![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fridi posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsJapan Approves Groundbreaking Experiment Bringing Human-Animal Hybrids to Term
Sounds outrageous, right? I mean, right until you need an organ to save your life, and they provide. That's where moral outrage usually dies down, where the benefits start to roll in.
We had a recent post on a similar ethical conundrum here (e.g. Nazi science). So, to put some salt on that wound and play devil's advocate some more: What's wrong with using animals for human parts? We already transplant pig heart valves into humans. It's a relatively common procedure that saves the lives of tons of people with aortic valve defects.
Well of course there's the fact that as one scientist stated, human organs from chimps would be too small for implantation into adult humans. But that could change. I mean, science evolves pretty fast so that shouldn't be the main concern here.
The main concern is of course ethical. There's the sentiment that sentient*, sapient beings deserve to be treated as though they have the same rights that should be accorded to any sentient, sapient being. Whether genetically engineered, naturally evolved, or created in a digital system. This school of thought professes that the law should see zero difference between anyone in concern of freedom and self determination. And that basic rights should apply to everyone equally, with the idea that if we can establish a pattern of communication where thoughts and intent can be reliably exchanged, they are sentient and sapient and as such have full rights.
Perhaps if that were the case we'd see a lot less of this nebulous genetic tinkering because these scientists wouldn't be able to “own” and “profit” from it. And yes, most of us are well aware that some animals are quite capable of communicating relatively clearly with us, and they damn well deserve to have rights if they can.
* But we may need to give a clear definition of sentience. In its most basic definition, it simply means being able to feel pleasure and pain. Other definitions include the ability to think, and others to be self-aware. So which is it?
Sounds outrageous, right? I mean, right until you need an organ to save your life, and they provide. That's where moral outrage usually dies down, where the benefits start to roll in.
We had a recent post on a similar ethical conundrum here (e.g. Nazi science). So, to put some salt on that wound and play devil's advocate some more: What's wrong with using animals for human parts? We already transplant pig heart valves into humans. It's a relatively common procedure that saves the lives of tons of people with aortic valve defects.
Well of course there's the fact that as one scientist stated, human organs from chimps would be too small for implantation into adult humans. But that could change. I mean, science evolves pretty fast so that shouldn't be the main concern here.
The main concern is of course ethical. There's the sentiment that sentient*, sapient beings deserve to be treated as though they have the same rights that should be accorded to any sentient, sapient being. Whether genetically engineered, naturally evolved, or created in a digital system. This school of thought professes that the law should see zero difference between anyone in concern of freedom and self determination. And that basic rights should apply to everyone equally, with the idea that if we can establish a pattern of communication where thoughts and intent can be reliably exchanged, they are sentient and sapient and as such have full rights.
Perhaps if that were the case we'd see a lot less of this nebulous genetic tinkering because these scientists wouldn't be able to “own” and “profit” from it. And yes, most of us are well aware that some animals are quite capable of communicating relatively clearly with us, and they damn well deserve to have rights if they can.
* But we may need to give a clear definition of sentience. In its most basic definition, it simply means being able to feel pleasure and pain. Other definitions include the ability to think, and others to be self-aware. So which is it?
(no subject)
Date: 24/8/19 19:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/8/19 20:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/8/19 20:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/8/19 20:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/19 14:19 (UTC)I think what gives me pause about that phrase though is that you've added in among living creatures as though it belongs there.
Just about every representation of AI in films deliberately glosses over a very, terribly important fundamental aspect of the implementation. Perhaps because it's something that only seems important to computer programmers, and not interesting to anyone else. It's this: AI is the aggregate result of discrete mathematical calculations, and the numbers that represent the current state - all the complexity that you might mistake for consciousness - are not alive. This separation between data and calculation is fundamental. If you think an AI has feelings - or "experiences" anything in general - you might just as well claim that a copy of Moby Dick is sentient because of how it makes you feel when you read it.
Dropping that into the midst of conscious living creatures like it belongs there is ... well, it just doesn't work.
(no subject)
Date: 24/8/19 23:52 (UTC)General rule-of-thumb with each case decided on its individual merits, of course.
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 04:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 05:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 15:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 17:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 06:53 (UTC)This will take a lot of thinking, but I always default to each case on its own merits within general principles of fairness, justice, etc.
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 09:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 09:38 (UTC)Depends what they want to be called, at a guess. :)
Essentially, if it uses language like a person to tell of it’s needs and desires, it’s a person. The argument then gets turned on its head and becomes; can we deny a being which uses language the rights that can be articulated in that language?
That’s the dividing line, I guess; but I’ll be prepared to be put right here.
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 10:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 11:34 (UTC)If they abide by our values, and fit in with society, I’m for taking the Vetinari approach; there will be a niche for them.
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 12:49 (UTC)https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/4238118/luis-adron-man-spent-45k-surgery-elf/
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/19 14:04 (UTC)I suppose there is a niche for that person too, though I’d rather have thought that folk with the old blood running through their veins would be more inclined to disguise the fact rather than otherwise. But I do hear the Plantagenets were descended from a water demon, so...
If it amuses him and offends none other... It’s not the way I’d do things; but who cares about my outmoded conventions of the ties that bind society any more now they have been stripped of meaning?
So we need to find new ones. Ones worthy of a culture that, having dispensed with one set of conventions that bind, can construct an ethical framework for a society to operate within that doesn’t need stupid rituals excepting as pleasurable diversions or hobbies.
So far, so Nietzsche (God is dead, and having killed him we must be worthy of the deed) but I would suggest, and quite seriously, that the political groundwork for a multi-species society has been done by fiction and fantasy writers, the most recent of note being Pratchett.
Ankh-Morpork is an ideal for a vibrant society which allows anyone to become a member: golems, dwarves, trolls, vampires, werewolves; and all the human scum too: dukes, villains, thieves, conmen, policemen, and politicians.
Star Trek and Star Wars have both looked at multi-species civilisations, as has Iain Banks, but Pratchett seems to be able to synthesise these strands into a workable model we can all relate to and understand at a very basic level. (And I’d suggest it doesn’t need a Vetinari to hold it all together; Moist von Lipwig would do just as well.)
(no subject)
Date: 26/8/19 01:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/8/19 05:49 (UTC)Of the various chimeras we could create that one seems to be the sort that could find suitable employment in the MI complex.
(And I bet it happens to be one of those Trump-supporting libertarian types.)