5 ms·

At what point does a thing become a human-thing? Imagine there was a way to copy a few human genes over to a mouse so that its immune system more closely resemb

At what point does a thing become a human-thing? Imagine there was a way to copy a few human genes over to a mouse so that its immune system more closely resembled a human, but it was still, in every other respect, a mouse. Would it be a human-mouse?

halfjoking 6y ago
Good question. Ear-mouse wants to hear the answer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1949073_mouse_ear300.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1949073_mouse_...
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  Ear mouse cant hear the answer because its additional ear is just some cow cartliage that's been molded to resemble an ear.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 7373737373 6y ago
    Very much unlike Michael Levin's tadpole gut-eyes: https://youtu.be/XheAMrS8Q1c?t=743 https://youtu.be/XheAMrS8Q1c?t=743
warent 6y ago
It's a great discussion to have when the matter at hand is that subtle. Frankensteining together human stem cells and monkey blastocysts until something works is pretty far from surgically selecting specific genes. From the article: The announcement of the new chimeras will no doubt be labelled “unnatural” or “playing God” by some people – but the same could be said about many scientific breakthroughs. An iPhone is unnatural. When lifeforms are compared to iPhones, we've reached a pretty clear David Mitchell moment of saying "Are we the baddies?" Something reeks here of amoral science. We need a better understanding of consciousness and awareness before trying such things, or it's only a matter of time before realizing a catastrophic error that joins the many permanent stains of humanity, as we accidentally become the monster "AM" in "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream"
- kaba0 6y ago
  I agree that we should be maximally wary of ethical considerations here, but a uniform mass of cells is a uniform mass of cells. We do know when important structures develop. For example, one of the most important cell line in research is called HeLa, which was harvested from a woman with the same initials without consent from a cancerous growth. Since then, it was grown to a huge biomass (couldn’t find exact number). Other than the lack of consent which is obviously amoral, would you consider research on this human cell line bad?
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  "We need a better understanding of consciousness" I disagree. A small lump of cells is not more conscious or capable of suffering than a cow which most of us accept being killed for a steak.
  - 7373737373 6y ago
    [citation needed] No one has any idea what consciousness is, how it arises, what its physical correlates and boundaries are, what perceived valence corresponds to, whether small systems can experience pleasure or suffering beyond what humans are used to...
    - fighterpilot 6y ago
      > No one has any idea what ... its physical correlates ... are We do know a fair bit about the neural (physical) correlates of consciousness in humans, and the evolutionary purpose of those facets of consciousness, such as fear or pain. This understanding can help us to make a reasoned guess that cows are more capable of suffering than a small lump of cells in a blastocyst: (1) We can see that cows have similar brain structures to humans[1], where those brain structures (amygdala, etc) are known to be a necessary condition for pain or fear perception in humans, and those same brain structures are absent in a blastocyst. (2) We know that pain and fear is an adaptation that all/most mammals likely have, because (i) it confers significant fitness, and because (ii) it manifests below our cortex (e.g. in the amygdala) which suggests it evolved fairly early. My claim isn't that a blastocyst doesn't have consciousness. My claim is that its consciousness and capability to suffer is likely to be less than that of a cow (based on the above reasoning), and so society should make sure it is being ethically consistent in the way it treats both. My first question to you would be - if your position is correct, i.e. that we should be extremely ethically cautious with blastocysts because they may suffer and have conscious states - how can society then ethically justify abortion? My second question would be - how can a meat eater (which you might not be) express such ethical caution pertaining to blastocysts but willingly eat meat? [I am a meat eater]. [1] This is pertaining to sheeps' (not cows') amygdala, but the point is the same - https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.24522 https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.2...
samuli 6y ago
At no single point, the brains, central nervous system, etc develop little by little. When the baby gets out of womb, their eyes start to gain sight. They're practically unable to focus their vision after birth. So, we have a quite good understanding on what happens at what week of pregnancy and when it is just biomass, and when it starts to have "structure".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

halfjoking 6y ago

Good question. Ear-mouse wants to hear the answer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1949073_mouse_ear300.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1949073_mouse_...

scoopertrooper 6y ago
Ear mouse cant hear the answer because its additional ear is just some cow cartliage that's been molded to resemble an ear.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 7373737373 6y ago
  Very much unlike Michael Levin's tadpole gut-eyes: https://youtu.be/XheAMrS8Q1c?t=743 https://youtu.be/XheAMrS8Q1c?t=743

warent 6y ago

It's a great discussion to have when the matter at hand is that subtle. Frankensteining together human stem cells and monkey blastocysts until something works is pretty far from surgically selecting specific genes. From the article: The announcement of the new chimeras will no doubt be labelled “unnatural” or “playing God” by some people – but the same could be said about many scientific breakthroughs. An iPhone is unnatural. When lifeforms are compared to iPhones, we've reached a pretty clear David Mitchell moment of saying "Are we the baddies?" Something reeks here of amoral science. We need a better understanding of consciousness and awareness before trying such things, or it's only a matter of time before realizing a catastrophic error that joins the many permanent stains of humanity, as we accidentally become the monster "AM" in "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream"

kaba0 6y ago
I agree that we should be maximally wary of ethical considerations here, but a uniform mass of cells is a uniform mass of cells. We do know when important structures develop. For example, one of the most important cell line in research is called HeLa, which was harvested from a woman with the same initials without consent from a cancerous growth. Since then, it was grown to a huge biomass (couldn’t find exact number). Other than the lack of consent which is obviously amoral, would you consider research on this human cell line bad?
fighterpilot 6y ago
"We need a better understanding of consciousness" I disagree. A small lump of cells is not more conscious or capable of suffering than a cow which most of us accept being killed for a steak.
- 7373737373 6y ago
  [citation needed] No one has any idea what consciousness is, how it arises, what its physical correlates and boundaries are, what perceived valence corresponds to, whether small systems can experience pleasure or suffering beyond what humans are used to...
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    > No one has any idea what ... its physical correlates ... are We do know a fair bit about the neural (physical) correlates of consciousness in humans, and the evolutionary purpose of those facets of consciousness, such as fear or pain. This understanding can help us to make a reasoned guess that cows are more capable of suffering than a small lump of cells in a blastocyst: (1) We can see that cows have similar brain structures to humans[1], where those brain structures (amygdala, etc) are known to be a necessary condition for pain or fear perception in humans, and those same brain structures are absent in a blastocyst. (2) We know that pain and fear is an adaptation that all/most mammals likely have, because (i) it confers significant fitness, and because (ii) it manifests below our cortex (e.g. in the amygdala) which suggests it evolved fairly early. My claim isn't that a blastocyst doesn't have consciousness. My claim is that its consciousness and capability to suffer is likely to be less than that of a cow (based on the above reasoning), and so society should make sure it is being ethically consistent in the way it treats both. My first question to you would be - if your position is correct, i.e. that we should be extremely ethically cautious with blastocysts because they may suffer and have conscious states - how can society then ethically justify abortion? My second question would be - how can a meat eater (which you might not be) express such ethical caution pertaining to blastocysts but willingly eat meat? [I am a meat eater]. [1] This is pertaining to sheeps' (not cows') amygdala, but the point is the same - https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.24522 https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.2...

samuli 6y ago

At no single point, the brains, central nervous system, etc develop little by little. When the baby gets out of womb, their eyes start to gain sight. They're practically unable to focus their vision after birth. So, we have a quite good understanding on what happens at what week of pregnancy and when it is just biomass, and when it starts to have "structure".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]