Human Animals?

by passwordprotected 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JWoods

  How so?

  Because he had not accused anybody of "strawman" in quite some time.
• 

  Satanus

  'If humans are merely animals, then killing humans because they do not have the desired breeding qualities will be acceptable. Deciding which human animals can and should breed will also be acceptable. Is taking Hitler's core ideas and moving forward with them, putting a more presentable face on them, ok? What if someone without a silly small moustache was the face of eugenics? What that be ok?

  Is reducing humans to the same status as animals, in a world where animals are bred, farmed, killed and used as 'machines', a good thing? Didn't it lead to serious issues previously, such as "ethnic cleansing"?'

  There are a fear fear push button words and phrases in there: hitler, ethnic clensing, killing humans, breeding humans, human animals, etc. Also, the speed w which you started this thread after my post about human animals on the other thread is telling. You reacted swiftly. While i can't see the exact time stamps, i would say that it was within a minute or two of mine.

  "" How many evolutionists talk about killing people? ""

  What's strawman about that question?

  S
• 

  Satanus

  dubble
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Eugenics is obsolete. We will be able to modify our machinery ad hoc at any point in our lives. In fact, recent RNAi trials show that we can silence unwanted genes in humans at will.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  To me, taking the "superiority" of humans over (other) animals for granted (by human standards, of course!) indicates a widespread, yet abysmal lack of ethical reflection. And for this reason I wouldn't blame it on religion or monotheism, even though they have been used in justifying it (with the Biblical theme of "God's image" in man, for instance). Speciocentrism is as congenital to human culture as symbolism and language. The beginning of thinking (that which Heidegger said we have not yet started doing) might consist in trying to question it -- and measure the extreme difficulty, if not outright impossibility, of doing so.
• 

  hamilcarr

  I don't think it's ever acceptable to reduce humans to mere animals.

  Maybe we'll have to raise animals to mere human standards.
• 

  Spook

  If humans are merely animals, then killing humans because they do not have the desired breeding qualities will be acceptable. Deciding which human animals can and should breed will also be acceptable.

  I don't know where to begin.

  You are confusing an "is" with an "ought."

  A psyiological fact could be sighted as evidence in some argument, but it does not entail the truth of any moral judgement.

  This is a poorly stated moral argument - or prediction - or whatever you're trying to say. Restriction of sexual choice in any way is not likely. People makes these decisions themselves anyway. Why are tall, strapping young men more popular with the ladies? Do they all have better personalities? No. Tall, strapping men tend to have tall strapping children. Central planning does not seem to add anything to this. We're unwilling to restrict reproduction to people with severe genetic diseases. I think one reason we believe this is because of a sense of solidarity which comes from knowing we're all human and that nobody chose to be born a certain way. This is completely compatible with being a sentient mamal.
• 

  VoidEater

  Genetic diversity is a group survival characteristic, granting resilience through environmental changes and supporting our habit of social specialization.

  Eugenics runs counter to both of these traits, making us a less effective species.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  We will be able to modify our machinery ad hoc at any point in our lives. In fact, recent RNAi trials show that we can silence unwanted genes in humans at will.

  I'll admit I haven't kept uptodate on this line of work. When I started uni (wow its alreay been over a decade) I was amazed at the beginning use of complimentary strands of RNA to bind to accessible parts of DNA to block expression. Is that the basic approach of those trials? I'd be interested at looking at any material that may be freely online.

  I wouldn't say eugenics is obsolete though. Why not "enhance" the process itself. Think of the possibilities open to two people who love each other but who's genetic matching reveals their offsping could suffer from some horrible defects. I'm strongly for somatic gene therapy of the child because we should look after those of us alreay here. But I'd be thrilled with gene therapy correcting the germ line defects of the parents. Then their children's own germ lines should be rid of those deleterious alleles as well.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Is that the basic approach of those trials? I'd be interested at looking at any material that may be freely online.

  Yes. Engineered molecules have been devised that can carry the siRNA (small interefering RNA) through the body and into the cytoplasm to accomplish RNAi along the signalling pathways. Dendrimers, cyclodextrin, and a great many other polymers are some of the molecular vehicles. There are too many companies working on the technology to list here. Therapeutic candidates include various genetic disorders, as well as cancers.

  BTS