I know I already went but it looks like I need to go again.
I am curious about a few things
People seem to find this objectionable... I am drawn to wonder if there at least some of the reason based on some measure of sexuality.
What objections are based on the dislike of genetically modified items. Before going on and rather relevant here- cows themselves are genetically modified (see Aurochs) although I suppose that kicks of the selective breeding vs straight up manipulation "debate" the farce that it is.
@ doyama re why perhaps something like http://www.sepeap.org/archivos/pdf/10488.pdf is worth a read.
Re: China as a less than brilliant place with regards to food safety. Perhaps but is it all that relevant to the philosophical debate; it seems to be more of a supply/industrial production type debate. Tell me which genes I need to swap out/add to the cow genes, where and what the swap/addition needs to be then I will make the new cow and I will promise not to mix in nasty chemicals with the products it is making.
I think you are letting your imagery run a bit wild there. I could paint a picture instead I will leave it at blood, bone marrow and other donation schemes similar to that. I already mentioned animals being manipulated (or their products being manipulated to produce human compatible stuff) but I will mention it again and link up something nice http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_stone_the_b...eplacement.html .
"inserting human genes into cows is just unnatural"
I will be approaching this from a genetics standpoint (given most people around here will probably be more familar with computer coding than genetics and also I want to link something I find really interesting http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/ ). I will then pose the questions "are human genes somehow better/sacrosanct?" and "given this is a small substitution at what point does the human genetic code cease to be the human genetic code?*"
*say for instance I was feeling like wasting my time and I sliced one codon (just about the most basic building block- a feature shared with all known life forms) from a piece of human DNA and shoved in it something else would this be wrong? This feels remarkably like the philosophical debate of when removing one atom at a time from a table when does it stop being a table I know but I will make it anyway.
"God's Domain which we shouldn't fuck with"
*splutter* do what now? Religious arguments are not especially likely to fly around here. Still what is "God's domain" and to save someone the effort the term "god of the gaps" will need to kept in mind.
"is it wrong to prolong somebody's life if they are "meant to die?" "
I think it is safe to assume nature is far from flawless (evolution attests to this) and death seems to be a feature of this so I then contend you are arguing whether it is correct to intervene in a flawed system.
I am curious about a few things
People seem to find this objectionable... I am drawn to wonder if there at least some of the reason based on some measure of sexuality.
What objections are based on the dislike of genetically modified items. Before going on and rather relevant here- cows themselves are genetically modified (see Aurochs) although I suppose that kicks of the selective breeding vs straight up manipulation "debate" the farce that it is.
@ doyama re why perhaps something like http://www.sepeap.org/archivos/pdf/10488.pdf is worth a read.
Re: China as a less than brilliant place with regards to food safety. Perhaps but is it all that relevant to the philosophical debate; it seems to be more of a supply/industrial production type debate. Tell me which genes I need to swap out/add to the cow genes, where and what the swap/addition needs to be then I will make the new cow and I will promise not to mix in nasty chemicals with the products it is making.
Hop2089 said:
I think you are letting your imagery run a bit wild there. I could paint a picture instead I will leave it at blood, bone marrow and other donation schemes similar to that. I already mentioned animals being manipulated (or their products being manipulated to produce human compatible stuff) but I will mention it again and link up something nice http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_stone_the_b...eplacement.html .
"inserting human genes into cows is just unnatural"
I will be approaching this from a genetics standpoint (given most people around here will probably be more familar with computer coding than genetics and also I want to link something I find really interesting http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/ ). I will then pose the questions "are human genes somehow better/sacrosanct?" and "given this is a small substitution at what point does the human genetic code cease to be the human genetic code?*"
*say for instance I was feeling like wasting my time and I sliced one codon (just about the most basic building block- a feature shared with all known life forms) from a piece of human DNA and shoved in it something else would this be wrong? This feels remarkably like the philosophical debate of when removing one atom at a time from a table when does it stop being a table I know but I will make it anyway.
"God's Domain which we shouldn't fuck with"
*splutter* do what now? Religious arguments are not especially likely to fly around here. Still what is "God's domain" and to save someone the effort the term "god of the gaps" will need to kept in mind.
"is it wrong to prolong somebody's life if they are "meant to die?" "
I think it is safe to assume nature is far from flawless (evolution attests to this) and death seems to be a feature of this so I then contend you are arguing whether it is correct to intervene in a flawed system.
