any research that gets us closer to being able to grow specific tissues - especially neural tissue - has the potential to alleviate the suffering of a great many people that have damaged nerves and/or brains) But we all know how we judge morals in practice. Things that can complain get preference. Brains in jars won't complain. Nobody will ever make a picture of them showing big eyes behind bars. There will never be a scream or panic reaction available in full-color video of them. So they'll be abused, even tortured, even for very little gain. Because that's how humans judge morality ... in practice. If you believe otherwise, good luck explaining the morality of abortion.

dqpb 8y ago

Where is the moral line drawn when it comes to using vague morality arguments to discourage research?

filoeleven 8y ago

The same question should be asked about research animals today then, as detailed in a sibling thread. “Brain grown on a dish” sounds preferable to “rat with a drilled skull.”

dnadler 8y ago
This question is asked and discussed rigorously any time a study that involves animal testing is proposed. At least it is in a scientific research setting in the US. There are boards dedicated to ensuring that the potential scientific benefit is sufficient to warrant whatever suffering the animals will endure. Obviously this is subjective, but the point is that these issues are considered in detail.
- sametmax 8y ago
  If you submitted a human to the same level of suffering, it would be considered torture, so this is kinda moot. Our systems are currently considering animals as not remotly as sensible or worth as us. This is true for food production, science, pets, etc. Actually our entire society exists because we delegate part of our suffering to other organisms, including other humans. Be it with pollution, war, drug testing, cattling, slavery... It would be foolish to pretend to have the moral ground unless one lives a very primitive life, but I think it's important to know the implied cost of our ways. It's saner, and more honest. As an annecdote, I recently worked on a software dedicated to study epilespy episods on mouses. The experiment induced epilespsy on the subjects. When discussing about this, the scientist handling the mouses told me not to worry because the ethics commity was making sure it was done properly. At this moment I though we, as a specy, add a dark humour touch to every thing we do.

vinchuco 8y ago

https://youtu.be/vjuQRCG_sUw https://youtu.be/vjuQRCG_sUw