Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

You were the one defending creating "improved" races of humans created to be good at some specific tasks, right? I can see why you don't see a problem, but frankly I don't agree with you.

Also, we have the general problem that any trial could go wrong and you could create Neanderthals that have a host of development problem or something.

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with me on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive revulsion.

In which case the project would be a failure and would be abandoned, but we could then use the knowledge we gained from that in the future.

[GlyphGryph]

Oh hey there was someone else supporting the creation of improved human races? Neat.

[RedKing]

You were the one defending creating "improved" races of humans created to be good at some specific tasks, right? I can see why you don't see a problem, but frankly I don't agree with you.

Also, we have the general problem that any trial could go wrong and you could create Neanderthals that have a host of development problem or something.

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with me on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive revulsion.

In which case the project would be a failure and would be abandoned, but we could then use the knowledge we gained from that in the future.

But here's the thing...you're talking about "abandoning the project", which is a very clinical, bloodless term for "bringing sapient semi-human beings into existence, then killing them/leaving them to die when it doesn't work out how we intended". It's the kind of thing you find as a cliche in video games, for god's sake.

[Owlbread]

You realise I wasn't supporting the point?

You may have accidentally strawmanned. I was saying that I don't understand how it is viewed as cruel.

Oh I see, I apologise, I thought you were saying you didn't understand why we should bring them back.

But here's the thing...you're talking about "abandoning the project", which is a very clinical, bloodless term for "bringing sapient semi-human beings into existence, then killing them/leaving them to die when it doesn't work out how we intended". It's the kind of thing you find as a cliche in video games, for god's sake.

It is a very clinical term, yes, I am sorry. I should know better - I loathe euphamisms like that. I had originally meant that we would stop working on it then and there if they had lots of health problems/developmental problems and go back to the drawing board, we wouldn't necessarily gas them all because it's not what we intended or something - only euthanise them if we had to (if they were suffering from painful terminal cancers for example) then accept the ramifactions of our actions; make public apologies, build a memorial to them and so on.

You must understand though that we would have done decades of research into this to make sure that that kind of thing would not happen, or would be as unlikely to happen as possible. It's not like we'd do it tomorrow just to see what happens. As you've shown - these would be real human lives that we would be dealing with, not a new shampoo product or something. We should be very aware of that and always keeping the welfare of the neanderthals as our primary concern.

[Scoops Novel]

On the very next day...

[Sheb]

I'm not sure you can really bring logic into moral arguments. But if I had to try to, i'd go along those lines.

1) Any creation of Neanderthals is bound to imply risks. Maybe there is some DNA that's missing and the poor creature die much earlier. Maybe it's nervous system get detroyed by the mom's immune system. I don't think you have the right to take that risk.

2) Humans should not be used without their consents. This include creating humans for SCIENCE! Humans should be a end, never only a mean.

3) There is also a form of ethical laziness here. Right now, our ethical code is largely based on the fact that there is a clear distinction between humans and non-humans, due to the fact that our whole genus died off. This make it rather convenient to have a moral code, for exemple mentally disbabled people are still worthy of being treated as human and we won't use them in medical experiment. I'm wary of blurry this distinction.

I'm aware point 3 is rather weak, but it's also the less important of the three.

[scriver]

I don't believe the moral implications matter at all as long as they've got the same rights as we do, aren't hurt or mistreated in any way or held against their will.

...He said, just after stating how they should be kept in concentration camps "for their own safety".

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with me on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive revulsion.

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with them on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive fascination.
 

[GlyphGryph]

Sheb, children are always created and "used" (for whatever satisfaction people get from having children) without their consent.

You seem to be arguing against something in totality, a part of which is very much core to human nature and society.

[Sheb]

Yeah, there is no absolutely perfect moral laws, hence my reluctance to try to ge tlogic in there. However, I guess most of us would oppose creating new strains of children for scientific purpose, wouldn't we? Why should it be different for Neanderthals?

[Scoops Novel]

If any of you are familiar with I fucking love science on Facebook, the knee-jerk reactions are not promising. Amongst other things, people are referencing a movie where they were being used by the army or some such. What irritated me far more was the (from the ones i saw) mass of such idiocy present.

[Owlbread]

I'm not sure you can really bring logic into moral arguments. But if I had to try to, i'd go along those lines.

1) Any creation of Neanderthals is bound to imply risks. Maybe there is some DNA that's missing and the poor creature die much earlier. Maybe it's nervous system get detroyed by the mom's immune system. I don't think you have the right to take that risk.

2) Humans should not be used without their consents. This include creating humans for SCIENCE! Humans should be a end, never only a mean.

3) There is also a form of ethical laziness here. Right now, our ethical code is largely based on the fact that there is a clear distinction between humans and non-humans, due to the fact that our whole genus died off. This make it rather convenient to have a moral code, for exemple mentally disbabled people are still worthy of being treated as human and we won't use them in medical experiment. I'm wary of blurry this distinction.

I'm aware point 3 is rather weak, but it's also the less important of the three.

1. I think we do have the right provided we do our very best to reduce the risks as far as we can, but if "as far as we can" means there is still a huge risk that they might be born into a life of suffering we just shouldn't take it.

2. The Neanderthals would only be used with their consent, provided they are indeed sentient.

3. Some would also argue with you on point 3 on the fact that other animals suffer from that ethical code greatly, so maybe it's time we had a shakeup.

I don't believe the moral implications matter at all as long as they've got the same rights as we do, aren't hurt or mistreated in any way or held against their will.

...He said, just after stating how they should be kept in concentration camps "for their own safety".

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with me on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive revulsion.

Perhaps you should consider whether you are disagreeing with them on the basis of logic or emotion/instinctive fascination.

They would have the choice to leave the camps/lab/barracks (wherever they will stay), provided they understood what they were going into.

I already know I disagree with him on the basis of both logic and emotion/instinctive fascination. You don't need to remind me, although it's a kind thought.

[Scoops Novel]

Owlbread, you need better statements. They will be sentient, and only wouldn't be if we fucked up utterly, and would arguably not be Neanderthals if so. It might be time we have a shakeup, but that was never the point of the experiment was it? I doubt the Neanderthal would survive a shakeup, and this is not a good way of causing people to treat animals better. The idea is not to equate neanderthals with non-sentient animals is it?

[Owlbread]

Owlbread, you need better statements. They will be sentient, and only wouldn't be if we fucked up utterly, and would arguably not be Neanderthals if so. It might be time we have a shakeup, but that was never the point of the experiment was it? I doubt the Neanderthal would survive a shakeup, and this is not a good way of causing people to treat animals better. The idea is not to equate neanderthals with non-sentient animals is it?

Actually I did exactly that on the previous page. I think we should equate non-sentient animals with human beings on issues like this because we're all wild animals, be they homo sapiens sapiens or homo sapiens neanderthalis. Indeed, it was never the point of the experiment to have a shakeup, but if that's an unintentional consequence it doesn't look like it could harm us (or them) very much. Also, what makes you say the Neanderthal would not survive such a shakeup?

I'm just trying to cover my bases here - I think Neanderthals would be sentient, but exactly how sentient is rather unclear to me. By "sentient" I was meaning that they would be self aware. I do indeed need better statements though, I've been thinking on my feet about this for basically the whole time. They need to be organized.

[Scoops Novel]

I said equate them with non-sapient animals. A shakeup is unlikely to happen for anything that's not sapient. Edit: Sorry, i should be saying sapient.

[Scoops Novel]

They might survive, but ostracized from society, not living a full life.