Debates
01 Mar 05
03 Mar 05
Post by Delmer:
LOL! It was a cabbage, krisvictor. Yes, there are successful interspecies matings ...(shortened)... No doubt genetic science will be able to produce a human-chimp cross in the not too distant future if allowed to go down that road.
You mean Humkeys or Monmans (depending on the female or is it the male?).
This is assuming, of course, that humans and primates are genetically compatible. Humans and monkeys fall under the definition of "primate". But what makes genes compatible with others?
Will an Orangutang successfully mating with a Gorrilla produce an Orangulla/Gorrutang? Have this been tried and what were the results?
Angry monkeys?
pri·mate Pronunciation Key (prmt, -mt)
n.
1. (prmt) A mammal of the order Primates, which includes the anthropoids and prosimians, characterized by refined development of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, and a large brain.
2. A bishop of highest rank in a province or country.
If I mate a king with my highest ranking bishop, can I then call my fallen opponent a primate? 🙄
Kris
03 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by krisvictorLOL! I know of no successful hybrids among primates but that certainly doesn't mean there haven't been some. Hybrids so far have been between species of the same family or genus as far as I know. Species of the same order, such as primate, but not of the same family and/or genus seem to be unable to produce hybrids. I believe that humans and chimps share 95% identical DNA, so we really aren't too far apart DNA-wise. Homo sapiens is the only species left in the genus Homo but there were many other species in our genus that are now extinct and no doubt we could have mated with them, probably did, and produced hybrids. As to your bishop-king-primate question, I'll have to defer to the newly created Spirituality Forum.
[b]Post by Delmer:
LOL! It was a cabbage, krisvictor. Yes, there are successful interspecies matings ...(shortened)... No doubt genetic science will be able to produce a human-chimp cross in the not too distant future if allowed to go ...[text shortened]... bishop, can I then call my fallen opponent a primate? 🙄
Kris
03 Mar 05
LOL! I know of no successful hybrids among primates (shortened). Homo sapiens is the only species left in the genus Homo but there were many other species in our genus that are now extinct and no doubt we could have mated with them, probably did, and produced hybrids. As to your bishop-king-primate question, I'll have to defer to the newly created Spirituality Forum.
What other species were there in the genus Homo that are now extinct?
Please don't say "Homo-phobic/Homosexuals/Homo-on-the range" because I think those aren't extinct yet.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by vistesdThanks for taking the thought experiment seriously.
Question: Re your question #4, do you mean just where we would draw the line with regard to the human/non-human genetic mix, or whether we would draw the line for allowable abortion differently for different mixes?
I guess I am interested in the implications of the answer to the first question for the implications of the answer to the second!
Bests,
Aiden
03 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by krisvictorHomo habilis, ergaster, erectus, rudolfensis to name a few. I think neanderthal was also a very close relation, but not an actual Homo [no jokes please]
What other species were there in the genus Homo that are now extinct?
Please don't say "Homo-phobic/Homosexuals/Homo-on-the range" because I think those aren't extinct yet.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by mmanuelI think it is really homo neanderthalensis. And I think there are some scientists who think there might have been some cross-breeding between Neanderthals and Sapiens, but that comes from a vague memeory of reading it somewhere, and I have no citations. If it did occur, our genetic make-up would undoubtedly include both.
Homo habilis, ergaster, erectus, rudolfensis to name a few. I think neanderthal was also a very close relation, but not an actual Homo [no jokes please]
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by vistesdThat does sound familiar, but I think there is somewhat of a debate between those bioloigcal anthropology chaps about whether neanderthalensis should or shouldn't be Homo. I'll ask around the department tomorrow...
I think it is really homo neanderthalensis. And I think there are some scientists who think there might have been some cross-breeding between Neanderthals and Sapiens, but that comes from a vague memeory of reading it somewhere, and I have no citations. If it did occur, our genetic make-up would undoubtedly include both.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by mmanuelHere is a good book on the subject: "Extinct Humans"
Homo habilis, ergaster, erectus, rudolfensis to name a few. I think neanderthal was also a very close relation, but not an actual Homo [no jokes please]
by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI think there is a fundamental difference between an engineered mating and one in which "the magic happens on its own". If "the magic happens on its own" then leave the couple and their offspring and following generations alone. It's none of our business. They'll either survive and thrive or they'll vanish. If the mating was engineered then we've started down a road blazed by the Nazis, and probably some other earlier more obscure groups. Though we've probably reached a level of scientific expertise which will allow us to travel that road I doubt that anyone knows what we will find at the end of that road. But whatever we find at the end will be a corruption of something and I think traveling it would be a mistake. At the very least, such engineering, with or without abortions, would inevitably lead to a complete loss of individuality, spontaneous creativity and worth.
Okay, here is a real moral conundrum with respect to abortion. Yes and no answers preferred, particularly from non-heathens, but not strictly required.
Suppose you mate a human with a chimpanzee (or you just let the magic happen on its own) and a chimerical offspring results.
Remarkably, given the gentic closeness of the two species, this may be a ...[text shortened]... n 5: Same question as the above, but the offspring gets born. Could it be used for drug testing?
04 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIt's even rumoured that this was actually done at the Yerkes primate lab in Florida. (INSERT PREDICTABLE JOKE ABOUT U.S. PRESIDENT HERE).
Okay, here is a real moral conundrum with respect to abortion. Yes and no answers preferred, particularly from non-heathens, but not strictly required.
Suppose you mate a human with a chimpanzee (or you just let the magic happen on ...[text shortened]... e, but the offspring gets born. Could it be used for drug testing?
Why would one want to make fun of Clinton? Hell, he doesn't have a chance with a monkey. The monkey knows nothing about being a 'groupie' and the minute the cigar penetrates, I guarandamntee you, the president is in for a fight!
Anyhow, the offspring will, on average, be half human and half chimp, from a genetic point of view.
Well. That's not the way genetics works, but who am I to argue?
Question 1: Would it be moral to abort it before it was born (either to a human or a chimp mother, or does that make a difference?
All chimps are sacred. You must do a better job on the SVW primate primer.
As to the real question, I guess I have to say that no. Murder of potential beings is always wrong. With that said, and knowing I will never face pregnancy, it is the right of the potential mother to decide if the potential being lives or dies. It is all about potential.
<edit> This hypothetical being has the capacity of "deciding". Right? If not then it becomes a matter of how we choose to treat our animals, doesn't it?
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by DelmerThat fine and interesting, but a separate point. I'm not asking about the ethics of doing the experiment, but about the ethics of abortion after it is done.
I think there is a fundamental difference between an engineered mating and one in which "the magic happens on its own". If "the magic happens on its own" then leave the couple and their offspring and following generations alone. It's none of our business. They'll either survive and thrive or they'll vanish. If the mating was engineered then we've star ...[text shortened]... ns, would inevitably lead to a complete loss of individuality, spontaneous creativity and worth.
04 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyClinton, despite having the libido of a chimp, was not burdened with the intelligence of one.
[b]It's even rumoured that this was actually done at the Yerkes primate lab in Florida. (INSERT PREDICTABLE JOKE ABOUT U.S. PRESIDENT HERE).
Why would one want to make fun of Clinton? Hell, he doesn't have a chance with a monk ...[text shortened]... we choose to treat our animals, doesn't it?
[/b]
I accept genetics may not work quite like that, that you might not get exactly a 50:50 mix. However, the only assumption on which my thought experiment relies is that the degree of genetic humanness or chimpness will increase monotonically to the extent that a greater proportion of forebears are respectively either human or chimp.
I accept that it is immoral to abort a baby chimp for no good reason. This principle would probably extend at least as far as rats. And indeed, even stamping on an unsentient flower for no good reason is hardly admirable.
However, I think many people who oppose human abortion in most conceivable circumstances, on the grounds that it is murder, would be prepare to accept chimp abortion, on purely pragmatic grounds. For example, suppose a zookeeper learned that a female chimp in a captive colony had become pregnant, but knew that the zoo had no resources to support the new baby chimp. Few Christians would object to the zookeeper giving the mother chimp a reasonably safe chemical abortion. However, they would strongly object to a mother deciding to have an abortion because she lacked the resources to bring up the child.
However, suppose you had a roughly 50:50 human-chimp chimera. Would it be okay to abort it on pragmatic grounds?
04 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionI often have thoughts of a similar ilk whenever I spend money on myself (e.g., going out for dinner).
Like my statement about killing my hypothetical dog, what I'm about to may say warrant more introspection on my part. I think the only child that I would sacrifice my life for, in the hypothetical situation you propose, would my daughter ...[text shortened]... e. Any other ideas why? Or am I just riddled with contradiction?
For example, if on the way to a dinner out, I came across a person who was literally starving, and who pleaded with me to help him. I would then surely put dinner aside, and spend the money on a taxi to take him to hospital, get him some food, etc.
However, right now, all over the world, there are people literally starving, and I could easily sacrifice the pleasure of eating out, particularly on a single occasion, to donating money to ease their burden (ignoring complications about the charity taking a cut, the distribution of the money over several victims, etc.). But I don't feel obliged to avoid eating out to help them...although sometimes a guilty suspicion creeps over me.
I am not sure the differences between the two cases suffice to account for the fact that I feel overwhelmingly obliged to help in the first case but not in the second. Does a chance face-to-face encounter really create the obligation? Is moral obligation an intrinsically local phenomenon?
I often think that the superwealthy, who have several million pounds, should donate a few million to charity as a matter of course, because the extra millions they donate can hardly augment their own happiness further, whereas in a world where most people are poor, those millions could massively augment the happiness of a multitude.
But, if they are under an obligation to give much or most of what they have, then so am I, as I am hugely wealthy in comparison to most people on Earth even if I am only modestly wealthy by Western standards.