- 3,052
A friend of mine sent me this link concerning animal-human hybrids. Just wanted to know everyone's opinion on the subject.
Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
Animal-Human Hybrids Spark Controversy
Animal-Human Hybirds or chimeras... What's your opinion?
- Thread starter MrktMkr1986
- 55 comments
- 1,420 views
- 4,680
Very interesting article. Obviously, the medical benefits of this could be very beneficial, but scientists can't get carried away with this, otherwise we could see the creation of 'super species'. What concerns me about this is if any of these theoretical species were accidentally released into the wild.
But the thought of a 100% human brain in a mouse fascinates and terrifies me at the same time. While it would be interesting to see if the mouse/human displays any signs of human intelligence, you would have to wonder what is going on inside the mind of the hybrid creature. Would it be content with it's life? Would it's life be something reminiscent of something out of a pessimistic sci-fi novel? Who knows?
But the thought of a 100% human brain in a mouse fascinates and terrifies me at the same time. While it would be interesting to see if the mouse/human displays any signs of human intelligence, you would have to wonder what is going on inside the mind of the hybrid creature. Would it be content with it's life? Would it's life be something reminiscent of something out of a pessimistic sci-fi novel? Who knows?
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
I think it is a step too far.
If we are going to give other animals (maybe just mice to start, but possible later apes due to their equal sizing) human brains surely we are starting something way too sinister.
For the sake of producing 'spare' human organs I think it is wrong. Yes we eat animals to survive but that is on a instinctual level. To grow an animal and then just kill it for a single organ (and most likely not use the rest for consumption) seems completely pointless and wasteful to me.
I might actually raise this topic in my R.E class on Monday.
If we are going to give other animals (maybe just mice to start, but possible later apes due to their equal sizing) human brains surely we are starting something way too sinister.
For the sake of producing 'spare' human organs I think it is wrong. Yes we eat animals to survive but that is on a instinctual level. To grow an animal and then just kill it for a single organ (and most likely not use the rest for consumption) seems completely pointless and wasteful to me.
I might actually raise this topic in my R.E class on Monday.
PublicSecrecy
(Banned)
- 1,488
I think putting a human brain into A) a mouse or B) an ape would be devestating.
The human brain is touted as the only brain sophisticated enough to realise its' own existence, and its' own mortality. This suggests the human brain has the "awareness" feature. Putting a human brain into a mouse, while impossible because like 20 mice are the size of our brain, then the mouse would think it is human. The mouse would have the ability to think for itself, and make rational decisions, and create traps etc. The downfall with the human brain is that it can fall in love, and let me tell you, that mouse is going to live one sad life. As for the ape? Ohhh boy get ready for the activists. Since the human brain is aware of itself, it can rationalise, fall in love etc. and an ape is so close to a human being that the person inside that ape would totally freak. Same with the mouse. The human brain is programmed to think it's human. The ape though, if it had the transplant at a very young age, would have to be taught very strict discipline, since theyre are SO much more lethal and territorial than a human. Imagine a 5 yr old childs brain, in the animal as powerfull and considerably more, than a body-builder? Now that's scary. As for the activists, well, i don't think tazer shocking a 5 year old is going to go over very well. Interesting concept, but VERY illogical and dangerous at the least. I could see them putting, lets say a pig's brain, into a dog or something, but other than that they are treading on very thin ice. If it weren't a brain however, and it were say cells, from lets say a gecko, then it would be very benneficial. With the gecko haploid cells, they can regenerate, and split many times to repair or grow back a limb. Regenerative research has been going on for very many years but it is still a work of fiction as of yet, for humans. Since human's cells are so complex and we have to have such perfect coniditions for survival, we have evolved our brain, and not our body, for us to survive. The most flourished life form, is the most basic, and that's pretty much the amoeba. Single cell organisms can live just about anywhere, eat just about anything, and can reproduce on their own. If we were to "dumb down" our cells, I'm sure we could do this too, but because our cells are so complex they can only go through so many divisions or repairs simply because they've just got too much specialized genetic information in them. Where you have a flatworm for instance, a very basic creature, you can nearly cut it in half, and as long as a small piece of the worm is connected, you will have 2 joined flatworms. This is because the whole body of the worm is so basic and generic that one cell can double for another, and serve a very basic and similar purpose. Humans however, have very specialized cells (muscle, fat, proteins, bones, then the nerve endings, just way too much to take into consideration) and it is difficult to do much more than heal a deep wound. Think of it as a Ferarri's engine, compared to a Honda's engine. The Ferarri's engine is very complex, very detailed and very technological. When you compare the Honda's engine, it is basic, reliable, and does what it has to do. The Ferarri's engine requires much more maintenance, and takes a lot more effort to make it more powerfull. the Honda's engine for example, has tons of room for expansion and upgrades and is quite compatible with many applications. What I'm trying to say is that, until we make some giant leap into a new era of science, much of this is still only going to be a matter of Starwars and X-Files.
The human brain is touted as the only brain sophisticated enough to realise its' own existence, and its' own mortality. This suggests the human brain has the "awareness" feature. Putting a human brain into a mouse, while impossible because like 20 mice are the size of our brain, then the mouse would think it is human. The mouse would have the ability to think for itself, and make rational decisions, and create traps etc. The downfall with the human brain is that it can fall in love, and let me tell you, that mouse is going to live one sad life. As for the ape? Ohhh boy get ready for the activists. Since the human brain is aware of itself, it can rationalise, fall in love etc. and an ape is so close to a human being that the person inside that ape would totally freak. Same with the mouse. The human brain is programmed to think it's human. The ape though, if it had the transplant at a very young age, would have to be taught very strict discipline, since theyre are SO much more lethal and territorial than a human. Imagine a 5 yr old childs brain, in the animal as powerfull and considerably more, than a body-builder? Now that's scary. As for the activists, well, i don't think tazer shocking a 5 year old is going to go over very well. Interesting concept, but VERY illogical and dangerous at the least. I could see them putting, lets say a pig's brain, into a dog or something, but other than that they are treading on very thin ice. If it weren't a brain however, and it were say cells, from lets say a gecko, then it would be very benneficial. With the gecko haploid cells, they can regenerate, and split many times to repair or grow back a limb. Regenerative research has been going on for very many years but it is still a work of fiction as of yet, for humans. Since human's cells are so complex and we have to have such perfect coniditions for survival, we have evolved our brain, and not our body, for us to survive. The most flourished life form, is the most basic, and that's pretty much the amoeba. Single cell organisms can live just about anywhere, eat just about anything, and can reproduce on their own. If we were to "dumb down" our cells, I'm sure we could do this too, but because our cells are so complex they can only go through so many divisions or repairs simply because they've just got too much specialized genetic information in them. Where you have a flatworm for instance, a very basic creature, you can nearly cut it in half, and as long as a small piece of the worm is connected, you will have 2 joined flatworms. This is because the whole body of the worm is so basic and generic that one cell can double for another, and serve a very basic and similar purpose. Humans however, have very specialized cells (muscle, fat, proteins, bones, then the nerve endings, just way too much to take into consideration) and it is difficult to do much more than heal a deep wound. Think of it as a Ferarri's engine, compared to a Honda's engine. The Ferarri's engine is very complex, very detailed and very technological. When you compare the Honda's engine, it is basic, reliable, and does what it has to do. The Ferarri's engine requires much more maintenance, and takes a lot more effort to make it more powerfull. the Honda's engine for example, has tons of room for expansion and upgrades and is quite compatible with many applications. What I'm trying to say is that, until we make some giant leap into a new era of science, much of this is still only going to be a matter of Starwars and X-Files.
- 3,052
You guys pretty much share the same sentiment as I do so I don't want to sound too repetitive. In short, unless its for medical research purposes and/or saving lives, I think animal-human fusion is unethical.
PublicSecrecy
(Banned)
- 1,488
Tru dat. But if it ever does fly, about 50 years after that, someone, somewhere, will come out with some really weird sick art form of it.
"yo dudes check dis out i got my new calf legs and mouse ears man"
"man u a calf ricer u aint no calf"
"stfu man these r some mad tight legs yo"
or something along those lines.
"yo dudes check dis out i got my new calf legs and mouse ears man"
"man u a calf ricer u aint no calf"
"stfu man these r some mad tight legs yo"
or something along those lines.
- 1,926
That says it all for me. I don't mean to be so... errr... well, simply put: a dick. But my grandfather is dying from a disease that makes the brain eat itself pretty much along with Alzheimer's disease. More info about the brain and solutions to these matters would make many lives longer. I will come back later and add onto my comment. I know there are things that are wrong and that's why i say no and yes. thjere is good and bad. that's just why you don't take things too far. Remember, you have to crawl before you walk.
Standard235
- 956
- doriPop
Oh...hmm...jeez...where to start...
I personally have no idea where to stand on this. I see what they mean by distinction in human integrity, I mean, there is something that sets us apart from most species in our developmental thought process, but to me, we're just animals.
I have a few moral arguments here, but they seed mostly from the theory that life begins with conscious thought - something an embryo is apparently not capable of.
I'm no PETA rep, but I do feel that it is cruel to subject an animal to testing to further the life span of a human, giving no gain to the animal you are killing in the name of science. However, I can see it from both ends - I hate, but at the same time accept the argument of "What is one life for milllions?".
I personally have no idea where to stand on this. I see what they mean by distinction in human integrity, I mean, there is something that sets us apart from most species in our developmental thought process, but to me, we're just animals.
I have a few moral arguments here, but they seed mostly from the theory that life begins with conscious thought - something an embryo is apparently not capable of.
I'm no PETA rep, but I do feel that it is cruel to subject an animal to testing to further the life span of a human, giving no gain to the animal you are killing in the name of science. However, I can see it from both ends - I hate, but at the same time accept the argument of "What is one life for milllions?".
- 3,052
Ten
Well said.
And to Standard235 -- Sorry to hear about your grandfather.
- 434
yeah sorry about your grandfather Standard235.
it sounds kind of sick to me but the possibilites are actually interesting me. its great to hear about advances that help people. i plan on following this now but when it explained the idea that they would raise a mouse, kill it, disect it to compare the brain to a human brain, and then raise another and study it. i mean if it has any sense of life like a human does it does not seem right to murder it. its kind of scary thinking about a mouse not being able to talk but being able to think on close level and its so small you could crush it with your foot.
it sounds kind of sick to me but the possibilites are actually interesting me. its great to hear about advances that help people. i plan on following this now but when it explained the idea that they would raise a mouse, kill it, disect it to compare the brain to a human brain, and then raise another and study it. i mean if it has any sense of life like a human does it does not seem right to murder it. its kind of scary thinking about a mouse not being able to talk but being able to think on close level and its so small you could crush it with your foot.
- 3,052
blargonator
Interesting perspective. However, we do not yet know whether or not injecting neurons into mice brains will produce such results just yet. If it does work, I doubt the mouse would be born with "human-like intelligence". The reason for this is because it takes humans years worth of training and education to be able to "think". I doubt if the mice will be able to "understand" what is going on any more than if they did not have human neurons injected into their brains.
PublicSecrecy
(Banned)
- 1,488
I think the idea of sacrificing a life for many others, is quite possibly one of the most difficult decisions one could make. And if we were to implant the human brain into a mouse (suggesting it were possible), and providing that it stayed the same size, would the mouse learn on its own? We are taught in school how do to things, and many other principles, from friends and teachers, but like a baby, the mouse wouldn't know how to get food, or any of that other stuff. As the mouse ages, in comparison to the brain, the mouse would die when the brain is only an infant and would be thus pointless. I think putting a human brain into a parrot however, would be very neat. They can live for +100 years, and have a sophisticated enough vocal structure that we could teach and communicate much easier with it. We could teach it things, heck it would be like an annoying little brother...until it matures and starts getting dirty human thoughts in a parrot body. Man that would suck. just so many factors, it's overwhelming, really.
- 434
implant the brain into a mouse? "Later this year he may conduct another experiment where the mice have 100 percent human brains. This would be done, he said, by injecting human neurons into the brains of embryonic mice." not really the same but yeah basic ideas are the main point <8- P i like the idea of the parrot because it could possibly share a few charecteristics of a small child or something. it could provide great friendship possibilites for the elderly or say a mentally retarded person. this is a really good topic to discuss 👍 if they did make advanced creatures they would definetly have to be limited to weak creatures. someone brought up the orangutang idea or something and said it would be too powerful for a 5 year old. do you think the animals would age in the correct speed compared to the normal rate? like dogs would be 7 years old in one of our years?
PublicSecrecy
(Banned)
- 1,488
That, and the parrot could be nearly self sufficient, and be like a carrier pigeon too! I would know where to go, you just be like "see that car? follow it. " or something. And they could be potty trained too! So many possibilities, it would be like a friend. The idea for the elderly though I kind of a tough one, as they could both get mentally attached to each other and when the elderly person passes away, the parrot would still have another 70 years left to keep on kickin. It would almost be like a person, it would be so hard to justify what to do with it, because by then the parrot would have it's own opinions, mentality, and goals etc. (If the brain were really a human transplant that is). Once again, overwhelming.
[edit] I bet they'd be great housewatchers! Just imagine, you're sound asleep in the middle of the night and instead of the parrot sqwaking his ass off and alerting everyone, he could like covertly fly to your room, peck you in the chest or something and then make you aware. then he could fly out and divebomb the intruder! [edit]
[edit] I bet they'd be great housewatchers! Just imagine, you're sound asleep in the middle of the night and instead of the parrot sqwaking his ass off and alerting everyone, he could like covertly fly to your room, peck you in the chest or something and then make you aware. then he could fly out and divebomb the intruder! [edit]
Blake
Premium
- 10,976
- NSW, Australia
- haswell00
It's so arrogant, to think that humans have some special integrity which means we don't have to treat animals as we would like to be treated. If you wouldn't want to do it humans why even do it to animals, just because we think they're unaware doesn't make it fair.Ten
Blake
- 3,052
It was a minor error. We all know he meant to say:
"sophisticated"
So why mess around?
Can we get back on topic, please. I would like to see more opinions... this is a very interesting topic for a debate.
"sophisticated"
So why mess around?
Can we get back on topic, please. I would like to see more opinions... this is a very interesting topic for a debate.
PublicSecrecy
(Banned)
- 1,488
damn right! I knew something looked wrong about that.
I leike getting prunk in dublic.
[edit] You mean you never noticed my typo "let's gay a gecko" instead of "let's say a gecko"? For some weird reaosn I just can't type @ 3:00am after 2 bottles of gatorade. Go figure. [edit]
I leike getting prunk in dublic.
[edit] You mean you never noticed my typo "let's gay a gecko" instead of "let's say a gecko"? For some weird reaosn I just can't type @ 3:00am after 2 bottles of gatorade. Go figure. [edit]
- 3,425
I think he meant to say that humans are the only species on earth to recognise their own mortality.
A). We should be able to figure that out without guessing .
B). it was written in a funny way.
C). Touted
D). I doubt an unattatched brain would realise anything , human or otherwise.
E). raw monkey brains are considered a delicacy in some cultures.
💡
A). We should be able to figure that out without guessing .
B). it was written in a funny way.
C). Touted
D). I doubt an unattatched brain would realise anything , human or otherwise.
E). raw monkey brains are considered a delicacy in some cultures.
💡
PublicSecrecy
(Banned)
- 1,488
Why would we unattach the brain? what's the point of that? and of course it won't realise anything, it's not connected to any of the sensory organs.
- 3,052
They said they wanted to inject human neurons into the brains of mice embryos... I don't see how that would make their brains more human-like to the point where they start to think like we do...
PublicSecrecy
(Banned)
- 1,488
I don't see how that makes it a human brain at all. All I could think of is possibly improving the motor functions and problem solving of the mouse.
- 3,052
PublicSecrecy
But you see that's thing. Problem solving is not something people are born with. It takes experience and numerous other factors to become good at problem solving. It's all about instincts. That's what separates humans from animals on an intellectual level. When we think, we analyze, solve problems, come up with solutions etc. With an animal, however, they are controlled by their instincts. What I don't understand, though, is how inject human neurons is going to change any of that. Sure it may make the brain itself more human, but I don't see how that will make an animal think or behave like a human.
- 434
it will probably just allow it to think on a slightly higher level than the other animals. im sure it would take time to teach it anything like a regular animal. for example look at police dogs. they know basic commands but if they were slightly smarter imagine what they could do then.....because those things can already do a lot. im sure it would not be insane things like a monkey that could converse with people or something althought that would be cool <8- P
- 3,052
True. But even if it meant the possibility of saving thousands of lives, would you still hold that opinion? Of course killing animals is wrong, but we do it everyday. Every time you step on an ant, swat a fly, kill a roach, setup rat poison it's all doing the same thing. Every time we eat [most] meats, you are eating an animal that was at some point in time killed. If it can save lives, I advocate it.
Blake
Premium
- 10,976
- NSW, Australia
- haswell00
I'm not really saying it's wrong to kill animals or anything, I just think it's really arrogrant for humans to think we're better than other creatures, so much so that we have the right to play around with them in ways like that.
The thing I really disagree with was the arguement against it that humans have a special integrity that shouldn't be played around with. Bull****, we have no special integrity, we're just animals. But if you think our genes shouldn't be played around with what gives you the right to decide that it's okay to play around with other animals in a manner like that?
Blake
The thing I really disagree with was the arguement against it that humans have a special integrity that shouldn't be played around with. Bull****, we have no special integrity, we're just animals. But if you think our genes shouldn't be played around with what gives you the right to decide that it's okay to play around with other animals in a manner like that?
Blake
- 434
i know if had the choice to die or kill a animal i would have to go with the animal. there are certain things i don't like though like those bears that are having the bile from their livers harvested or something. its disgusting and really sad. its like liquid gold from a medical standpoint but its so horrible for the bears. did you know bears actually make a specific sound when they are afraid. when humans get near the bears they start to make a odd clicking noise.
Similar threads
- Poll
