4 ms·
> 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. A
by maroonblazer 6y 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'?
- deertick1 6y agoPersonally, I think it would not be a better outcome, no. What would be the point of creating new species? Sow more division and war and violence. I just dont see it turning out well. Inherently humans would be the "creators" of the other species. Sounds like a recipe for some horrible problems with speciesm.
- maroonblazer 6y ago> What would be the point of creating new species? I've not given it a lot of thought but off the top of my head: Imagine a monkey or ape that possesses above-average (for an ape) intelligence that could be a home-health assistant, taking care of an elderly person who wishes to maintain some independence and not move into a nursing home. Or a disabled adult who needs special care throughout the day. Speciesism seems a remote risk when you consider the fact that our moral circle of concern has only widened across history.