4 ms·

would it count as cannibalism to eat such kidney?

ahmedalsudani 5y ago
This question will be even more pertinent in 2050, when instead of modifying pigs so that they're more similar to us, we'll be modifying Homo sapiens to stunt their intelligent. Those Homo stulti will have neither the agency nor the ability to decide their fate, but their organs will drastically improve the quality of life for sapiens. Interesting times :)
- keymone 5y ago
  that's too grim, i think probability is much larger that we figure out a way to grow human organs inside pigs before we turn actual humans into mindless incubators.
  - ahmedalsudani 5y ago
    Perhaps it sounds grim, but it seems no different than what we're doing. Do we base our morality on the patterns of the synapses or the shape of the bodies? The former makes more sense to me. To be absolutely clear, this is not an endorsement of modifying humans for the purpose of farming organs. It's more about highlighting the thin moral line that relies on the body shape.
    - keymone 5y ago
      but then the act of depriving a being of a certain pattern of synapses that would make it immoral to harm is immoral in itself.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      The researchers in the article just modified the pig's DNA so it doesn't express a particular sugar that the human immune system doesn't like. No human DNA goes in the pig.
- nathias 5y ago
  hyperpigs are people too!
siva7 5y ago
No but there has to be a new word invented
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  ...Cultured Meat?
rincebrain 5y ago
That's more complicated than it might seem at first glance. AIUI, the modification to the pig was "just" "let's remove the genes that result in this one sugar that lots of animals but not some apes and humans have" (which is also the thing that you develop an allergy to if you're bitten by the Lone Star tick, incidentally), not "let's stick a bunch of human genes in", so _these_ organs wouldn't have much tinge for cannibalism unless you ate them post-transplant. (This article doesn't, but another one mentions one of the original intended use cases for the GalSafe pigs _is_ for eating, including by people who have the Alpha-Gal allergy.) They're _also_ working on pigs with one or more human genes spliced in for better compatibility, but that's not these.

This question will be even more pertinent in 2050, when instead of modifying pigs so that they're more similar to us, we'll be modifying Homo sapiens to stunt their intelligent. Those Homo stulti will have neither the agency nor the ability to decide their fate, but their organs will drastically improve the quality of life for sapiens. Interesting times :)

keymone 5y ago
that's too grim, i think probability is much larger that we figure out a way to grow human organs inside pigs before we turn actual humans into mindless incubators.
- ahmedalsudani 5y ago
  Perhaps it sounds grim, but it seems no different than what we're doing. Do we base our morality on the patterns of the synapses or the shape of the bodies? The former makes more sense to me. To be absolutely clear, this is not an endorsement of modifying humans for the purpose of farming organs. It's more about highlighting the thin moral line that relies on the body shape.
  - keymone 5y ago
    but then the act of depriving a being of a certain pattern of synapses that would make it immoral to harm is immoral in itself.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    The researchers in the article just modified the pig's DNA so it doesn't express a particular sugar that the human immune system doesn't like. No human DNA goes in the pig.
nathias 5y ago
hyperpigs are people too!

siva7 5y ago

No but there has to be a new word invented

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
...Cultured Meat?

rincebrain 5y ago

That's more complicated than it might seem at first glance. AIUI, the modification to the pig was "just" "let's remove the genes that result in this one sugar that lots of animals but not some apes and humans have" (which is also the thing that you develop an allergy to if you're bitten by the Lone Star tick, incidentally), not "let's stick a bunch of human genes in", so _these_ organs wouldn't have much tinge for cannibalism unless you ate them post-transplant. (This article doesn't, but another one mentions one of the original intended use cases for the GalSafe pigs _is_ for eating, including by people who have the Alpha-Gal allergy.) They're _also_ working on pigs with one or more human genes spliced in for better compatibility, but that's not these.