Time to question bioengineering.

[BloodyHeretic]

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

That is a profoundly ignorant statement.

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!

You should read your own posts for the reek of self-serving moral superiority. I'm a science student myself, I've no desire to paint scientists as soulless or in need of control, it's scientists I most want to hear from in the debate. I do have a notion of the animal welfare legislation there is, I'm not an expert. I simply assume you agree there needs to be animal welfare legislation, and I wanted to extend the debate to this new area of science. If the current legislation covers this already, you simply had to point out, if you know. I never claimed to be an expert, I just wanted to talk about an issue of interest to me, and obviously a lot of other people as well. I think there has been a good debate, some very interesting posts, including some from yourself. Why be such a dick about it?

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?

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.

I selected chimps for the exact reason of driving home a human-like point. I want to talk about the limits of where we take this. We will one day be capable of bioengineering in humans. We'll be able to direct our own evolution (Neo-evolution). This is fascinating and again, a subject we need to talk a lot about. Is there a problem with this? I haven't suggested mindless fear as a route to go down, all I said is that it's an emotional response to this subject which comes up, fairly understandably. It's important we address this and don't let it be the basis or direction for our decisions, but maybe a motivation to make good ones. We should of course use our reason to make these decisions.

Throughout the thread there's been good logical posts, about how we already use animals for our own ends etc. I have to say, I have been educated and I'm delighted, that's why I started the thread. Why you have to be so unpleasant about it is beyond me.

[Autumnlicious]

I'll admit I probably was being ignorant, and I understand that it was wrong for me to say "I see no reason for using animals etc". My mistake.

I still think you're being a pedantic condescending ass over a very minute post. You say I'm arguing? LOL, you're getting on a hype because I posted something silly. Yes. You win. It was silly. Happy now?

Are you?

When I said the post in question it was in direct relation to bio-engineering. I personally don't agree with controlling physically other creatures. Sure we take advantage of them all the time, but I don't think that warrants unnecessary manual control for experimentation purposes.

So we can abuse, kill and for the most part treat their flesh and bodies with the same bloody mindedness as we do with our inorganic tools, but replacing/controlling their neural nets is out of the question? Methinks someone has been gorging on the cake too much.

Before you start going off on one about ONE fucking little post why don't you go and criticize every other minute post which people have made in haste. Trust me there's thousands of them, but I don't see you hanging over like a vulture waiting to pounce on them.

Caw-caw-caw!

You tell me all these things which are 'reasons for control' but then can't even answer whether the reason is experimentation or not?

Because 'experimentation' is expected to prove it can be done, for any application. You can't get from concept to application without proving the fundamentals. But you knew that already. ^_^

So, asking if 'artificial neural hijacking and/or control' is for experimentation is like asking if 'genetically engineering retroviruses to hijack bacterial cells' is for 'experimentation'. Would you like some verbs with that word salad?

Well surely YOU would have done the research, because it is YOU making a fucking argument. It's not doing research for me it's doing research for YOU. If you don't know whether controlling animals is for experimentation or not yourself then what right do you have to suddenly start having a go at me, for asking a question regarding your argument?

What?

I've laid out some applications, or as you would interpret, 'uses' for controlling such. I've also stated that such research would yield information on animal neural nets and constructs.

Kinda hard to accuse me of not doing the research when I'm stating the blatantly obvious. In contrast, you have yet to lay out any argument against other than "because I said so!"

Still, ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.frontiersin.org/neuroscience/...9/abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...182748.htm
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~maharbiz/Sato_2008_HH.pdf

You may commence sputtering.

I just asked what is the purpose of controlling animals if you're NOT experimenting on them?

Spying, control of livestock, remote tasks too dangerous for a human to undertake, blah blah, you'll just refuse to accept such and moralize over it.

[Violet]

Before you start going off on one about ONE fucking little post why don't you go and criticize every other minute post which people have made in haste. Trust me there's thousands of them, but I don't see you hanging over like a vulture waiting to pounce on them.

Honey... you failed trolling 101. You drew more attention to yourself allowing you to be trolled even more.

It's internet 'justice' Kind of like what Anonymous and the like do... but with posts in a thread

[Autumnlicious]

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

That is a profoundly ignorant statement.

So these "liberal artists" are knowledgeable to the same degree as the experts? Hardly.

Not to mention, I spend pretty much all my time around scientists and engineers -- I hear that complaint often. But I suppose that's a "profoundly ignorant" statement.

You should read your own posts for the reek of self-serving moral superiority. I'm a science student myself, I've no desire to paint scientists as soulless or in need of control, it's scientists I most want to hear from in the debate. I do have a notion of the animal welfare legislation there is, I'm not an expert. I simply assume you agree there needs to be animal welfare legislation, and I wanted to extend the debate to this new area of science. If the current legislation covers this already, you simply had to point out, if you know.

There exists legislation and voluntary review boards, staffed of bioethicists and the like, to review any research that uses animals. If you wished to "extend the debate", then why did you NOT look into that? I'd think that would be the FIRST thing to do, not the last.

I selected chimps for the exact reason of driving home a human-like point. I want to talk about the limits of where we take this. We will one day be capable of bioengineering in humans.

Except that primate research is heavily regulated and controlled. Kind of hard to make a solid point when the outcomes require significant changes that are unlikely to occur? Once again, fear is a tool.

If there is a profound issue with controlling other organisms, then controlling an insect should be no worse a travesty.

If there is another issue, then it becomes difficult to use certain examples if they require things to suddenly change. Your postulating would be more effective if it is possible and allowed under current laws.

We'll be able to direct our own evolution (Neo-evolution).

I don't think you understand what evolution is then. Perhaps you meant transhumanism?

Is there a problem with this? I haven't suggested mindless fear as a route to go down, all I said is that it's an emotional response to this subject which comes up, fairly understandably.

Sex with furniture - is there a problem with this? Developing nuclear technology - is there a problem with this? Letting certain people marry - is there a problem with this?

By adding the 'problem' part, you load the question into searching for a negative. If you wish for a discussion, then aren't you searching for a "what are the consequences of something"?

It's important we address this and don't let it be the basis or direction for our decisions, but maybe a motivation to make good ones. We should of course use our reason to make these decisions.

Of course.

Why you have to be so unpleasant about it is beyond me.

[Napoléon]

Oh c'mon Moros get off your high horse and give it a rest. I've said the original statement I made was a mistake, I'm not arguing and wasn't from the start so stop being a troll.

Honey... you failed trolling 101. You drew more attention to yourself allowing you to be trolled even more.

Yeah sorry for that. Still not entirely used to being an ass on the internet yet.

[Epimethean]

Moros, you may be right on the bottom line. The fact that a good percentage of the population would disagree with you on emotional grounds, however, suggests that you may want to find a commoner ground with those liberal artists, because they do know more than "shit" about the human condition.

[theVOID]

Moros, you may be right on the bottom line. The fact that a good percentage of the population would disagree with you on emotional grounds, however, suggests that you may want to find a commoner ground with those liberal artists, because they do know more than "shit" about the human condition.

#1 thing to study in college if you want an unmanageable debt because you're all but useless to society? Liberal Arts. I can't tell you how many people I know who have studied philosophy or logic with intent to be an academic and have never seen any use out of it, not because it's uninteresting but because it's always an expense, there is little demand for it on any professional level and as such the chances of finding someone willing to pay you to study or teach it professionally are low, and there are pretty much no valid commercial applications of it, no means for it to generate anywhere near the wealth of Science, Engineering and the like.

[Epimethean]

Number one thing to study in college if you want to preserve more than the "what" of humanity, too.


A side note in response to your edit: A great number of technology companies have been drawing from the liberal arts field because of the difference in thinking they provide. Not that it is better, but it does add to the programming scope and sequence. When it comes down to it, without the liberal arts, we'd be pretty damned monotone even in describing the hard sciences. For some, that'd be peachy, but not for all, and certainly not to convey the importance of science to those who are not scientists. There was a charge of arrogance leveled at my statement about the liberal arts a while back. Science has its own hubristic tendencies, some of which don't exactly lend themselves to bettering the quality of human life. We need both, demonstrably.

[BloodyHeretic]

So these "liberal artists" are knowledgeable to the same degree as the experts? Hardly.

Not to mention, I spend pretty much all my time around scientists and engineers -- I hear that complaint often. But I suppose that's a "profoundly ignorant" statement.

Yes it is profoundly ignorant of scientists, or anyone, to suggest that liberal artists have nothing to contribute to a scientific ethics debate. The objection that they know 'jack shit' should perhaps exclude you from the debate.

Except that primate research is heavily regulated and controlled. Kind of hard to make a solid point when the outcomes require significant changes that are unlikely to occur? Once again, fear is a tool.

If there is a profound issue with controlling other organisms, then controlling an insect should be no worse a travesty.

I think you said it well yourself "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 don't think the fly is equivalent to the chimp because of it's limits and capabilities. Seems you don't either.

We'll be able to direct our own evolution (Neo-evolution).

I don't think you understand what evolution is then. Perhaps you meant transhumanism?

I did indeed mean transhumanism. I said Neo-evolution because after watching this video I thought they were the same thing.

Is there a problem with this? I haven't suggested mindless fear as a route to go down, all I said is that it's an emotional response to this subject which comes up, fairly understandably.

Sex with furniture - is there a problem with this? Developing nuclear technology - is there a problem with this? Letting certain people marry - is there a problem with this?

By adding the 'problem' part, you load the question into searching for a negative. If you wish for a discussion, then aren't you searching for a "what are the consequences of something"?

Yes if you like.

Why you have to be so unpleasant about it is beyond me.

You just like being obnoxious? Fair enough.

[Autumnlicious]

Yes it is profoundly ignorant of scientists, or anyone, to suggest that liberal artists have nothing to contribute to a scientific ethics debate. The objection that they know 'jack shit' should perhaps exclude you from the debate.

In the same vein, that is similar to suggesting that priests and other religious leaders should be consulted and contribute to scientific ethics. After all, even if they know 'jack shit' about what is being discussed, doesn't stop them from having an opinion on it.

Opinions, like many "liberal artists" searching for something to do with themselves, are like assholes -- everyone has one.

I think you said it well yourself "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 don't think the fly is equivalent to the chimp because of it's limits and capabilities. Seems you don't either.

I was noting that some posters take up issue with the concept of controlling any animal. That is why I even made mention of such. It was misplaced of a statement -- not directed at you per se.

And yes, I actually have been consistent in advocating for research and development of said technologies, for the purpose of gathering knowledge.

I did indeed mean transhumanism. I said Neo-evolution because after watching this video I thought they were the same thing.

Neo-evolution is a bogus hijacking of the word 'evolution'. Evolution is merely a process that models the natural relative propagation and adaptation of groups and/or species (as a subgroup of a species may indeed be isolated and 'branch off').

Evolution has nothing to do with bio-engineering; the latter is more akin to intelligent design (as in a human intentionally designing/engineering an outcome).

You just like being obnoxious? Fair enough.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here, eat some more melon. It's good for you.