5 ms·

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 re

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 5y ago
So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?
- rootusrootus 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.
  - brbsix 5y ago
    If the technology were readily accessible to conceive what could be referred to as a "super human" (without genetic disorder, resistance to disease, no predisposition for mental illness, superior athletic ability, high IQ), would it absolutely be immoral to conceive a human being via an entirely natural process? If it is absolutely immoral to genetically engineer a human being that would require an organ transplant then it would seemingly also be immoral to not utilize readily accessible technology that could have prevented such a disorder, no?
    - Edman274 5y ago
      >"If it is absolutely immoral to genetically engineer a human being that would require an organ transplant then it would seemingly also be immoral to not utilize readily accessible technology that could have prevented such a disorder, no?" Well, actually, no - that doesn't necessarily follow. It's not valid to say "if it's wrong to do x then it's wrong to not do things that prevent x" - you can substitute X for plenty of other things. It's wrong for me to steal money from a friend, but it doesn't logically follow that I'm morally obligated to buy a security system for my friend so he doesn't get stolen from. The analogy is kind of funky here, but I think you get what I'm saying. There's an intentionality that exists with genetic engineering that doesn't exist with people having kids the old-fashioned way. If someone has a child, and that child turns out to have a birth defect that causes issues, that's a sad accident most of the time, and accidents don't have the same moral quality as intentional acts, like genetically engineering someone. Let's not lose track of why this came up. The question was "So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?" and that was in response to "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." Asking if we're morally obligated to try to make super babies is a distraction from that earlier question. I said what I did not because I wanted to argue for or against the validity of eugenics, but because I wanted to call attention to how absurd the line of reasoning was. The person commenting thought that they hit on a pretty solid point when they seemed to equivocate scientists making human-monkey chimeras with people that have to use a fucking cane. I pointed out that no one is intentionally genetically engineering people to force them to have to use canes, and then you've come along to say that if it's possible to ensure that someone will be born without having to use a cane, then they're morally obligated to do that. Somewhere we went off the rails, huh?
- slumdev 5y ago
  > So, are trans folks immoral? Yes. > Organ transplants? OK, as long as they were taken from someone who was actually dead. Not all organs can be taken after death. In these cases, the transplant surgeon ends the donor's life in the process of harvesting. > Prosthetics? OK.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Is biological death the same as clinical one? Should someone be resurrected?
    - slumdev 5y ago
      Death is irreversible, but our understanding of it keeps improving. At one point, pulmonary arrest was considered death. Then, cardiac arrest. Now, we use the cessation of brain activity as an approximation, but there have been plenty of cases of patients with zero brain activity making full recoveries. The best definition of death is probably information-theoretic death. But that's not something we know how to measure (yet), so the organ harvests continue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-theoretic_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-theoretic_death
mb_72 5y ago
"...create something which is horribly mutated, fucked up genetically, and experiences only pain for its entire life." 'God' does this all the time already. Friends of mine recently had a baby girl; she is missing part of one of her chromosomes. The family is very religious, and is being torn apart trying to understand how their 'loving God' could have done such a thing. So this 'morality' you speak of is making a tragic and difficult event far worse. You are also neglecting the 'unnatural' processes that allow many worthy people have children via IVF. 'Natural' science and medicine had it's place back in medieval times, but not now. Same goes for religion.
- deertick1 5y ago
  Eh like I said I was not as concise as I would like to have been in my comment : IVF is not creating a completely new, engineered organism. Not really what I am talking about. And man, the idea that religion has no place in the modern world would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. Religion serves a veokry important role in society and we abandon it at our peril. I am sorry to hear about your friend, but this is really not comparable to engineering a new unique organism. And I'm sure her pain would be just as great or worse without a god in her life. Christians realize that there are trials in the world. Re: the book of Job.
  - nvrspyx 5y ago
    As someone that doesn't abhor religion, the following isn't meant as argumentative, but rather curiosity: > Religion serves a very important role in society and we abandon it at our peril. What "important role" might that be? I don't see the necessity of religion and don't think there's anything inherent of religions that can't be supplemented by the surrounding culture.
    - deertick1 5y ago
      I think that reasoning about morality without an irrational, faith-based approach leads to a "slippery slope" if you will of reasoning. Essentially, I believe that the fundamental utility of religion is that it provides a framework for morality which is external to logic : therefore it allows one to establish moral barriers which cannot be cross regardless of any logical rationalization. This is important when considering things like eugenics - there are rational lines of thought that lead you to very very ugly conclusions. If you have an arational "hard stop" at the personal and societal level, we avoid these situations.
dqpb 5y ago
> it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes I disagree on two parts: 1. I think it’s immoral to oppose the creation of sentient beings. 2. If we create sentient beings, those beings will have been created by a natural process, because we (and our actions) are natural processes.
- deertick1 5y ago
  Interesting points. Personally, not sure I agree with 1. Lots of scenarios where creating a sentient being would be bad - like if that being can only experience endless pain. On point 2 : well you got me there. Let me be more precise : its not the "natural processes" part that is important, but my point was rather that this type of hybridizing results in the creation of organisms which have not been time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution. We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Quite tragic in my view if this is the outcome. I just think we'd better not even go there.
  - dqpb 5y ago
    Both of your objections are true for natural evolution. > “time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution” Those refining pressures are not kind or gentle.
    - deertick1 5y ago
      Sure, but we can't stop those processes. We can stop ourselves from being unkind, though
  - maroonblazer 5y ago
    > We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Although I think this is unlikely, let's accept it as true for the sake of argument. Eventually I think it's fair to presume we'd come to understand which variations of the process produce your 'abomination' and solve that problem, such that we go on to produce many, many more organisms that don't suffer this same experience. Would this not be a better outcome than 'not even going there'?

Ar-Curunir 5y ago

So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?

rootusrootus 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.
- brbsix 5y ago
  If the technology were readily accessible to conceive what could be referred to as a "super human" (without genetic disorder, resistance to disease, no predisposition for mental illness, superior athletic ability, high IQ), would it absolutely be immoral to conceive a human being via an entirely natural process? If it is absolutely immoral to genetically engineer a human being that would require an organ transplant then it would seemingly also be immoral to not utilize readily accessible technology that could have prevented such a disorder, no?
  - Edman274 5y ago
    >"If it is absolutely immoral to genetically engineer a human being that would require an organ transplant then it would seemingly also be immoral to not utilize readily accessible technology that could have prevented such a disorder, no?" Well, actually, no - that doesn't necessarily follow. It's not valid to say "if it's wrong to do x then it's wrong to not do things that prevent x" - you can substitute X for plenty of other things. It's wrong for me to steal money from a friend, but it doesn't logically follow that I'm morally obligated to buy a security system for my friend so he doesn't get stolen from. The analogy is kind of funky here, but I think you get what I'm saying. There's an intentionality that exists with genetic engineering that doesn't exist with people having kids the old-fashioned way. If someone has a child, and that child turns out to have a birth defect that causes issues, that's a sad accident most of the time, and accidents don't have the same moral quality as intentional acts, like genetically engineering someone. Let's not lose track of why this came up. The question was "So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?" and that was in response to "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." Asking if we're morally obligated to try to make super babies is a distraction from that earlier question. I said what I did not because I wanted to argue for or against the validity of eugenics, but because I wanted to call attention to how absurd the line of reasoning was. The person commenting thought that they hit on a pretty solid point when they seemed to equivocate scientists making human-monkey chimeras with people that have to use a fucking cane. I pointed out that no one is intentionally genetically engineering people to force them to have to use canes, and then you've come along to say that if it's possible to ensure that someone will be born without having to use a cane, then they're morally obligated to do that. Somewhere we went off the rails, huh?
slumdev 5y ago
> So, are trans folks immoral? Yes. > Organ transplants? OK, as long as they were taken from someone who was actually dead. Not all organs can be taken after death. In these cases, the transplant surgeon ends the donor's life in the process of harvesting. > Prosthetics? OK.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Is biological death the same as clinical one? Should someone be resurrected?
  - slumdev 5y ago
    Death is irreversible, but our understanding of it keeps improving. At one point, pulmonary arrest was considered death. Then, cardiac arrest. Now, we use the cessation of brain activity as an approximation, but there have been plenty of cases of patients with zero brain activity making full recoveries. The best definition of death is probably information-theoretic death. But that's not something we know how to measure (yet), so the organ harvests continue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-theoretic_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-theoretic_death

mb_72 5y ago

"...create something which is horribly mutated, fucked up genetically, and experiences only pain for its entire life." 'God' does this all the time already. Friends of mine recently had a baby girl; she is missing part of one of her chromosomes. The family is very religious, and is being torn apart trying to understand how their 'loving God' could have done such a thing. So this 'morality' you speak of is making a tragic and difficult event far worse. You are also neglecting the 'unnatural' processes that allow many worthy people have children via IVF. 'Natural' science and medicine had it's place back in medieval times, but not now. Same goes for religion.

deertick1 5y ago
Eh like I said I was not as concise as I would like to have been in my comment : IVF is not creating a completely new, engineered organism. Not really what I am talking about. And man, the idea that religion has no place in the modern world would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. Religion serves a veokry important role in society and we abandon it at our peril. I am sorry to hear about your friend, but this is really not comparable to engineering a new unique organism. And I'm sure her pain would be just as great or worse without a god in her life. Christians realize that there are trials in the world. Re: the book of Job.
- nvrspyx 5y ago
  As someone that doesn't abhor religion, the following isn't meant as argumentative, but rather curiosity: > Religion serves a very important role in society and we abandon it at our peril. What "important role" might that be? I don't see the necessity of religion and don't think there's anything inherent of religions that can't be supplemented by the surrounding culture.
  - deertick1 5y ago
    I think that reasoning about morality without an irrational, faith-based approach leads to a "slippery slope" if you will of reasoning. Essentially, I believe that the fundamental utility of religion is that it provides a framework for morality which is external to logic : therefore it allows one to establish moral barriers which cannot be cross regardless of any logical rationalization. This is important when considering things like eugenics - there are rational lines of thought that lead you to very very ugly conclusions. If you have an arational "hard stop" at the personal and societal level, we avoid these situations.

dqpb 5y ago

> it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes I disagree on two parts: 1. I think it’s immoral to oppose the creation of sentient beings. 2. If we create sentient beings, those beings will have been created by a natural process, because we (and our actions) are natural processes.

deertick1 5y ago
Interesting points. Personally, not sure I agree with 1. Lots of scenarios where creating a sentient being would be bad - like if that being can only experience endless pain. On point 2 : well you got me there. Let me be more precise : its not the "natural processes" part that is important, but my point was rather that this type of hybridizing results in the creation of organisms which have not been time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution. We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Quite tragic in my view if this is the outcome. I just think we'd better not even go there.
- dqpb 5y ago
  Both of your objections are true for natural evolution. > “time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution” Those refining pressures are not kind or gentle.
  - deertick1 5y ago
    Sure, but we can't stop those processes. We can stop ourselves from being unkind, though
- maroonblazer 5y ago
  > We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Although I think this is unlikely, let's accept it as true for the sake of argument. Eventually I think it's fair to presume we'd come to understand which variations of the process produce your 'abomination' and solve that problem, such that we go on to produce many, many more organisms that don't suffer this same experience. Would this not be a better outcome than 'not even going there'?