5 ms·
Why not? I'd like to live as long as possible, and I'm not squeamish about life forms with consciousness at the level of what we eat every day. You're free no
by carmen_sandiego 6y ago
Why not? I'd like to live as long as possible, and I'm not squeamish about life forms with consciousness at the level of what we eat every day.
You're free not to use the outputs if you have personal objections.
- mrfinn 6y agoWell, if media is making us aware that scientists are already doing this using mices, you can be pretty sure that by now, at some random place in the world, somebody is already trying it using human fetuses. Oh boy how quickly we are running into the dystopia.
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoI'm not sure it really plays out like that. At least the 'monkeys and typewriters' scale setup is not there, I think. Maybe if you asked me five years ago, I'd have ventured that China will try some out-there genetic stuff with some successes, but we haven't really seen much. And (not to get into politics) but China is not too concerned about traditional Western ethical boundaries, it seems.
- staticman2 6y agoThere's nothing unethical about artificial wombs if they work well, it's the whole "just because I can build it doesn't mean it will result in a healthy baby" aspect where the problem lies.
- mrfinn 6y agoThe whole issue is unethical as... For starters, to reach the "work well" status is going to require a ton of failures, at any level of the "pregnancy". Anyway, any possible concern we could express about it doesn't matter at all, somebody is going to do it. Of course it won't be shown in the news.
- konjin 6y agoThe dystopia of gender equality, where a women don't have to spend 9 months being a life support system in their 20s/30s.
- ScoobleDoodle 6y agoAnd other people aren’t squeamish about murder or genocide. Just because one person, or you, aren’t squeamish about something doesn’t make it right for society. That’s why we look to history and anticipate possible future consequences and make decisions about current regulations based on the future we want to bring about. I prefer a future without harvesting humans for the members of dynasties that can afford it, while those with ethics are left behind or destroyed.
- Sporktacular 6y ago300 years ago: I'm not squeamish about life forms with consciousness at the level of what we enslave every day. The cases aren't the same, but the lazy callousness is.
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoThe difference is, we know that slaves have equally developed consciousness. So that wasn't based in fact. Animals don't have human-level consciousness. We're not going to discover some day that they do.
- Sporktacular 6y agoProve it - we do't understand consciousness enough to make such claims. Or at least have the wisdom to apply the precautionary principle when you don't know.
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoProof is a Math thing. I'm comfortable with the weight of evidence from all the tests we devise for this purpose, combined with the fact we actively strive to show the consciousness of animals in a way we never did with slaves. You're free to disagree and consider it hubris, many animal rights activists do. N.B. I don't believe we fully understand consciousness. Just that factory farm animal consciousness is categorically not at a human level.
- throwaway316943 6y agoProof is a Math and Logic thing.
- carmen_sandiego 6y agoIf we're being pedantic, I just consider Logic a branch of Mathematics.