/sci/ - Science & Math

The fuck? Who the fuck comes up with these laws? Chimaeras?

Awww, that's bullshit. inb4 someone doesn't read the link and says "good, fuck furries"

UK is a pussy. "boo hooo, building a monkey brain out of human neurons is ethically wrong, who are we to play god, where is my bottle i want my mommy wha wha" No wonder nobody likes you guys.

>>3434983

It's not like the USA is any less pathetic in this regard.

I think it's a sick idea to mix up species for the sake of human medicine.

Deal with it.

This will not effect furries, so lets just forget them.

I can only imagine that this will also not prevent adult humans from inserting non-human genetics into their genomes.

Thus, this can only hypothetically stifle research that could make me live longer or be better. And to that I say 'Fuck you'.

>>3434979
who
the
fuck
cares?

Godd fucking luck furfaggots.

So might it soon be possible to create a monkey with a brain composed entirely of human neurons? And would it think like a human?

inb4 The planet of the apes becomes reality

Anyone who stands in the way of progress should be removed.

>>3434975
Ignoring OP and focusing on this post, 'chimaeras' are useful for studying human things without actually trying to use humans. It's not, like, hybrids or something. It's more like having a goat produce a human blood-clotting factor so you can study it. It's useful! However, I agree that would should consider the ethical issues. Whether laws are necessary is up to debate. I think most scientists are all too aware of the blurry line and the ax of public opinion that you receive if you cross it. As long as the laws don't hinder good science (See: many stem cell laws), they're fine.

>>3434991

Why should you live longer than others.

What makes you so special.

>>3435001

What "ethical issues"?

>>3434999
the sad think is that sociopathic sci-loving nerd actually think that way.

>>3435018

Please explain why we should slow down progress just to accommodate the pathetic filth who desperately need to believe that they are in some magical tier above other animals, and can't bear to have that barrier shattered?

At first I hoped it was actually a ban on furries, because fuck furries. Then I was sad because it wasn't a ban on furries but on human animal chimeras. That actually would have been cool. Just imagine the possibilities: we could have an army of shapeshifting half-shark half-Trex with opposable thumbs and human intelligence.

>>3435001
>I think most scientists are all too aware of the blurry line and the ax of public opinion that you receive if you cross it.
>laughinggirls.jpg
"scientists" don't think further than than their field.
they are sheep trying to be better than they guy next door.

>>3434966
Yeeeesh. That could lead to all kinds of monstrosities.

Seems stupid to ban it and not just select the experiments of greatest value to scientific progress.

>>3435029
1) whats so great about progress? I hold morals over progress. progress happens anyway. I don't want two others to suffer so I can become 95 instead of 90 years old. Imagine a world where everybody would only care about themselves.
2) the people who don't want to use other species are the ones who see themself as above-tier?

>>3435049

Morals? What morals? What is immoral about this technology?

Everyone already only cares about themselves.

>he people who don't want to use other species are the ones who see themself as above-tier?

We put millions of animals in conditions that make the Nazi concentration camps look comfortable, and slaughter them by the hundreds of millions. Why does this technology cross the line?

>it wasn't a ban on furries but on human animal chimeras.

damn, uk, i thought you were cool. i guess i was wrong.

i'll just have to engineer my catgirls somewhere else.

>>3435009
It mainly has to do with modifying the brain or eliciting human traits in non-human animals. I'm TRYING to find a audio thing that I listened to this morning.

STAY TUNED WHILE I FIND IT.

>>3435061
FINALLY:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14250388

>>3435061

What is wrong with "eliciting human traits in non-human animals"?

OP:
>AWW THEY BAN FURRIES
Article:
>WE MUST REGULE THAT SHIT, SOME TWISTED SHIT CAN BE SHITTED WITH THIS SHIT

>inb4 "there is no problem with experimenting on something that have a human brain"
(of course i would wet my pants if this was the case, but welcome to the real world)

>inb4 bluebrain become sentient and we just can't experiment with it anymore
(you know that will come)

>>3435056
>Everyone already only cares about themselves.
that's a general statement which can't be true 100% but whatever.

>What is immoral about this technology?
there are the "global" human rights. the basic things. let's for the sake of argument assume that we agree on these. Now if you create an ape that is more human, you would create a loophole, since now you end up with second class humans. I'm not saying that these apes are humans, but I'm also not saying that we shouldn't treat the apes better anyway.

>We put millions of animals in conditions that make the Nazi concentration camps look comfortable, and slaughter them by the hundreds of millions. Why does this technology cross the line?
I don't quite understand. Imho it absolutely totally crosses the line.

>>3435066
I'm not really sure how to word it (which, of course, means you have a valid point). It's almost like an in-real-life uncanny valley. It's uncomfortable. The 'uncanny valley' effect really only applies to people's feelings toward hypothetical chimaeras. There are also concerns of cruelty. Biological sciences in which animal testing is involved are actually very well regulated to assure that the animals don't suffer unnecessarily. If the chimaeras were suffering (not the case with my goat example from earlier), they probably wouldn't be allowed unless they offered a HUGE scientific advantage.

It should be noted that I stay away from animal testing stuff because it makes me personally uncomfortable, but I'm not one to stand in the way of science either.

>>3435093
>there are the "global" human rights. the basic things. let's for the sake of argument assume that we agree on these. Now if you create an ape that is more human, you would create a loophole, since now you end up with second class humans. I'm not saying that these apes are humans, but I'm also not saying that we shouldn't treat the apes better anyway.

Why is this a problem?

>I don't quite understand. Imho it absolutely totally crosses the line.

So you're absolutely fine with the conditions livestock are treated in, but if you experiment on them in different ways than are already being done, you've suddenly crossed the line? Where is this line?

>>3435074
Well technically no amount of computing power will ever make something sentient

However, if you even reasonably mimic human intelligence, then program in pain, happiness, etc. then you could reasonably argue that it would hurt it to turn it off or dismantle it or use up it's CPU time.

ETHICS. ALWAYS GETTING IN MY GOD DAMN WAY OF SCIENCE.

I'm against all ethics of the individual, so long as it can be reasonably determined it will give us new information or tools to improve humans.

>>3435093
These are good points. The second one in particular is well worth considering. Again, it's cognitive issues, modification of the brain to make it more human, that are going to cause the most problems here.

>>3435103
why is what a problem?

and no, I think both are "crossing the line". both a wrong.

>>3435112

What is the problem with creating a "second rate human" as you call it?

As for both crossing the line, at least you're not a hypocrite like most.

>>3435116
what is the problem of creating second class humans?
are you serious?
Do you wanna be one of the second class people?
(do you wanna be a jew in nazi germany?)

>>3435135

I don't think it's possible for me to retroactively become a Chimaera.

>>3435140
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

>>3435146

Let's say Chimaera is made. We experiment on it. Why should we concern ourselves over whether it is "sentient" (a flimsy biased term)?

I wonder if I could use neanderthal dna instead of human dna to bypass all the rules.

>>3435154
Or you could just move to some lawless land (i.e., Africa) and no one would ever give a shit.

>>3435148
jesus, It's like talking to a robot.
Some people think it's not okay to put a squirrel in the toaster. I wonder why.

If you feel that way, why care about anything?

>>3435159
But I don't really want black loli cat girls.

>>3435164

I like progress, and I like watching the people that oppose progress get butt angry.

>>3435164

If they don't want to put the squirrel in the toaster, they don't have to.

Oh, just figured I'd post this since this is, in a roundabout way, about animal care in science:

http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/iacuc/

My alma mater's site (still working on getting into grad school). Feel free to explore it. Just emphasizing that it is WELL regulated; I actually was much more comfortable with how animal testing is handled after I knew committees like this existed. I couldn't put a collar on a coyote without paperwork. Don't listen to PETA, kids.

sage because this hasn't bumped in a while

bump because of sage

:P

>>3435167
>black loli cat girls.
oh hello mr. boner nice to see you up

>>3435378
I need one!

Good.