8 ms·

Awesome, love this bit mentioned: ``` “It is sometimes argued that … [the creation of part-human chimeras] will undermine an important moral view: that it mat

Awesome, love this bit mentioned: ``` “It is sometimes argued that … [the creation of part-human chimeras] will undermine an important moral view: that it matters, morally, which species we belong to,” the report reads. ”This argument assumes that we ought to preserve the view that boundaries between species are fixed, natural, and morally relevant, with full moral status reserved exclusively for humans. Yet even if creating part-human chimeras alters public attitudes in this way (and it is not obvious that it would), it is unclear why it is important for us to preserve the view that biological humanness is both necessary and sufficient for full moral status… Accordingly, it might be a good thing if the creation of part-human chimeras prompts us to rethink the significance we currently attach to species membership.” ``` Love things that poke at the arbitrary borders in our heads, its part of the reason that I appreciate what the pandemic has shown us about the education system here in the US: <inflammatory-statement> we were forced to confront the reality that the main purpose of grade-school is more so to act as a glorified mass-daycare, rather a 'critical source of development of intelligence/knowledge/maturity'. </inflammatory-statement>

Edman274 6y ago
From my perspective, the fact someone could say that a line is drawn "arbitrarily" is absolutely a worthless red herring. You could argue that the difference between pre-birth and post-birth fetuses is fuzzy and arbitrary, but we still don't allow people to kill newborns. You could argue that the difference between a child and an adult is a fuzzy, arbitrary line, but we still don't allow the exploitation of children. We can argue that the line between a combatant and a non-combatant in a warzone is a fuzzy, arbitrary line, but we make killing civilians a war crime. The fact that moral lines can be drawn in a way that someone considers to be arbitrary is basically no different in form or substance from arguing that morality does not exist. Nothing is fixed. Everything is fuzzy. If you can't draw a line because you could draw it somewhere else, the end result is barbarism.
- tcbawo 6y ago
  In fact, now that the line can be blurred means we will need to put the matter up for lawyers, legislators, and judges to decide. What can go wrong there?
- hello333 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure the idea that drawing a line somewhat arbitrarily implies there shouldn't be a line is a straw man. Who is arguing this? The quote from the article advocates for more stringent morals--that beings that aren't fully human should be given similar moral weight as humans. It also suggests, more broadly, that we should reconsider both where these lines are drawn and if they should really be lines instead of gradients. But I see no indication that the lines should become less restrictive or any trend toward barbarism.
  - Edman274 6y ago
    I took issue with the quoted part: "it is unclear why it is important for us to preserve the view that biological humanness is both necessary and sufficient for full moral status." Notice how they said both "necessary and sufficient"? When both are included, there's an implication here that it might be possible for someone to be fully biologically human and yet without full moral rights - that, for example, someone with a different number of chromosomes isn't entitled to life - that someone can be a human and that being human is not "sufficient" for them to have human rights. That's dystopian. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith on the part of the author.
    - kaba0 6y ago
      I think the other direction is implied, that is someone not being biologically human can be considered conscious and “human” like a chimp, or some hybrid chimera monkey-human.
    - JellyBeanThief 6y ago
      >That's dystopian. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith on the part of the author. I think you are. Because while your examination of the logic is sound as far as it goes, I think you stop where the author trusts you to continue. The idea that humans don't deserve full moral rights is so unpopular that author trusts you to infer that they hold some other view. Along the lines of "maybe there are non-human species which deserve full moral rights as well." I will deliberately not get more specific than that about what the author, because if I did I would probably be bringing the details of my own views rather than theirs. But for myself, it seems highly plausible that other species with highly sophisticated individual social behavior may be able to suffer in ways we're used to thinking of as unique to human experience. And I think there are other people, maybe not yourself, who might accept this plausibility if they are forced to confront the reality of human chimeras. Of course, there's also the priests, and I expect a very different reaction from them.
- kaba0 6y ago
  > You could argue that the difference between pre-birth and post-birth fetuses is fuzzy and arbitrary If you don’t view the “attached” women as a living person that can die from childbirth.. Also, there is a very real difference between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester one. The latter is only ever aborted when the life of the mother is in danger (eg. with mothers less than 18). Just a nitpick.
germinalphrase 6y ago
The problem is not acknowledging that elementary school functions as daycare. That is obvious and important. The problem is asserting that it only functions as daycare (which many do - in bad faith - when the topic is discussed).
honkycat 6y ago
Its child jail where you are given obedience points for doing busywork. Total waste of time.
hokumguru 6y ago
Four observations like this, and more, I suggest Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It’s a phenomenal book about inspecting humanity from an outsider perspective
- ethbr0 6y ago
  https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/ishmael-daniel-quinn/1101818677 https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/ishmael-daniel-quinn/11018186... Second the recommendation.
  - 0_gravitas 6y ago
    Added to the list!
deertick1 6y ago
Wow what a ridiculously asinine and misleading comment (the qouted comment, not the HN comment). The moral reprehensibility of such an experiment is not the result of humans treating any other species as lesser, morally- rather, it is because it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes. To bring a sentient being into the world which is created by human engineering process is immoral because there are no guarantees that we do not create something which is horribly mutated, fucked up genetically, and experiences only pain for its entire life. It has nothing to do with humans thinking they are better than animals, and everything to do with the fear of humans thinking they are better than God (or nature if that strikes your fancy) I didn't put this quite as eloquently as I would like to have, but for fucks sake y'all - get your head cut in and don't drink the coolaid of these psychopathic scientists that think they have a better understanding of morality through science the the aggregate of a long heritage of human moral reasoning.
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    While I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point OP made, it's pretty clear that 'creating a sentient being' is the line being crossed. Modding a being already in existence is not at all comparable.
  - deertick1 6y ago
    Are trans folks immoral : No I don't care what someone choses to do with their own body, that's their business. Organ transplants : No, this is a life saving (or condition improving) medical procedure. Same for prosthetics. I am referring only to experiments where the outcome might be the creation of a new species of sentient being. Pretty much I'm drawing the line at exactly the posted experiment.
  - Edman274 6y ago
    It would absolutely be immoral to genetically engineer a human to be born so that their gender identity and their biological form don't match. It would absolutely be immoral to genetically engineer a human so that they need to have organ transplants. It would absolutely be immoral to have scientists in the lab spend years doing research on how to create a human being that will be born needing to use a prosthetic leg. I don't think anyone is saying that if a fucking Frankenstein's monster human/monkey hybrid were engineered, that people would say that the chimera itself had committed an immoral act. They would say that it was wrong to make that thing. You don't even understand what point you're trying to make.
meristohm 6y ago
Something that contributed to caring about all life on this earth was understanding it will likely not last forever, either due to the sun expanding or, ultimately, cooling near zero. Related song: Born to Die, by Kelly Clarkson Off-topic, but responding regarding US schools: as a licensed physics teacher I generally agree; schools are holding pens, with an upside of strengthening peer-bonds through suffering together. The experience that best lined up with helping students find joy in learning (so they might continue on their own, at the library, etc) was teaching at an alternative public school. The small team of teachers was able to get to know all the students (in a community-size below Dumbar’s number) enough to genuinely care and get closer to meeting individual needs, as if everyone were on an IEP (individualized education plan). I don’t know what changes to prioritize except early-childhood education to minimize trauma and educate our first teachers (parents). It’s a big, complex system with inertia.
colordrops 6y ago
I'd like to believe that something like this would lead to only eating fruit that has fallen from the tree and started to rot, and people wearing face masks at all times and sweeping the ground in front of them as they walk to avoid killing anything, but it will probably go the other way - a caste system would form.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
127 6y ago
>The first orks of the sixth World emerged during the Unexplained Genetic Expression in the year 2021 as either young humans changed to orks or ones born as orks from human parents. They are considered metahumans, like trolls, elves, and dwarfs. Orks are able to interbreed with humans and fellow metahumans. Despite this, their offspring will be of the race of only one of their parents. No half-breeds exist. -Shadowrun RPG

Edman274 6y ago

From my perspective, the fact someone could say that a line is drawn "arbitrarily" is absolutely a worthless red herring. You could argue that the difference between pre-birth and post-birth fetuses is fuzzy and arbitrary, but we still don't allow people to kill newborns. You could argue that the difference between a child and an adult is a fuzzy, arbitrary line, but we still don't allow the exploitation of children. We can argue that the line between a combatant and a non-combatant in a warzone is a fuzzy, arbitrary line, but we make killing civilians a war crime. The fact that moral lines can be drawn in a way that someone considers to be arbitrary is basically no different in form or substance from arguing that morality does not exist. Nothing is fixed. Everything is fuzzy. If you can't draw a line because you could draw it somewhere else, the end result is barbarism.

tcbawo 6y ago
In fact, now that the line can be blurred means we will need to put the matter up for lawyers, legislators, and judges to decide. What can go wrong there?
hello333 6y ago
I'm pretty sure the idea that drawing a line somewhat arbitrarily implies there shouldn't be a line is a straw man. Who is arguing this? The quote from the article advocates for more stringent morals--that beings that aren't fully human should be given similar moral weight as humans. It also suggests, more broadly, that we should reconsider both where these lines are drawn and if they should really be lines instead of gradients. But I see no indication that the lines should become less restrictive or any trend toward barbarism.
- Edman274 6y ago
  I took issue with the quoted part: "it is unclear why it is important for us to preserve the view that biological humanness is both necessary and sufficient for full moral status." Notice how they said both "necessary and sufficient"? When both are included, there's an implication here that it might be possible for someone to be fully biologically human and yet without full moral rights - that, for example, someone with a different number of chromosomes isn't entitled to life - that someone can be a human and that being human is not "sufficient" for them to have human rights. That's dystopian. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith on the part of the author.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    I think the other direction is implied, that is someone not being biologically human can be considered conscious and “human” like a chimp, or some hybrid chimera monkey-human.
  - JellyBeanThief 6y ago
    >That's dystopian. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith on the part of the author. I think you are. Because while your examination of the logic is sound as far as it goes, I think you stop where the author trusts you to continue. The idea that humans don't deserve full moral rights is so unpopular that author trusts you to infer that they hold some other view. Along the lines of "maybe there are non-human species which deserve full moral rights as well." I will deliberately not get more specific than that about what the author, because if I did I would probably be bringing the details of my own views rather than theirs. But for myself, it seems highly plausible that other species with highly sophisticated individual social behavior may be able to suffer in ways we're used to thinking of as unique to human experience. And I think there are other people, maybe not yourself, who might accept this plausibility if they are forced to confront the reality of human chimeras. Of course, there's also the priests, and I expect a very different reaction from them.
kaba0 6y ago
> You could argue that the difference between pre-birth and post-birth fetuses is fuzzy and arbitrary If you don’t view the “attached” women as a living person that can die from childbirth.. Also, there is a very real difference between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester one. The latter is only ever aborted when the life of the mother is in danger (eg. with mothers less than 18). Just a nitpick.

germinalphrase 6y ago

The problem is not acknowledging that elementary school functions as daycare. That is obvious and important. The problem is asserting that it only functions as daycare (which many do - in bad faith - when the topic is discussed).

honkycat 6y ago

Its child jail where you are given obedience points for doing busywork. Total waste of time.

hokumguru 6y ago

Four observations like this, and more, I suggest Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It’s a phenomenal book about inspecting humanity from an outsider perspective

ethbr0 6y ago
https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/ishmael-daniel-quinn/1101818677 https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/ishmael-daniel-quinn/11018186... Second the recommendation.
- 0_gravitas 6y ago
  Added to the list!

deertick1 6y ago

Wow what a ridiculously asinine and misleading comment (the qouted comment, not the HN comment). The moral reprehensibility of such an experiment is not the result of humans treating any other species as lesser, morally- rather, it is because it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes. To bring a sentient being into the world which is created by human engineering process is immoral because there are no guarantees that we do not create something which is horribly mutated, fucked up genetically, and experiences only pain for its entire life. It has nothing to do with humans thinking they are better than animals, and everything to do with the fear of humans thinking they are better than God (or nature if that strikes your fancy) I didn't put this quite as eloquently as I would like to have, but for fucks sake y'all - get your head cut in and don't drink the coolaid of these psychopathic scientists that think they have a better understanding of morality through science the the aggregate of a long heritage of human moral reasoning.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago
So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  While I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point OP made, it's pretty clear that 'creating a sentient being' is the line being crossed. Modding a being already in existence is not at all comparable.
- deertick1 6y ago
  Are trans folks immoral : No I don't care what someone choses to do with their own body, that's their business. Organ transplants : No, this is a life saving (or condition improving) medical procedure. Same for prosthetics. I am referring only to experiments where the outcome might be the creation of a new species of sentient being. Pretty much I'm drawing the line at exactly the posted experiment.
- Edman274 6y ago
  It would absolutely be immoral to genetically engineer a human to be born so that their gender identity and their biological form don't match. It would absolutely be immoral to genetically engineer a human so that they need to have organ transplants. It would absolutely be immoral to have scientists in the lab spend years doing research on how to create a human being that will be born needing to use a prosthetic leg. I don't think anyone is saying that if a fucking Frankenstein's monster human/monkey hybrid were engineered, that people would say that the chimera itself had committed an immoral act. They would say that it was wrong to make that thing. You don't even understand what point you're trying to make.

meristohm 6y ago

Something that contributed to caring about all life on this earth was understanding it will likely not last forever, either due to the sun expanding or, ultimately, cooling near zero. Related song: Born to Die, by Kelly Clarkson Off-topic, but responding regarding US schools: as a licensed physics teacher I generally agree; schools are holding pens, with an upside of strengthening peer-bonds through suffering together. The experience that best lined up with helping students find joy in learning (so they might continue on their own, at the library, etc) was teaching at an alternative public school. The small team of teachers was able to get to know all the students (in a community-size below Dumbar’s number) enough to genuinely care and get closer to meeting individual needs, as if everyone were on an IEP (individualized education plan). I don’t know what changes to prioritize except early-childhood education to minimize trauma and educate our first teachers (parents). It’s a big, complex system with inertia.

colordrops 6y ago

I'd like to believe that something like this would lead to only eating fruit that has fallen from the tree and started to rot, and people wearing face masks at all times and sweeping the ground in front of them as they walk to avoid killing anything, but it will probably go the other way - a caste system would form.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

127 6y ago

>The first orks of the sixth World emerged during the Unexplained Genetic Expression in the year 2021 as either young humans changed to orks or ones born as orks from human parents. They are considered metahumans, like trolls, elves, and dwarfs. Orks are able to interbreed with humans and fellow metahumans. Despite this, their offspring will be of the race of only one of their parents. No half-breeds exist. -Shadowrun RPG