Human animal hybridization, are the risks worth the possible gains?

reply to post by Raist


While the fish and seahorse are pretty in their luminescence, the point remains that we don't have the right to do this.

I hope consumers will reject them based on ethical reasons.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


I remember hearing about it on the news last year or so.

I think many of the what is becoming the “average American” type will eat such things up. It will be the latest trend to have such animals, before long there will be a desire to have other pets that glow in the dark.

There are too many that are too caught up in the being cool and having the latest cool thing for such animals not to become popular. I fully agree though that this is wrong and we do not have the rights. Though as we understand it now it causes the animals no pain or discomfort we also cannot see into the minds of animals ass of yet either to see what they think about their permanent night lights.

Raist

Originally posted by Raist
The thing though about the growing body parts (which I really have no problem with) is that at some point the creature has to be called human. How much of a percentage will that take? In addition, even though we are harvesting parts from creatures is that overstepping our rights to interfere with the rights of another? If they are seen as nothing more than farm animals then at what point do they stop being that and become human?

Those are great questions and I have answers that work for me but they may or may not work for society in general, we are all individuals with different opinions.

To me it's not the percentage, it's anything above the neck:
-head
-brain
-face

If any of that starts to have human or human-like characteristics, then we have to start thinking about giving it human rights.

Let's say of we could do a head transplant between a pig and a human.

Put a human head on a pig's body and I call it a human.

Put a pig's head on a human body and I call it a pig.

I don't expect every one to agree with that but my justification is that the consciousness and identity of the individual resides in the brain, so the brain and the head should dominate our perception of the animal's identity.

When I watched "The Fly" I always thought the human was the one with the human head, not the one with the human body.

But these are difficult questions to answer, no doubt.

reply to post by Raist


I suspect you are absolutely right. Like selling bunnies and chicks at Easter that are later accidentally crushed to death or smothered by five year old owners. I once knew a parakeet that was flushed down the toilet by a three year old. (Along with her mother's Rolex).

The little fish will be a novelty, and people will want them.

(Oh God. I'm trying not to want some Raist, really I am.) They really are beautiful.

But this actually pales when compared to some of the other mind-bending atrocities on this thread. We keep many things in captivity that probably we shouldn't.

(But don't get started on my dogs! Yes, they are my prisoners, but they love it here! They are my little spoiled voluntary prisoners!)

But it's where to draw the line. I don't like the idea of designer babies either. Right now it's for the wealthy, but like other technologies, it will eventually be for everybody.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well……

I certainly do not fully agree with that idea, but I do sort of understand it. It is what you associate with being human. However, what about the creatures on The Island of Dr. Moreau? They had nonhuman like heads yet were intelligent (for the most part), they could reason, speak, think, and seemed to feel emotion.


I really think that movie/book could show us much more about this sort of thing than most realize. Of course, “they” say it is not possible, but those saying it are not working for any governments either.

It is good though to see the different thoughts on this.

Raist

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


My fear is not so much that people will want them. My fear is that what happens when the new wears off? Remember all the other “pets” in the last 40 years that have been let lose to fend for themselves and become a part of a fragile ecosystem. Look at Florida and all the exotic pets released there.

What happens when a genetically altered animal or even a human for that matter starts to breed? They have shown that the glow in the dark is passed down to the next generation and even the traits of the interbreed animals are passed down as well. But what happens when a lake or streams ecosystem is destroyed because all of the fish are eaten because they can be seen by everything?

I have been thinking about this stuff for years, I really think we are in trouble with this technology in more ways than one.

They altered our animals, they altered our food, and next they will alter us.


lol about your puppies being happy prisoners, they generally are. Mine is also.


Raist

All of this doing to "cure diseases" is one of my big gripes.

Drugs to cure disease.
Stem cells to cure disease.
Now human/animal hybrids to test drugs to cure disease.
And to use them for "spare parts" etc.

Drugs other than antibiotics NEVER cured anything.
All drugs do is to stop the human body from doing/reacting to the poisons in the food it comsumes, the toxic chemicals in things they touch and the air they breathe.

Will they ever come to realize that they should gbe putting their efforts to creating a food supply and environment that is compatible for optimon human health?


There should be no need for drugs.
THere should be no need for spare parts. Keep the ones you have healthy!!

reply to post by OhZone


It is funny though the things that mankind does “for the betterment of mankind”.

There have been so many things that have been shown to attack and kill only cancer cells. There are antibodies in different venoms that do just this. They even say in many of the articles that they will gain nothing from that sort of research yet they drive forward with it anyway. It is not about helping people, it never was. It is about doing something because they can it is reminiscent of a god complex.

Raist

Here is an example of the venom antibody thing I was talking about, incase you are interested in researching it more.

Cancer cell inhibitors, named Atroporin and Kaotree, having molecular weights of 35 kDa and 6 kDa have been isolated from the venoms of Crotalus atrox and Naja naja kaouthia, respectively, by fractionation on high pressure liquid chromatography. The purified Atroporin and Kaotree showed killing effects on various types of human (breast, colon, liver, ovary, etc.) and animal cancer cells in concentrations as low as 0.5µg/ml, and having no effect on normal mouse kidney, liver, spleen, and erythrocytes up to 5.0µg/ml. Both Atroporin and Kaotree prevent the formation of ascitic tumors caused by myeloma cells in Balb/C mice. In addition, both Atroporin and Kaotree showed regression of ascitic tumors formed by myeloma cells. Atroporin and Kaotree complement each other, as in combination they showed elevated anti-cancer activity in vitro and in vivo systems. However, Atroporin and Kaotree are immunologically distinct proteins showing no cross reactivity. Atroporin and Kaotree, individually or in combination, have the potential for cancer biotherapy.

www.scielo.br...


Raist

I always think of the TV series Dark Angel whenever this topic comes up. I can only think how we're just creating a new group to be treated with racist hatred.

reply to post by darkelf


That is if said group were allowed to live in the public. True they could be used for slaves, but I think that if they are creating these creatures they would be used in military, or for the rich to have slaves (labor, sexual, or otherwise).


Overall, I completely agree though that these creatures would be seen by many as a lower form of life and not deserving of rights, or even kind treatment. However, at where is the breaking line between human and animal? Regardless of them being a different species they would have to fall to one side or the other in the means of human or animal.
Raist

The title of this thread is somewhat misleading. We don't have the technology nor know how to create human-anything hybrids. Could we create a fluorescent human? With some trial & error.. sure. BUT that is totally different thing than creating hybrids. Transfering a few genes and making it so that they're expressed is the best we can do right now..

reply to post by rhinoceros


How is it misleading?

The fact that the scientists themselves refer to them as hybrids and cybrids makes the title relevant. The glow in the dark thing is being done, not in humans but in animals. Why? Because science is now the new party favor.


Again, they even state they grow to the 32 cell split before they die. This from nongovernment backed scientists. Those who have unlimited financial backing are no doubt a few steps ahead of the rest. Remember this is the information we are allowed to hear about. Do you think that we are given all knowledge of what is possible and not possible in technology?

The creation of a glow in the dark human would be no harder than a glow in the dark cat, pig, or even a fish. Read the links provided, they are doing this stuff. This is no longer just a fabric of imagination this is real. Everything provided in this thread has either been described as real with proof or explained as possibilities in a movie.

Yes it sounds rather strange and beyond belief, but they are doing freakish stuff in genetic manipulation. Read the links provided, there are a lot, you will see how real it is. As I said before, this is the stuff we are allowed to know about. No doubt there is quite a bit of top secret research going on with this sort of technology and most likely has been for some time.

Just because we are told, one thing does not make it true. If ATS has taught us anything it has been to look closer at what we are given. There are animals with human DNA in them living as we speak that is fact, some of the links provided speak about that. That makes them a hybrid no?

Raist


[edit on 6/9/10 by Raist]

Originally posted by Raist
There are animals with human DNA in them living as we speak that is fact, some of the links provided speak about that. That makes them a hybrid no?

This is true. For example there are bacteria that express human insulin gene and there are cows that produce a protein in their milk that originates from fungi. I call them genetically modified organisms (GMO). Strictly speaking they're hybrids. However when people think of hybrids they think of 50/50 mixes. We are very far away from creating such things (if they're even possible).

What goes for expression of GFP (fluorescence). It's not done for fun. GFP is usually used as a marker. We place it inside the same operon (under the same promoter) than some other gene we wish to have expressed in the GMO. So then when some specimen glow under UV we know that they're the ones where we managed to do the engineering right (screening).

No doubt there is quite a bit of top secret research going on with this sort of technology and most likely has been for some time.

What might be the targets of this hypothesised top secret research?

[edit on 10-6-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
...Strictly speaking they're hybrids. However when people think of hybrids they think of 50/50 mixes. We are very far away from creating such things (if they're even possible).

Given Wikipedia's definition of Hybrid as
"the combination of two or more different things, aimed at achieving a particular objective or goal."

I would have to disagree that "when people think of hybrids, they think of 50/50 mixes." A hybrid is simply a combination of two things, regardless of the percentages. A human that was completely human other then possessing cat eyeballs for better sight for example would still be a hybrid based on this definition, as would fish, cats or pigs that have been genetically altered for the objective of glowing in the dark.

It disgusts me that humans think we possess this right. We do not, by any explanation or legitimization, own the sole right to alter the precious balance of our ego-system based on some fashionable, trendy whims. That age old saying of just because you can do something, definitely doesn't mean you should stands true more so with this issue then I think any other in current issues.

Originally posted by Raist
What happens when a genetically altered animal or even a human for that matter starts to breed? They have shown that the glow in the dark is passed down to the next generation and even the traits of the interbreed animals are passed down as well. But what happens when a lake or streams ecosystem is destroyed because all of the fish are eaten because they can be seen by everything?

I have been thinking about this stuff for years, I really think we are in trouble with this technology in more ways than one.

They altered our animals, they altered our food, and next they will alter us.

I think about this all the time, and I have to say I absolutely agree with you. What worries me is that by the time the public knows all this stuff they are doing, it has long since been done and they are off doing new things. I wouldn't be that surprised to learn they have already begun significantly altering us. Generally, when the media announces that the military or government are about to start doing something, there is this disgusting trend throughout history that proves they have already accomplished that something before even raising public awareness.

What I'm interested to know, is if enough of the predators eat glow in the dark prey, will they start to glow in the dark eventually themselves? (Such as how flamingos are naturally white but only turn pink when they've eaten significant amounts of shrimp?)

reply to post by rhinoceros


Building the ultimate soldier/slave, you cannot have those who are willing to think freely yet you also need those who can understand and follow simple commands, normal people need drugs or other operations preformed to keep them under your control (see the MK Ultra type experimentation). I would not say they have it perfected or we would possibly have seen some evidence of this (unless the aliens people see are a form of hybrid).


As with any modification goes you may or may not get the desired trait you are looking for but will almost guaranteed be left with another trait you were not looking to receive. That trait might or might not be dangerous. As with the grass in another link posted that is an enemy to weeds (a good thing if you want the perfect lawn) but it also glows in the dark.


I disagree with the not doing it for fun idea. Look at the fish that are up for sale in the pet stores. If they can do it with one type of creature they will do it with another. What happens if they get into the wild and are genetically altered in some way?

Raist


[edit on 6/10/10 by Raist]

reply to post by anothersilentobserver


You bring up an interesting point. I actually had not thought about that. Some animals have changed due to what they eat. I am not sure what exactly makes the flamingo pink (in our zoo they are more of a reddish) in their food supply (meaning what in the food causes it).

Nevertheless, yes my biggest fear is what happens when a GM animal goes wild.

Raist

Originally posted by anothersilentobserver
I would have to disagree that "when people think of hybrids, they think of 50/50 mixes." A hybrid is simply a combination of two things, regardless of the percentages. A human that was completely human other then possessing cat eyeballs for better sight for example would still be a hybrid based on this definition, as would fish, cats or pigs that have been genetically altered for the objective of glowing in the dark.

There was also this definition:

hybrid (biology), the offspring resulting from cross-breeding of different plants or animals

Also in first post of this thread:

First, the idea of half-human half animal has been in the minds of people for ages.

But let's leave it at this. No point in arguing semantics any further.

It disgusts me that humans think we possess this right. We do not, by any explanation or legitimization, own the sole right to alter the precious balance of our ego-system based on some fashionable, trendy whims. That age old saying of just because you can do something, definitely doesn't mean you should stands true more so with this issue then I think any other in current issues.

Yes, we shouldn't alter our ecosystem, that part I totally agree with. However I think it's very nice that we can create human insulin with GMOs. What would all the diabetics of the world do without it? We don't have enough pigs to slaughter and pig insulin isn't the best thing for humans in any case.

Originally posted by Raist
I disagree with the not doing it for fun idea. Look at the fish that are up for sale in the pet stores. If they can do it with one type of creature they will do it with another. What happens if they get into the wild and are genetically altered in some way?

They sell GMO fish in pet stores? Not here. Never seen one. And the most likely out come of such things escaping to nature is that they die away quickly. Making that GFP means less energy for everything else. It's a big disadvantage. Also we don't usually alter germline cells so these traits are not inheritable (it has been done with some animals on purpose as proof of concept thou). Bacteria are usually altered in such ways that they need many essential things (including many amino acids) from their food source. Should they escape to nature they'd die out immediately.