Well does anyone think it's wrong that they've built chips into the brains of insects and can remote fly them around a lab? Would it be wrong if they did it to chimps?

I think it is wrong to co-opt a creature of any sort so entirely.

(June 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: Well does anyone think it's wrong that they've built chips into the brains of insects and can remote fly them around a lab? Would it be wrong if they did it to chimps?

Absolutely it's wrong. I see no purpose that it serves, other than experimentation.

So do I as it happens, but they've done it, should we make legislation to prevent them?

(June 20, 2011 at 7:42 pm)Epimethean Wrote: I don't think science can heed the warning of the liberal artists, but I hope that my children or their children will not reap the consequences of the seeds we are perhaps soon to sow.

The reason many scientists and engineers don't take the "warnings" of liberal artists seriously is because they know jack shit.

Really, how hard is it to listen to a group of people who make unproven claims and use fear as a primary motivator?

I always get pissed off when people bring up Frankenstein -- they're not cautioning against reckless ambition, they're more likely using it as a sledgehammer against their "scientist enemies" -- as if using a work of fiction convinces anyone but the weak minded. If they wanted to illustrate hubris, there exists a vast body to select from. Only reason I might see one may select "Frankenstein" in a political context is to single out science, as if a process is responsible for human fallibility.

(June 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: So do I as it happens, but they've done it, should we make legislation to prevent them?

The above perfectly enrages me in some contexts. It reeks of self-serving moral superiority, as if scientists and researchers are mindless, soulless automatons that need to be controlled.

Do you have even an idea of a tenth of the animal welfare legislation in place? Or are you simply shooting blanks from your ass?

By Odin's beard, sometimes atheists are no better than Christians!

---

(June 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(June 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: Well does anyone think it's wrong that they've built chips into the brains of insects and can remote fly them around a lab? Would it be wrong if they did it to chimps?

Absolutely it's wrong. I see no purpose that it serves, other than experimentation.

Sorry Napoleon and BH, but you're both speaking outta your asses again. Napoleon, there are a great many things in this world you shall never truly see the purpose for, yet they are required nonetheless. Just because you cannot immediately see the use, doesn't mean it does not exist.

BH, that's quite a leap from simple insects to complex mammalian organisms. But why did you select chimps? Was it to drive the human-like point home, or merely to make an emotional appeal? Subverting a roughly sapient organism like that fly in any form would be considered awful, be it a dolphin, chimp or human.

There is a great need to understand the limits and capabilities of our fellow animals, only if to better evaluate what we can do and can't do, for ethical, scientific reasons. I agree with that, but mindless fear is not the route to go. Nor through appeals to emotion or the "Frankenstein" effect.

(June 22, 2011 at 4:28 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Sorry Napoleon and BH, but you're both speaking outta your asses again. Napoleon, there are a great many things in this world you shall never truly see the purpose for, yet they are required nonetheless. Just because you cannot immediately see the use, doesn't mean it does not exist.

Speaking out my ass? Well that's a pleasant response.

I like the way you put words into my mouth too! Well done! When did I say that because I cannot see the use it therefore does not exist? Talking about speaking out your ass, you can't get much closer to that than making up bullshit which someone supposedly said.

But do tell, what is the purpose of using/controlling an insect? OTHER than experimentation?

"I always get pissed off when people bring up Frankenstein -- they're not cautioning against reckless ambition, they're more likely using it as a sledgehammer against their "scientist enemies" -- as if using a work of fiction convinces anyone but the weak minded. If they wanted to illustrate hubris, there exists a vast body to select from. Only reason I might see one may select "Frankenstein" in a political context is to single out science, as if a process is responsible for human fallibility."

Nah. It stands. The issue of ethics is relevant-and it has been well raised by philosophers. Unless you want to make the argument that might is right (and I know there are those who will, convincingly-for a time), we have zero right to be doing that shit to other beings. Frankenstein, Food of the Gods, Equilibrium, whatever, the issue remains up front: Just because we CAN do something does not indicate obligation.

(June 22, 2011 at 4:44 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Speaking out my ass? Well that's a pleasant response.

Would you have preferred a more vitriolic one?

(June 22, 2011 at 4:44 pm)Napoleon Wrote: I like the way you put words into my mouth too! Well done! When did I say that because I cannot see the use it therefore does not exist?

You stated you could see no use for it. I stated an obvious fact -- just because one cannot foresee a use, does not imply anything other than you have not seen a use. Are you going to be upset over a statement of fact?

(June 22, 2011 at 4:44 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Talking about speaking out your ass, you can't get much closer to that than making up bullshit which someone supposedly said.

Really? I think exactly what I said is well within the bounds of proper discussion. You made a claim of usage -- the implication was that it had no use, except under a clause which you intentionally framed as mere "experimentation".

If you truly believe that I am "making up bullshit", then counter it. Explain, elucidate your viewpoints. Or are you too chicken?

(June 22, 2011 at 4:44 pm)Napoleon Wrote: But do tell, what is the purpose of using/controlling an insect? OTHER than experimentation?

Normally, I'd consult the research papers that were done -- they usually include a section on the usage, possibilities of such. Some things that would come immediately to mind would be in understanding neural structures better, how they operate and carry commands. The technology that you are referring to is not perfect -- in fact would be considered primitive in development due to the lack of understanding we have over the brain. That understanding is being rapidly built up, but as always, there are current limits and boundaries.

For real world use, a spy agency would no doubt consider controlling bugged (heh) insects to be an interesting idea. But I am just one dull man, with limited ideas, and as such can't be the answer to all your questions.

One thing I am quite confident in, is the possible purposes of controlling an insect is not nil.

(June 22, 2011 at 4:58 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Nah. It stands. The issue of ethics is relevant-and it has been well raised by philosophers. Unless you want to make the argument that might is right (and I know there are those who will, convincingly-for a time), we have zero right to be doing that shit to other beings. Frankenstein, Food of the Gods, Equilibrium, whatever, the issue remains up front: Just because we CAN do something does not indicate obligation.

Like we can consume other living beings, some of which are considered to have degrees of sapience? Your argument falls to the wayside if you accept our consumptive predilections, if not, kudos for sticking to your values.

The concept of rights is an interesting one -- do explain where and what has rights? And why. Definitely why.

Do you see no difference in killing an animal for sustenance and keeping it alive while using it as a puppet?

I do.

(June 20, 2011 at 6:40 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: It's not unethical to make metal into a tool. If you use that for evil, then it is. How about a living being? Is it right to make that into any form we desire? My point was that metal has no 'rights' in and of itself, life does.

Why? Just because they're alive? So mushrooms have rights then...

(June 22, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Do you see no difference in killing an animal for sustenance and keeping it alive while using it as a puppet?

I do.

Yeah, one keeps your belly full and the other tells me I probably shouldn't trust you around children.