Time to question bioengineering.

[Autumnlicious]

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

Would you have preferred a more vitriolic one?

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?

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?

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.

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.