3 ms·
The best argument against human cloning/gmo is simply that we can't do this well on other animal species just yet, so probably we should be hold off on the huma
by dnissley 3y ago
The best argument against human cloning/gmo is simply that we can't do this well on other animal species just yet, so probably we should be hold off on the humans. It's hyper pragmatic from an ethics perspective, not a trolley problem or stack of hypotheses at all.
- lewhoo 3y agoI'm no expert but I actually think we are pretty good at genetically modifying organisms and that manifests itself in crops for instance with enough research to support the benefits.
- dnissley 3y agoPlants are one thing we do it well enough on. As far as I'm aware we have yet to do it (at scale) on livestock, or even pets.
- lewhoo 3y agoThere is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Enviropig https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Enviropig or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon or things to the likes of https://www.avma.org/news/genetically-modified-cattle-may-be-sold-food-us https://www.avma.org/news/genetically-modified-cattle-may-be...
- dnissley 3y agoLooks like the fish is the only one that's gone to market. Pretty clearly still early days. I have no doubt that with enough time we'll get there, but to say this is proof that we're technically good to go ahead and produce gmo humans seems a bit rushed -- to reiterate, the point being that the ethical issues here are much more clear than a trolley problem or stack of hypotheses.
- pixl97 3y agoI think much of this is, because Monsanto aside, no one has had a nice big genetic accident or intentional 'oh no' yet. Yea, we've had issues but not at the people are starving. If we start thinking of plant based biological weapons, just imagine modifying an existing grass to produce tons of pollen and to cross pollinate wheat but not produce seed in the wheat.