Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Kobuk on July 09, 2010, 11:31:31 pm
-
I can't believe nobody has noticed or posted this yet? :o
But anyway, here's some sample links that discuss about how an Ohio senator has introduced a bill to ban human/animal hybrids.
Sorry, folks. But looks like your dreams of real anthros in the future........will just be a pipe dream. :( :P
http://veracium.com/blog/bozone/ohio-senate-passes-bill-b98
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_SB_243
And in Arizona.......
http://azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/article_99ea8420-3c02-5ee4-80a1-55c7057382e2.html
-
This is interesting, because I remember a few years ago, there was some trivia..something I heard on the radio regarding a woman giving birth to a litter of Rabbits.
Anecdote aside, I wonder what prompted this :o
-
Sorry, folks. But looks like your dreams of real anthros in the future........will just be a pipe dream. :( :P
Actually, perhaps the opposite is true. I mean, if they really feel it's necessary to place bans, perhaps that means scientists were getting close. Or maybe it just means these people are paranoid. In fact, either way I think they are paranoid to even be purposing such a ban in the first place. So... never mind.
It bothers me that the justification is "it's not appropriate". Seriously, things should not be banned simply because someone thinks them inappropriate. They should be able to point to actual harm that would come from it. (not that that's stopped people from putting other bans in place for equally stupid reasons).
A ban like this won't stop anything. Instead all it does is slow down progress. Not only that but if they somehow think they are stopping suffering (since early cloning attempts tend to be malformed and die early deaths), in reality they increase probable suffering since in placing a ban they give up the ability to impose safety regulations.
-
And a crippling blow has been dealt to yet another dozen lines of promising medical research (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Human-animal_hybrid#Rationale) which could save
millions billions of lives, all in the name of preventing lab animals from suffering (because as we all know, having a few human genes is the root of all suffering). Yay animal rights! No, not really. It's not really about animal suffering. But we can't say what it's really about without offending religious people. Oops.
EDIT: I just realized that this the same Governor Jan Brewer I keep hearing about on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, with the immigration law thing. So she's a speciesist as well as a racist. I'm glad I'm not American.
-
That do (not) realize that this is just like the texas marriage ban; there will be all sorts of unintended over-reaching side-effects.
Either that, or the law-to-be would be so full of holes that there would be plenty of loopholes to use. I'm thinking its going to have over-reaching side-effects though. I've seen it happen... too many times (ie, texas marriage ban, a ban on endangered animal product sales which inadvertantly banned the trade of already established cell lines from those animals used for research, etc.). I'll just wait and see what happens when they realize that certain medical treatments just become unavaliable.
Anyways, it's not like its doing to stop biomedical research. Scientists will either; work around it via loopholes, evade the ban, or leave the state(s)/country.
Oh, and several more things;
1) I hope this doesn't get passed on a federal level.
2) If it does, I hope it gets repealed asap.
3) I have lost some of my respect for canada. (they already have something like this)
4) And I can easily make anthros sans the inclusion of any human material. It would be a peice of cake. Except for the money to buy the actual equipment, and the actual massive amounts of time and simulations that would need to be run.
-
I agree with Var... I cant stand when some nut in the government goes out on a crusade and decides he knows what is best for the entire country. Im really sick of the government deciding what is best for me, I believe that I should make those decisions. If I want to turn myself into an anthro (I don't) I should have the option to. This is the problem I have with government involved in every corner of our lives. ...Where is this country going???... and why is it in this handbasket?!?!
-
It's not really about animal suffering. But we can't say what it's really about without offending religious people. Oops.
Maybe, but you can hint at it without invoking religion directly.
It seems to me that it's due to an overinflated view of where humans fit in the universe. But they have no evidence to support this notion, and that in fact the evidence points to humans being just another species on this little insignificant speck of a planet. Therefore in order to maintain their delusions they legislate bans to stop free inquiry.
And yes, this is common with some religions since they tend to have this kind of overly human centric view of the universe. (and yes some might find it offensive, but for those that do, please -really- think about why it's offensive. I think you'd find it's due to this suggesting you are wrong. There is nothing inherently offensive in what I've said here.)
-
This reminds me alot about what I've read on human cloning. A cross between human dna with an empty cows egg. It was dividing, but was terminated, I believe. As cool as real anthros would be, I highly doubt you'd get a cute critter as the outcome. More like a mess of genetics and flesh. Aside from appealing to furries and neko lovers, there isn't much use for hybrids. Alot of animal strenghs are already replicated and without gene splicing. Night vision goggles are a perfect example.
-
Or maybe it just means these people are paranoid.
Jan Brewer.. paranoid? Naahh :D
It's neat to think that they actually might be fiddlin' with this sort of thing... I'm sure they are behind clsoed-doors, but wouldn't it be a hoot if they made it public by introducing the first anthro critter.... Things might turn out like the world Furtha High's webcomic is based on... (:
Then again, perhaps Brewer's paranoia could be justified a'la Jack-Webcomic style.. :o
-
I think they're way too late. I believe geneticists have been putting human genes into animals for years. Agribusiness has already inserted human genes into our food. My guess is, the idiots in the legislature simply have no idea.
However, if it comes down to a duel between state (or federal) legislators and Monsanto, Monsanto will win. Legislators are overhead; Monsanto is profit. It and its corporate brethren buy those clowns' tickets into office.
This amounts to nothing more than public posturing for the ignorant masses.
-
Monsanto always wins... Why do you think we have corn in EVERYTHING we consume in this country.
-
The opening link Kobuk posted said it all: "The sci-fi movie Splice seems to have scared the Ohio’s State Senator Steve Buehrer." Yep. Just the kneejerk reaction of dribbling morons toward a science fiction film. Those bozos have no idea that we've been doing it for years. I wonder if their stupid bill even specifies a percentage of human genetic material.
I'll bet it doesn't. Sounds like the work of Zero Tolerance thinkers.
This nonsense will go down in flames, but it'll be interesting to see if it makes it to the Supreme Court. I guess it depends on how stupidly tenacious legislators are. I might be mistaken, but I seem to recall that some genomes thus modified are even patented.
Think they're going to upset the economic applecart? Think again.
-
This reminds me alot about what I've read on human cloning. A cross between human dna with an empty cows egg. It was dividing, but was terminated, I believe. As cool as real anthros would be, I highly doubt you'd get a cute critter as the outcome. More like a mess of genetics and flesh. Aside from appealing to furries and neko lovers, there isn't much use for hybrids. Alot of animal strenghs are already replicated and without gene splicing. Night vision goggles are a perfect example.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Human-animal_hybrid#Rationale (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Human-animal_hybrid#Rationale)
Creating people with animal DNA isn't the point (and is certainly unethical unless applied to an already developed human (which isn't possible with today's technology and isn't even banned under this legislation)). Creating animals with human DNA is much more useful, because you can do cool things like create animals with human organs for transplantation, you know, stuff that saves lives. Not that anyone cares about that.
-
Foxpup: "...you can do cool things like create animals with human organs for transplantation, you know, stuff that saves lives. Not that anyone cares about that."
They do if they have a bad heart and a new one that their body won't reject can be grown inside a pig. And that is exactly the kind of thing that's being developed.
-
Foxpup: "...you can do cool things like create animals with human organs for transplantation, you know, stuff that saves lives. Not that anyone cares about that."
They do if they have a bad heart and a new one that their body won't reject can be grown inside a pig. And that is exactly the kind of thing that's being developed.
Okay, let me rephrase that. It's not like anyone in government cares about life-saving medical research. Unless, as you point out, they or someone they care about is suddenly stricken with an incurable disease. Until then, they just pass whatever legislation they think will get them re-elected, regardless of how many people have to die for it.
-
Ok, I give you that much with the organs thing. That still kinda crosses over with cloning, though. I mean, not like you can just grow organs and call it that. It'd have to be a cloned organ to really make it worthwhile so you wouldn't have to deal with anti rejection medication as it would be your own. It all depends on how research is being done. A flat out ban to is way too vague.
-
A flat out ban to is way too vague.
That's exactly what you want if you're afraid of change.
Hammer, meet nail :D
-
I personally don't see any loopholes. The following are from the Ohio bill and the article about Arizona, respectively:
(B) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:
(1) Create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid
The law, which takes effect July 29, even more specifically bars anyone from intentionally or knowingly creating or attempting to create a human-animal hybrid.
Both articles focus mainly on human-animal chimeras, and I understand that there are other ways to create an "anthro", but wouldn't they still qualify as knowingly creating a human-animal hybrid?
-
nope; they would not technically any part human... not if you do it right anyways
-
I personally don't see any loopholes. The following are from the Ohio bill and the article about Arizona, respectively:
(B) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:
(1) Create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid
The law, which takes effect July 29, even more specifically bars anyone from intentionally or knowingly creating or attempting to create a human-animal hybrid.
Both articles focus mainly on human-animal chimeras, and I understand that there are other ways to create an "anthro", but wouldn't they still qualify as knowingly creating a human-animal hybrid?
Nope. Only embryos count as human-animal hybrids. After eight weeks, it becomes a fetus, and then you can mess with its genes as much as you want and it's still human (at least according to the terms of the bill). Of course, messing with the genes of a multicellular organism is impossible with current technology, but once the technology becomes available, they'll probably put a blanket ban on it, too; even for consenting adults like us (well, most of us).
-
Um... humans are animals. Maybe they don't know that in Ohio? Or at least, they seem not to know that in the state senate.
-
Um... humans are animals. Maybe they don't know that in Ohio? Or at least, they seem not to know that in the state senate.
*reads the Big Book of American Law for Crazy Right-Wingers, by which I mean the Torah* Well, that's not it says here. In any case, they were careful to define "animal" as "non-human", which also rules out human-fungus hybrids (what a shame, such a hybrid would be far more intelligent than most of the American government).
-
If there is money to be made someone will do it. Even if they
have to set up a underground lab elsewhere in the world.
If they can use a pig as a host to clone organs, there will be people
who will pay anything to extend their lives inspite of laws. As we know
those who have lots of money can find ways around laws.
Personally I think science is much closer to being able
to create humanoid hybrids than any scientist would admit.
I often wondered if a humanoid hybrid ever exsisted in nature.. It would
likely have been difficult for it to survive.. I imagine evidence of creature diversity
in the past isn't all that great as the vast majority of animals and humans ended up
as dirt instead of fossils. Even if one was found I imagine science would just
discount it as a fossil of two beings laying over each other and store it away
someplace.
my thoughts.
-
Some people are not motivated by money you know. I can personally vouch for that.
-
*reads the Big Book of American Law for Crazy Right-Wingers, by which I mean the Torah*
@Foxpup: I don't know what you meant by that and I probably don't want to know. And I fail to see why the Torah was mentioned. Therefore.......since this is my thread, I'm going to have to ask everyone to please leave religion out of this thread since that's not what this thread is about. Thanks.
-
Kobuk, I think that's because the Torah is also the Old Testament. Same thing, just different names. (Someone correct me if I got them mixed up with something else)
[Not trying to bring religion into the thread, but rather to clarify what he meant since you seemed confused]
-
*reads the Big Book of American Law for Crazy Right-Wingers, by which I mean the Torah*
@Foxpup: I don't know what you meant by that and I probably don't want to know. And I fail to see why the Torah was mentioned. Therefore.......since this is my thread, I'm going to have to ask everyone to please leave religion out of this thread since that's not what this thread is about. Thanks.
Sorry. It just seems to me that conservative American politics (this law included) are influenced way too much by Judeo-Christrian fundamentalism. No offense intended.
Kobuk, I think that's because the Torah is also the Old Testament. Same thing, just different names. (Someone correct me if I got them mixed up with something else)
[Not trying to bring religion into the thread, but rather to clarify what he meant since you seemed confused]
The Torah is the first section of the Tanak and comprises the first five books of the Old Testament. It's the section with all the laws and commandments, and which several conservative politicians have pointed to as the basis for contemporary American law. That was the reference I was making.
-
....and which several conservative politicians have pointed to as the basis for contemporary American law.
I apologize for being off topic, but I wanted to point out for everyone that America was -not- based on biblical law. Perhaps I'm being hypersensitive, but I felt I had to mention it because this "Christian Nation" myth threatens the separation of church and state. In order to not derail this topic, if anyone has anything else on say on this please do so in a different thread or over PM. Thank you.
-
Put it this way, this means that hybrids aren't as far fetched as many think if people are already trying to ban it...
-
This will likely become a country wide ban. I would have to disagree in most cases, but I can see how this could be banned very easily. Who is to say that someone will not take hybrids to a volent form? Many people out there are corrupt, which is why these are placed, which is honestly too bad. There aare also other reasons among the bill, but I thought this one would be a sensible one.
-
Meerkat: "...I can see how this could be banned very easily."
How? They can't even effectively ban meth labs, and they make a big stink. A properly-equipped genetics lab would be difficult to find. If it's outside the U.S., make that impossible. If we don't exploit the technology for profit, you can bet some other nation will.
Anyway, like I said on the previous page, the clowns are too late. It's already being done (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html), and if it comes to a showdown between Big Government Nanny and Big Corporate Money, we all know who the winner will be. It'll be the one who signs the checks for all those astronomical bri... er, campaign contributions.
The Supreme Court has said, corporations are persons and money is speech. So what if human/animal hybrids make some people squeamish? What Monsanto wants, Monsanto gets.
-
:P Just linking this in in case some people are doubting the immediate benefits of hybridisation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL0_gcP15Ts
Thats just an interesting one really.. but there are others that are far more important i.e. the insertion of human DNA that codes for the production of insulin into bacteria to allow vast quantities to be easily and cheaply produced. Stuff like this saves millions of lives.
-
How? They can't even effectively ban meth labs, and they make a big stink. A properly-equipped genetics lab would be difficult to find. If it's outside the U.S., make that impossible. If we don't exploit the technology for profit, you can bet some other nation will.
To ban is to make illegal, not to gauruntee inforcement. And I believe that a lab of this variety would be much harder to move and maintain, requiring much money and space, compared to a meth lab. You do bring up a good point, though.
-
Meerkat: "I believe that a lab of this variety would be much harder to move and maintain, requiring much money and space, compared to a meth lab."
I'm not sure about the space. Remember, what they're working with is very small. I've been in genetics labs, and there are pictures online. The equipment is innocuous. Ever see the lab where Dolly the Sheep was cloned? It didn't look like much. Honestly, it looked like a back room at a vet clinic: Microscopes. Petri dishes. Hoods.
Meth labs really need hoods too (and those who are serious have them).
Regarding expense, I'm sure of it, but I'm talking about people with all the money in the world.
Regarding bans, what's the point of laws that are impossible to enforce? Granted, I'll agree that there should be laws against assaults of actual victims, things like murder, mutilation, rape, theft, etc. But we can't even enforce those (if you've ever been robbed you know we can't), so if you're going to have laws at all, doesn't it make sense to concentrate them where they benefit humanity the most?
Critics would argue that the hybrid or chimera is a victim, but that's not automatically so. The question really is, should it be exploitable? Bacteria with human genes are already amongst the patented intellectual property of corporate giants, so where do you draw the line? If a walkin', talkin' sentient hybrid pops up, do you kill it?
We need to be thinking in terms of defining sentience, and recognizing the rights of all sentient creatures. It's a hairy question, because I have known parrots who passed every test I devised. They not only talked, they passed the Turing test (if it responds so you can't tell you're talking to a parrot {except for the squawky voice, which it cannot help}, it's thinking). They laughed. They cried (not quite like we do it, although the overall body language is the same). They displayed love and affection. They reasoned. They got ticked off. They could be jerks.
We don't need to be banning stuff like the ignorant villagers in Frankenstein. We need to be humbly acknowledging our responsibility for the monsters we create, because God knows we've already created a bunch of 'em.
I'm no PETA member. I'm a carnivore, and proud of it. There's nothing wrong with eating meat. It is how the world was made. But I do think we need to be drawing an ethical line. I've worked around animals for most of my life, and as far as I'm concerned, great apes, psittacines and cetaceans are people. If you molest one of them, it's not qualitatively different from harming a person. You're hurting a thinking, feeling, self-aware creature.
Legislatures should be working on ensuring the rights of artificial creatures, including human clones, because sooner or later the subject is going to come up. Actually, it already has: in 2004, the Raëlians said they had produced a human clone. The Pope went ballistic. The State of Florida said, "If this turns out to be true we're taking the baby." The Raëlians kinda went, "Uh, never mind."
The State of Florida should have no right to take the baby.
-
*reads the Big Book of American Law for Crazy Right-Wingers, by which I mean the Torah* Well, that's not it says here. In any case, they were careful to define "animal" as "non-human", which also rules out human-fungus hybrids (what a shame, such a hybrid would be far more intelligent than most of the American government).
[/quote]
I wonder how long before somebody mention religious right wingers. Typical college student . I dare to say opposition is more adamant form the left, particularly from environmentalist and animal rights types.
http://animals.change.org/blog/view/human-animal_hybrids_and_other_crimes_against_nature
-
I wonder how long before somebody mention religious right wingers. Typical college student . I dare to say opposition is more adamant form the left, particularly from environmentalist and animal rights types.
http://animals.change.org/blog/view/human-animal_hybrids_and_other_crimes_against_nature
Yes, crazy left-wingers and environmentalists are also a problem (although not all left-wingers and environmentalists are crazy (and neither are all right-wingers, if it comes to that)). That's why I'm a libertarian and reject left-right politics entirely. But I still stand by what I said.
-
When I made Reply #33 above, I did not yet know that some scientists are already lobbying for exactly the kind of laws I was talking about. From Wikipedia's article on Cetacean intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence):
In 2009 a group of researchers concluded that dolphins are second in intelligence to humans, and suggested that their status be elevated to that of "non-human persons".
Good for them! That's the kind of thing that is needed, so if the dilemma ever does come up, there will be no question of an artificial person's legal status.
-
*reads the Big Book of American Law for Crazy Right-Wingers, by which I mean the Torah* Well, that's not it says here. In any case, they were careful to define "animal" as "non-human", which also rules out human-fungus hybrids (what a shame, such a hybrid would be far more intelligent than most of the American government).
I wonder how long before somebody mention religious right wingers. Typical college student . I dare to say opposition is more adamant form the left, particularly from environmentalist and animal rights types.
http://animals.change.org/blog/view/human-animal_hybrids_and_other_crimes_against_nature
[/quote]
While I don't disagree about your point I can't help but point out you both did the same thing to each other there. :P Oh.. and I'm a college student too, and military Veteran.
This topic is interesting. I'm not sure where I stand on the main issue here. I can see the benefits of it and I can also see how it could get out of control as well and possibly have adverse affects on the environment if a group of "things" escaped and changed the food chain somehow. I hope that we can use all technology in the future for the good of science and medicine and control misuse and/or dangerous practices the best we can.
-
To the sentiments expressed in this particular quote, though this is not the only quote in this whole thread expressing this problem;
I can also see how it could get out of control as well and possibly have adverse affects on the environment if a group of "things" escaped and changed the food chain somehow.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WrongGenreSavvy
To answer the question posed in the "Real Life" section (bottom of the page):
"Who among us has not made this mistake at some point?"
Furtopia sure hasn't escaped this one. Proverbial hook, line & sinker.
Seriously guys, don't believe everything you see in a sci-fi TV show/film/book...
/facepalm/ (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Facepalm)
I mean, if they can't even get the facts right (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch), do you think they can get their 'things that could possibly go wrong that we want to avoid' speculation right? I don't think so.
See also for related & vaguely related subjects to distract you (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife) while I go and do something that isn't contrary to this ban (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspiciouslySpecificDenial):
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenAesop
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MillionToOneChance
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FailsafeFailure
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyWrong
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyRight
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScienceIsBad
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WrongGenreSavvy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DanBrowned
Contrast:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisFurtopian (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisTroper)
-
While I don't disagree about your point I can't help but point out you both did the same thing to each other there. :P Oh.. and I'm a college student too, and military Veteran.
But of course. Groundless stereotyping is a long-accepted tactic of political debate. :D Okay, putting all that aside, my point is that this law was overly influenced by religious belief, while Acton is blaming environmentalist pseudoscience. How about we just all agree that there's a lack of real science involved?
This topic is interesting. I'm not sure where I stand on the main issue here. I can see the benefits of it and I can also see how it could get out of control as well and possibly have adverse affects on the environment if a group of "things" escaped and changed the food chain somehow. I hope that we can use all technology in the future for the good of science and medicine and control misuse and/or dangerous practices the best we can.
"Things"? Escaping? This isn't a 1950s science-fiction movie, you know. They're just ordinary animals with a few human genes. What, are you afraid they'll grow thumbs and start making tools?
-
While I don't disagree about your point I can't help but point out you both did the same thing to each other there. :P Oh.. and I'm a college student too, and military Veteran.
But of course. Groundless stereotyping is a long-accepted tactic of political debate. :D Okay, putting all that aside, my point is that this law was overly influenced by religious belief, while Acton is blaming environmentalist pseudoscience. How about we just all agree that there's a lack of real science involved?
This topic is interesting. I'm not sure where I stand on the main issue here. I can see the benefits of it and I can also see how it could get out of control as well and possibly have adverse affects on the environment if a group of "things" escaped and changed the food chain somehow. I hope that we can use all technology in the future for the good of science and medicine and control misuse and/or dangerous practices the best we can.
"Things"? Escaping? This isn't a 1950s science-fiction movie, you know. They're just ordinary animals with a few human genes. What, are you afraid they'll grow thumbs and start making tools?
No need to over-exaggerate someone's statement to make it sound ridiculous or something that wasn't said. If I could take an insect that has an adverse affect on crops, lets say corn, and change its structure with human DNA that somehow makes it immune to all known pesticides used to kill it currently and then release them into a countries crops then I could ruin their crops for a season or two (however long it takes them to figure it out and come up with a new pesticide). This could cause massive damage. In fact, tactics like this are already used in warfare. Warfare is what every technology ultimately comes down to: if it exists and has the potential to be used to cause harm it WILL be used to cause harm somehow. You can't UN-invent something. Once you invent it or succeed with an idea it wont ever go away. Always be careful what you wish for in technology.
-
...That's not exactly how it works. >.>
You'd have to /intentionally/ make it immune to pesticides; and even then, pesticides have so many potential attack vectors blocking one is liable to mean nothing in the long run; another could easily wipe them out.
Not like human DNA would have as many potentials for successful integration providing immunity; cockroachs on the other hand have a large number of evolved immunities to all sorts of things, and thus it would be easy to find some workable genes that could adapted to such a pursuit.
-
...That's not exactly how it works. >.>
You'd have to /intentionally/ make it immune to pesticides; and even then, pesticides have so many potential attack vectors blocking one is liable to mean nothing in the long run; another could easily wipe them out.
Not like human DNA would have as many potentials for successful integration providing immunity; cockroachs on the other hand have a large number of evolved immunities to all sorts of things, and thus it would be easy to find some workable genes that could adapted to such a pursuit.
It was a random example. Hence why I originally (and very obviously) said "things". It isn't my responsibility to brainstorm biological weapons for the sake of arguing with a couple furries on the internet. The possibility is there, and the fine details of how it is gone about isn't the point and is well beyond what me (as a former Cryptologist and currently Television Producer), and you (with whatever it is you do unless you are a biochemist or something directly related to this topic which by your reply says to me you almost surely are not) are able to comprehend and provide a detailed answer as to how. To say it isn't possible to genetically alter something to cause harm though is both ridiculous and uneducated as this has already been done before so is already a statement proven wrong.
-
No need to over-exaggerate someone's statement to make it sound ridiculous or something that wasn't said. If I could take an insect that has an adverse affect on crops, lets say corn, and change its structure with human DNA that somehow makes it immune to all known pesticides used to kill it currently and then release them into a countries crops then I could ruin their crops for a season or two (however long it takes them to figure it out and come up with a new pesticide). This could cause massive damage. In fact, tactics like this are already used in warfare. Warfare is what every technology ultimately comes down to: if it exists and has the potential to be used to cause harm it WILL be used to cause harm somehow. You can't UN-invent something. Once you invent it or succeed with an idea it wont ever go away. Always be careful what you wish for in technology.
First of all, biological warfare is illegal, and even if it wasn't, there are far easier ways of doing it than with genetically engineered organisms - it's cheaper to just use natural organisms.
Second, this law is only concerned with the use of human genes, and human genes aren't really that useful for creating biological weapons. If you really wanted to create a genetically engineered bio-weapon, it would make more sense to take genes from, say, the Ebola virus, and create a new and deadlier version of the common cold.
There's nothing "special" about human genes that makes them more dangerous to mess with than any other genes. And we've been messing about with other genes for years without completely destroying the environment. This law is more concerned with the "sactity of human life" (whatever than means) than the preservation of the environment.
-
No need to over-exaggerate someone's statement to make it sound ridiculous or something that wasn't said. If I could take an insect that has an adverse affect on crops, lets say corn, and change its structure with human DNA that somehow makes it immune to all known pesticides used to kill it currently and then release them into a countries crops then I could ruin their crops for a season or two (however long it takes them to figure it out and come up with a new pesticide). This could cause massive damage. In fact, tactics like this are already used in warfare. Warfare is what every technology ultimately comes down to: if it exists and has the potential to be used to cause harm it WILL be used to cause harm somehow. You can't UN-invent something. Once you invent it or succeed with an idea it wont ever go away. Always be careful what you wish for in technology.
First of all, biological warfare is illegal, and even if it wasn't, there are far easier ways of doing it than with genetically engineered organisms - it's cheaper to just use natural organisms.
Second, this law is only concerned with the use of human genes, and human genes aren't really that useful for creating biological weapons. If you really wanted to create a genetically engineered bio-weapon, it would make more sense to take genes from, say, the Ebola virus, and create a new and deadlier version of the common cold.
There's nothing "special" about human genes that makes them more dangerous to mess with than any other genes. And we've been messing about with other genes for years without completely destroying the environment. This law is more concerned with the "sactity of human life" (whatever than means) than the preservation of the environment.
Wow. I wasn't even gonna reply again but this is so flawed I can't resist one final one.
1) Legality has nothing to do with whether or not something is possible or will be done. Laws are in place to discourage actions but they don't stop all actions. I can't believe you think biological warfare doesn't happen because it's illegal (according to codes.. but in reality anything goes in all out war for those willing to break conventions). I should also note that warfare is not just reserved to being conducted by leaders of official nations. Warfare can be conducted by any group that comes up with the means to try to wage it. Laws aren't going to stop all biological warfare from happening. Biological attack (in fact, even the example I used is a common topic among those that deal with this issue) is a real threat to us currently in the western world, and has been a hot topic even on the news over the past several years. Know that this very moment there is a group of scientists working to make something to cause harm via biological attack, and there are people with already developed plans waiting to execute it given the right circumstances. That's just how it is. The world isn't a pretty little place where everyone follows the law.
2) Easier ways? Easier isn't always best for the scenario. Of course. Shooting someone is pretty simple if you want to kill them. I can walk up to them, shoot them. Though it is likely I'd be caught fairly easily even if someone didn't see it happen. Now if I researched the person I wanted to kill, found out they had a severe food allergy to nuts, and then took an extract of oil from some nuts and discretely put it in something they were going to eat that might normally contain nuts but they were always careful to get a version without nuts. Then they eat it and possibly die (especially if I caught them at home and unplugged (not cut) their phone line at the main box so they wouldn't be able to dial 911, then plug it back in after they are dead (making sure not to leave evidence as fingerprints, footprints, etc of course, booties are good for that as are latex gloves). Now it looks more like an accident or bad luck and there is less chance of me being caught and I'm free to continue doing whatever else I want to do without fear of being in jail and wasting my time.
Really, it's not "easy" to attack a city in the middle of a country you aren't occupying either. Discrete methods of causing harm and releasing poisons, etc into an area is sometimes the better, more effective, or easier option than trying to get an army in place and lose a lot of lives in the process.
3) What is your trade again? I don't think you are able to make such a bold statement as there is nothing of use with human genes in a technology that is very young with much left to discover (most in fact). You simply don't know that.
4) I actually have a neutral opinion on this subject. I don't know if you are arguing with me in an attempt to sway me because you thought it would be easy since I was on middle ground or something entirely different. Of all the people to try and argue with you choose the person with the neutral, unbiased stance on the subject that stated he wanted to wait and see before taking a definitive stance on the matter. I am only defending my statement that technology can be used for harm. I would never have thought anyone would attempt to argue against that (or see how since its so naive, much like saying that something wont happen because its illegal). Having any further debate with you is clearly a waste of time and I think you are more concerned with getting a reaction out of people and the sake of arguing than the actual issues. With that, I am going to bed. I'm sorry this didn't work out. I would have liked to have had a better discussion.
-
...That's not exactly how it works. >.>
You'd have to /intentionally/ make it immune to pesticides; and even then, pesticides have so many potential attack vectors blocking one is liable to mean nothing in the long run; another could easily wipe them out.
Not like human DNA would have as many potentials for successful integration providing immunity; cockroachs on the other hand have a large number of evolved immunities to all sorts of things, and thus it would be easy to find some workable genes that could adapted to such a pursuit.
It was a random example. Hence why I originally (and very obviously) said "things". It isn't my responsibility to brainstorm biological weapons for the sake of arguing with a couple furries on the internet. The possibility is there, and the fine details of how it is gone about isn't the point and is well beyond what me (as a former Cryptologist and currently Television Producer), and you (with whatever it is you do unless you are a biochemist or something directly related to this topic which by your reply says to me you almost surely are not) are able to comprehend and provide a detailed answer as to how. To say it isn't possible to genetically alter something to cause harm though is both ridiculous and uneducated as this has already been done before so is already a statement proven wrong.
Hence why I emphasised /intentionally/; unintentionally, the chances are negligible. ;)
-
First of all, biological warfare is illegal, and even if it wasn't, there are far easier ways of doing it than with genetically engineered organisms - it's cheaper to just use natural organisms.
Second, this law is only concerned with the use of human genes, and human genes aren't really that useful for creating biological weapons. If you really wanted to create a genetically engineered bio-weapon, it would make more sense to take genes from, say, the Ebola virus, and create a new and deadlier version of the common cold.
There's nothing "special" about human genes that makes them more dangerous to mess with than any other genes. And we've been messing about with other genes for years without completely destroying the environment. This law is more concerned with the "sactity of human life" (whatever than means) than the preservation of the environment.
Wow. I wasn't even gonna reply again but this is so flawed I can't resist one final one.
1) Legality has nothing to do with whether or not something is possible or will be done. Laws are in place to discourage actions but they don't stop all actions. I can't believe you think biological warfare doesn't happen because it's illegal (according to codes.. but in reality anything goes in all out war for those willing to break conventions). I should also note that warfare is not just reserved to being conducted by leaders of official nations. Warfare can be conducted by any group that comes up with the means to try to wage it. Laws aren't going to stop all biological warfare from happening. Biological attack (in fact, even the example I used is a common topic among those that deal with this issue) is a real threat to us currently in the western world, and has been a hot topic even on the news over the past several years. Know that this very moment there is a group of scientists working to make something to cause harm via biological attack, and there are people with already developed plans waiting to execute it given the right circumstances. That's just how it is. The world isn't a pretty little place where everyone follows the law.
True. And I don't believe that biological warfare won't happen just because it's in contravention of the Biological Weapons Convention. But anyone who would violate international law surely wouldn't swayed by this law, which only even applies in the state of Ohio.
2) Easier ways? Easier isn't always best for the scenario. Of course. Shooting someone is pretty simple if you want to kill them. I can walk up to them, shoot them. Though it is likely I'd be caught fairly easily even if someone didn't see it happen. Now if I researched the person I wanted to kill, found out they had a severe food allergy to nuts, and then took an extract of oil from some nuts and discretely put it in something they were going to eat that might normally contain nuts but they were always careful to get a version without nuts. Then they eat it and possibly die (especially if I caught them at home and unplugged (not cut) their phone line at the main box so they wouldn't be able to dial 911, then plug it back in after they are dead (making sure not to leave evidence as fingerprints, footprints, etc of course, booties are good for that as are latex gloves). Now it looks more like an accident or bad luck and there is less chance of me being caught and I'm free to continue doing whatever else I want to do without fear of being in jail and wasting my time.
Really, it's not "easy" to attack a city in the middle of a country you aren't occupying either. Discrete methods of causing harm and releasing poisons, etc into an area is sometimes the better, more effective, or easier option than trying to get an army in place and lose a lot of lives in the process.
But bullets have the advantage of going where they're aimed, and causing massive collateral damage with biological weapons is generally frowned upon (especially if you intend to be re-elected). Besides, this law will have no impact on biological warfare, so it's a moot point.
3) What is your trade again? I don't think you are able to make such a bold statement as there is nothing of use with human genes in a technology that is very young with much left to discover (most in fact). You simply don't know that.
Are we even having the same conversation? The very first thing I posted to this thread said the exact opposite of what you say I said.
And a crippling blow has been dealt to yet another dozen lines of promising medical research (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Human-animal_hybrid#Rationale) which could save millions billions of lives, all in the name of preventing lab animals from suffering...
All I said in my last post was that infectious diseases make a better source of "dangerous" genes than humans-animal hybrids. I have no idea what you thought I said.
4) I actually have a neutral opinion on this subject. I don't know if you are arguing with me in an attempt to sway me because you thought it would be easy since I was on middle ground or something entirely different. Of all the people to try and argue with you choose the person with the neutral, unbiased stance on the subject that stated he wanted to wait and see before taking a definitive stance on the matter. I am only defending my statement that technology can be used for harm. I would never have thought anyone would attempt to argue against that (or see how since its so naive, much like saying that something wont happen because its illegal).
I am arguing with you because this is the debate club, which was created for the specific purpose of people with different opinions arguing with each other. What you appear to be arguing (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that because a particular technology can be used to cause harm, it shouldn't be developed. I am not arguing that technology can't be used for harm. I am arguing that the risk of harm is negligible compared to the potential for good, and that passing a law banning a technology will both prevent it from being used to good, while at the same time doing virtually nothing to stop it being used for evil, and so an outright ban is a bad idea.
Having any further debate with you is clearly a waste of time and I think you are more concerned with getting a reaction out of people and the sake of arguing than the actual issues. With that, I am going to bed. I'm sorry this didn't work out. I would have liked to have had a better discussion.
Am I the only one here who has no idea what just happened?
-
I am arguing with you because this is the debate club, which was created for the specific purpose of people with different opinions arguing with each other.
This.....V
The Furry Debate Club was designed at the request of members to be a place where "mature" members who enjoy ideas and arguments can exchange ideas in "civil" debate. Base your arguments on facts while showing respect to all parties. Say your part but in the end allow others to keep their point of view if they wish. Do NOT start a debate if you are emotionally involved to the point you can't respect all debaters. Do NOT start a debate if you will get upset if most/all furs/people do not agree with you. Do NOT start a debate if you can't stay calm, civil, and respectful at all times.
What is Civil Debate? Everyone knows how to debate. Not everyone knows how to debate in a good civil fashion. Civil debate is where two or more parties post/discuss their points of view without putting down or disrespecting each other while giving a point of view.
-
Kobuk; arguing has a couple meanings; there's the debate type meaning, which derives from debating with the 'arguments' that are used, and then there is the 'I'm just going to blindly shout my opinions, regardless of how right, wrong, or just plain irrelevant they are, and provide nothing to back up any of my claims.'
He was referring to the first, from what I can tell.
-
Kobuk; arguing has a couple meanings; there's the debate type meaning, which derives from debating with the 'arguments' that are used, and then there is the 'I'm just going to blindly shout my opinions, regardless of how right, wrong, or just plain irrelevant they are, and provide nothing to back up any of my claims.'
He was referring to the first, from what I can tell.
Yes, I was. I'm not trying to upset anyone, and I really don't know why anyone would think I was.