You had me until this one. You need a "mind" to do tasks, so if you're talking about growing slaves with severely diminished intelligence, ehhh.. I think that might be really pushing it ethically.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Scientists Break Record For Growing Human Embryos in Lab. Rekindles Ethical Debate
- Thread starter cameron
- Start date
- Status
You had me until this one. You need a "mind" to do tasks, so if you're talking about growing slaves with severely diminished intelligence, ehhh.. I think that might be really pushing it ethically.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
First thing that came to my mind is World of Tomorrow and the living clone on display at a museum
I could see the first one happening actually.
For the second, more likely they'd figure out how to grow only the organs they need.
For the last, I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd want lobotomized biological robots of human origin developed only to be enslaved. Plus you'd still have to feed them.
Works well enough for the Imperium of Man. Creepy lobotomized androids for all!
CrunchyFrog
Member
I'm all for the first two, but for menial labour robotics is simpler and cheaper.
CornBurrito
Member
So science advanced enough to make human clones, but not just the organs?
Aaronrules380
Member
The first is a real possibility and would likely provide a number of advantages, such as allowing for more healthy babies (Since you no longer need to worry about foreign substances like drugs or alcohol the mother takes in causing birth defects) and removing the need to cause the woman pain. There might be some drawbacks due to the lack of the hormonal responses pregnant women go through, but we could probably supplement that if necessary in any number of ways.
The second is needlessly inefficient, which is why most research is focused on just growing the necessary organ without the rest of the body
The third raises more ethical issues and is less efficient than just using machines anyways, and is thus pointless
The 1st one is something I support greatly for many reasons, especially when the technology already shows we could eventually create the biological children of same sex couples and artificial wombs will probably be the best option for them. I hope this is something me and my boyfriend have access to by 2040, crossing fingers. For cis women, it also means a more safer birth, no more pain, no need to worry about toxic substances, and a more healthier child.
The 2nd one, I think we'll have the technology to just make the organs by themselves without the need to harvest them from a cloned no brained human. Plus, it's probably less time consuming and requires less energy to artificially grow a single heart that matches the DNA of the person who needs it, than to create a full body clone of the person solely for the heart.
3rd, yeah... I think we should just stick with robots. Robots are cheaper and more efficient than a mindless human clone in the coming future. There's no need for that.
Worked out well for Andrew Ryan.
Woah there, calm down a bit. I'm all for our crazy sci-fi future as much as anyone else, but you might want to think these ones through a bit more.
Body growing for organs seems needlessly wasteful unless we also come up with a way to recycle the human body and it's components with an acceptable amount of potential material loss (due to energy expenditure). Otherwise just trying to grow the organ itself seems like a better use of resources.
The mindless drone part seems unneeded when robots (could) exist, and also assume the worst of humanity and would look forward/fear the day when the sex industry gets a hold of that.
Why buy a blowup doll when you can just buy a fuckable mindless human being? I'm sure that'll go over swimmingly.
Awesome post, and pretty much spot on. I'm totally curious though, its a good thing I'm not a billionaire, I would totally end up crossing the line and doing something crazy.
I agree with all of the above. It's basically the reason I don't want kids right now, that's a lot of stress, pain, and effort that only the woman in the relationship has to go through. And the ability to create a child out of the DNA of two people regardless of the sexes of that relationship is a bond that everyone should have access to if the technology is there.
As far as cloning, we're already 3d printing organs, why would we clone whole bodies for organs when that method is already showing so much progress.
And ya, robots are already doing a lot of manual labor, not sure why we would want to switch to something so closely resembling slavery.
bitch I'd sell all rights to my genetic code for 100k microsoft points
D1renegade
Member
One step closer to Coordinators
What a time to be alive
and civil war
What a time to be alive
Lab grown humans. Live a caged lab life then have "one bad day" and use use their organs to keep the rich alive.
It'll happen before I die. I'll make the same face then as I do now.
The more we find out about improving the birth of a human biochemically etc. the worse deal the previous generation has.
While I draw the line here, I can't give an argument that is different from anyone else who wants to impede potentially beneficial progress.
Maybe I just not used to what the new norm will be. I am not a lawmaker, I take a back seat to this.
It'll happen before I die. I'll make the same face then as I do now.
The more we find out about improving the birth of a human biochemically etc. the worse deal the previous generation has.
While I draw the line here, I can't give an argument that is different from anyone else who wants to impede potentially beneficial progress.
Maybe I just not used to what the new norm will be. I am not a lawmaker, I take a back seat to this.
I have no fear that this will actually happen. The rich love to remain rich, so what will they choose? Lab grown organs which is cheaper, faster, and easier to produce or lab grown humans which takes time to mature, is expensive, and more complicated to produce. If I was rich, I'd go for the first option. Just take some of the genetic samples and 3d print me a liver in less than a week. Same with creating lab grown human slaves. They gotta feed them, keep them clean, and so much more. It's cheaper to just get an advance robot or multiple machines to be your "slave". They don't need much, easier to get, cheaper and more efficient.
Again, I don't think something like this will ever happen. (Except maybe once by some crazed mad doctor for the sake of science.) We already have methods like 3d printing that shows promise at making artificial organs, we can make lab grown singular organs without the need to fully develop a lab grown human. It's just not efficient, and it costs too much time, resources, energy, and money to develop a lab grown human.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Even if that "human" is genetically incapable of consciousness?
Abortion exist to protects women though, because we value the rights of women over the rights of embryos, at least until they have conscious though.
But this is simply experimenting for the sake of it. There's only a vague benefit in possible future progress over experimenting with human embryos. I'm not against it per se, but if we admit embryos have rights (and abortion admit they have them), experimenting on them is morally ambigous. At certain points we have to set a limit, and i don't see a reason on why we should change the 14 days one. It's arbitrary as any other, arguably.
Just so it's clear, i'm also against lab animals and eating meat in principle, even if i accept that we as a society are nowhere as advanced enough, morally, to accept those as basic principle and i accept the fact that we break them.
Ok, that makes it a little better.
- Status