Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!olivea!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: The Ethics of Species Engineering ( WAS: Re: Human/Chimp Hy Message-ID: <34785@cup.portal.com> Date: 12 Oct 90 17:07:54 GMT References: <1990Sep23.163322.28379@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <4909@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> <270A6B70.15884@ics.uci.edu> <38939@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <1990Oct4.042043.27569@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1990Oct10.033436.9682@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> <1990Oct12.011206 Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 115 > The *idea* of the chimpman is not what bothers me so much as what > the life of the creature would be like. You would be bringing an assumedly > sentient life form into a world which would reject it. The life of the > chimpman would be like the life of the elephantman. His differences would > set him so far apart from society that he abhorred. No one has the right > to create sentience when he knows that sentience could never live a happy > life. This is a false assumption. If I created the first chimpman, I can guarantee that the first generation or two would have a happy and loving environment. Maybe if somebody else did it, it would be more like the hell of a public mental health facility, but that does not mean all attempts to give birth to chimpmanity would have that problem. Or are you arguing that over the long term chimpmanity would suffer from race/species prejudice? If you ask a victim of prejudice whether they would rather never have existed, I'm sure you'll get a firm no. What they want is elimination of prejudice, not elimination of themselves. Even if such prejudice becomes a problem for future generations of chimpmanity, I'm sure they will be grateful for their creation, and human culture might even be improved as a result of being challenged by the assimilation of an inferior species. (Or possibly a superior species, if the chimp DNA happens to contain greater potential to benefit from neotenization than the ancient ancestor of Man.) > *sentience*. I hold that all sentients possess the rights of humans, and that > they should be treated just as we treat humans. The creation of these > mules would be mere exploitation of them. Exploitation is immoral, illegal. > That is why child pornography is illegal. This would possibly be worse than > child pornography, if that can be imagined. That is why I draw a line. How do you know what's sentient and what's not? What would a cat or dog need to do to be considered sentient? Aren't we really talking about language here? And now that a few chimps and gorillas have been taught sign language, does that mean they're sentient? And since you've already indicated a willingness to use chimps for medical research, what's wrong with doing a little biological/anthrological research too? > Neither dogs nor chimps possess sentience. They are incapable of > complex thought. They have simple social structures. If one argues that > chimpanzees posses very complex social structures, then I would like to > introduce you to human society - a world of not only personal inter- > relationships, but also of governments, corporations, money, and religions > of every imaginable kind. All human societies have complex social structures. > Even nomadic tribes still in the prehistoric era show obviously complex > societies. The character of sentience should be obvious. Oh, it's "social structures" which define sentience? One nebulous term defined in terms of another. How about if I raise the chimpman as an atheist. He won't have a religion, and I won't raise him to loyal to a particular government. We'll live on a backwoods farm, and I'll keep the account books. He won't be taught to use any tool more complicated than a rifle. Will that satisfy you that he is non-sentient? > Without the sentience, the animals possess no rights. Just as > we use animals for every kind of research imaginable already, I do not > see how hybrids would be immoral. How many animals right's activists > protest mules? Not even they see the hybridization of animals to be immoral. > Going a little further, I have no objections to species engineering > either. In fact, engineering larger cows, better grains, and new animals > that fill new niches in the economy (Has anyone read _West of Eden_?) would > be a tremendous development for mankind. I doubt animals right's activists > would agree here, of course. I see. You're against nuclear power, but that doesn't stop you from using the electricity it generates. You're against air pollution and greenhouse, but you continue to drive a car. > Indeed, the mind makes gives us the sentience which is central to > our humanaity. No chimp brain could hold the mind of a human They > should already be maximizing the potential of their brain. I wouldn't > find the transferring of the mind of a person to another medium unless it > was against their will. If someone wished it, I do not feel it is my > choice to decide. The only exception would be if everyone wanted themselves > uploaded to computers, which might have an interesting effect on the power > consumption of civilization... I disagree that a chimp brain couldn't hold a human intelligence if some way could be found to upload a copy, perhaps perform a little translation, and download it. It might not be a complete human intelligence, for example it might lack language skills, but it would be something. If we could do this experiment, then upload it back from the chimp and re-download to a human, it would be the most important experiment ever in animal behavior. For the first time, we could understand what another animal perceives by experiencing it directly, rather than performing laborious experiments in perception. Brains are composed of a large number of separate neural organs, e.g. cerebellum, pons, hippocampus, etc. If we could temporarily transfer a human consciousness into whatever organs the experimental subject had in its brain, we could look at the world through its eyes. When the "neuronaut" was returned to his own, human brain, he could use his language organs to tell us what he saw. > >Or is your uncomfort connected to the technology involved? If I could produce > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >a sentient chimp solely through selective breeding, could I count on your > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >approval? > ^^^^^^^^ > > Yes and no. Creating a new being would not be bad in itself, but > your intentions may make it so. If you create them for exploitative reasons, > you have created a permanent underclass expressly for exploitation. This > is immoral. It is sort of the old question - is a gun immoral? It depends > on your intentions. What if I have no intentions other than curiousity about the end result? That's a very pure intention--no malice or greed. Okay, maybe a little greed when I think about the possible commercial aspects, but not with any notion of harming the little darlings in any way. What if dogs didn't exist, and I was talking about creating the first dog? Wouldn't that be a 100% warm and fuzzy motive, which everybody should approve? Think of it as being like a dog, but enhanced like the talking animals one often find in children's stories.