The French writer Vercors begins his novel, “You Shall Know Them”, just after Douglas Templemore injects his infant son with strychnine chlorhydrate. Although anguished by the killing, the father had planned the act even before the child had been sired. It was his attempt to save the mother, a female of the species Paranthropus erectus that had been discovered off the coast of New Zealand.
Because of their almost-human qualities, industrialists planned to use the creatures as “beast of burden” in Australian factories. Outraged by this forced slavery, Templemore, a British journalist, devised a plan to test the legal status of the species. Using artificial insemination, he impregnated one of the captured females with his own seed. While the mother remained jailed in a London zoo, Templemore took his offspring home and put him to death. Afterwards, he called the police to arrest him:
The inspector drew nearer. His pale eyelashes were fluttering like moths."Mr. Templemore, what exactly do you expect us to do?"
"Your job, Inspector."
"But what job, sir? This little creature is a monkey, that's plain. Why the dickens do you want to . . ."
"That's my business, Inspector."
"Well, ours is certainly not to meddle . . ."
"I have killed my child, Inspector."
"I've grasped that. But this . . . this creature isn't a . . . it doesn't present . . ."
"He's been christened, Inspector, and his birth duly entered at the registry office under the name of Garry Ralph Templemore."
Fine beads of perspiration broke out on the inspector's face. He suddenly shot a question at Douglas.
"Under what name was the mother entered?"
"Under her own, Inspector: 'Native woman from New Guinea, known as Derry.'"
"False declaration!" cried the inspector triumphantly. "The whole registration is invalid."
"False declaration?"
"The mother isn't a woman."
"That remains to be proved."
"Why, you yourself --"
"Opinions are divided."
"Divided? Divided about what? Whose opinions?"
"Those of the leading anthropologists, about the species the Paranthropus belongs to. It's an intermediate species: man or ape? It resembles both. It may well be that Derry is a woman after all. It's up to you to prove the contrary, if you can. In the meantime her child is my son, before God and the law."
The rest of the novel focuses on the series of trials set to determine whether Templemore is guilty of murder…or just animal cruelty. But what was merely a hypothetical question of science fiction in 1953 has become a genuine bioethical conundrum in 2005. As the National Geographic News reports, scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras—a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.
The Chinese began in 2003 by fusing human cells with rabbit eggs to produce the first human-animal chimeras. And later this year scientists at Stanford University are planning an experiment to create mice with human brains. The underlying ethical assumption is that humans – at least at the embryonic stage of development – are nothing more than genetic material that can be mixed with other species in whatever way that scientists deem appropriate for their “research.”
David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, believes the real worry is whether or not chimeras will be put to uses that are problematic, risky, or dangerous.
For example, an experiment that would raise concerns, he said, is genetically engineering mice to produce human sperm and eggs, then doing in vitro fertilization to produce a child whose parents are a pair of mice.
"Most people would find that problematic," Magnus said, "but those uses are bizarre and not, to the best of my knowledge, anything that anybody is remotely contemplating. Most uses of chimeras are actually much more relevant to practical concerns."
In Vercors’ novel the “practical concerns” are industrial; in America, our practical concerns center on our nation’s shared religion: technology. And when the religion’s most powerful denomination – biotechnology – shows an interest, minor quibbles about dignity and human value are easily set aside. Ironically, we consider ourselves too civilized to create chimerical slaves for the factory, yet show no concern for chattel produced for the laboratory.
“What is man that thou art mindful of him,” the Psalmist asks. “Opinions are divided,” reply the technologists, “opinions are divided.”
(Thanks to John Coleman and Richard Byron for the NGN link.)
1
Mice with human brains? There are already plenty of rats with the same condition.
Mice will revolt! They are still complaining about "Of Mice and Men".
2
Actual if you read the article carefully the mice were created with brains that were 1% human (I believe they mean brain cells that are human brain cells) and a researcher wants to make a mouse with 100% human brain cells.
Since Joe isn't a naturalist he shouldn't be troubled. After all, such a mouse wouldn't be a human trapped in a mouse's body..right? To argue so would be to imply that only material elements make up a human.
posted on 01.28.2005 9:35 AM3
Boonton raises an interesting point.
Of course, as far as I'm concerned, a human brain with cognitive human functioning existing in a freely living body --whatever type of animal body it is -- is certainly more of a human being than a human embryo.
So I oppose the research that Dr. Weissman wishes to perform.
I guess the question for Christians is: where does the soul reside?
posted on 01.28.2005 11:50 AM4
Just to be clear -- I do mean that we should be more concerned about experimenting on "mice-men" with human cognitive functions than we should with experimenting on human embryos (which lack brains).
posted on 01.28.2005 11:52 AM5
In a previous post I mentioned that I thought the discovery of intelligent alien life would produce a paradign crises among many Christian thinkers. Would such creatures be considered 'human' in the sense of having a soul or would they be viewed as intelligent but soulless animals? Or would they be viewed as demons of satan meant to trick us?
Sci-fi has looked at a similar issue in terms of robots. At what point would you consider a robot a human beign? If your answer is never then what if the 'robot' was built atom by atom in the exact form of a human so that it was impossible to tell its origin wasn't biological?
If you insist that only humans can have souls and no amount of genius by human robot makers could make a robot with a soul then where's the issue really with chimeras? It would seem like the crises revolves around the fact that most people associate soul with our personality. Most people would be deeply troubled by being told 'Joe' has no soul even though his personality seems every bit real as their own.
This opens up a number of really interesting questions. Do all humans really have souls? How do we know for sure? Could a creature be 'intelligent' but not have a soul? If not would we be obligated to treat him with the respect we demand for other humans? If not how could we seperate creatures with soul from those without?
posted on 01.28.2005 1:44 PM6
Boonton,
You made the claim previously that the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life would produce a paradigm crisis for Christians. Do you have any basis for this claim, or are you, as a Christian, implying you would have a crisis? I fail to see what sort of crisis might occur.
7
Boonton
"n a previous post I mentioned that I thought the discovery of intelligent alien life would produce a paradign crises among many Christian thinkers. Would such creatures be considered 'human' in the sense of having a soul or would they be viewed as intelligent but soulless animals? Or would they be viewed as demons of satan meant to trick us?"
There is an excellent science fiction book on this subject by James Blish entitled "A Case of Conscience."
In that book, the alien life form (who becomes a very popular celebrity) is in fact determined to be satanic and his home planet is exorcised by the Jesuit priest who brought him to earth.
Similar themes are addressed in two books which continue the thematic trilogy: "Black Easter" (in which Hell rises on earth in Death Valley and is attacked by the US military) and "Day After Judgment".
Good stuff.
posted on 01.28.2005 3:50 PM8
Well every time I mentioned this I stated what I thought would cause the crises (which BTW, doesn't mean the destruction of Christianity) so I'm not sure where you are havign difficulty.
posted on 01.28.2005 3:51 PM9
Quote from Looney Larry: Of course, as far as I'm concerned, a human brain with cognitive human functioning existing in a freely living body --whatever type of animal body it is -- is certainly more of a human being than a human embryo.
So I oppose the research that Dr. Weissman wishes to perform.
Ah...we don't know if such cognitive ability would necessarily result from a 100% human brain and given the trial and error inherent to the process of experimentation it is unlikely that the first chimeras would have such abilities to any measurable degree. It is more likely that IQ of the mouse would simple rise from that of a mouse to that of a pig. Therefore, Weissmann would argue that to deny the vast potential of this research that could save many human lives and end much suffering is nothing more than imposing a quasi-religious morality on science through what stands as mere speculation regarding the functional value of such chimeras. In short, he would use the same arguement you use to defend ESCR.
Quote: whatever type of animal body it is -- is certainly more of a human being than a human embryo.
Ah....so Chimeras are more "Human than Human" on the basis of subjective interpetation of functionality?
So I guess something can be judged to be more human regardless of the biological body as something processing a human body as an embryo does isn't enough to be considered "human" anymore? Interesting.
The question of whose standard of functionality will quickly become a matter legal debate and the government will set minimal require of social functionality that people will have comform to or else they are less than "human" (thus not entitled to rights or protects by nature). In short, the logical consequence of the functional view of human identity lends to government deciding who is valuable and who is not. Thus idea the of "created equal" and therefore just representation goes by the way. In the end, raw power is sole determiner of functionality. Might makes it right.
We know this to be the creed of the Left.
I can't wait for when the AI networks 50 years from now do for Larry as they will certainly be more functional than mere "humans."
Also, I can't wait till Larry and his friends to join the coming "Chimeras and Humans Together Sexual Liberation Front.' "Why can't I marry my Mouse!" "Its discrimation!" The absurdity of the Left knows no bounds.
Quote: Since Joe isn't a naturalist he shouldn't be troubled. After all, such a mouse wouldn't be a human trapped in a mouse's body..right? To argue so would be to imply that only material elements make up a human.
Nonsequitor. Being a supernatural doesn't mean that the material doesn't hold value. The problem is the fussion of the "kinds" which are to reproduce each according to its kind. Naturally, this "kinds" concept would make no sense for a Darwinist since everything is of common descent.
Quote: In a previous post I mentioned that I thought the discovery of intelligent alien life would produce a paradign crises among many Christian thinkers. Would such creatures be considered 'human' in the sense of having a soul or would they be viewed as intelligent but soulless animals? Or would they be viewed as demons of satan meant to trick us?
Oh we stupid Christians have never considered the possibility of this before....read from Christian "thinkers" before you make such assinine statements. There is no such thing as soulless animals unless you are talking about corpses.
posted on 01.28.2005 8:24 PM10
SepticTank writes
"Therefore, Weissmann would argue that to deny the vast potential of this research that could save many human lives and end much suffering is nothing more than imposing a quasi-religious morality on science through what stands as mere speculation regarding the functional value of such chimeras. In short, he would use the same arguement you use to defend ESCR."
No. Embyronic stem cells have ZERO cognitive ability and never will. It's called "no brain whatsoever."
Weissman is explicit about seeking human cognition in his manimals.
So, the arguments are not the same. That was pretty obvious but it's fun to show people how desperate you are.
"Ah....so Chimeras are more "Human than Human" on the basis of subjective interpetation of functionality?"
No. Chimeras with brains that show human cognition are more human than cells without brains. Again, this is straightforward. You put your words in my mouth. I just took them out. Please don't do it again.
"The question of whose standard of functionality will quickly become a matter legal debate and the government will set minimal require of social functionality that people will have comform to or else they are less than "human" (thus not entitled to rights or protects by nature)."
Everyone on the right and left agrees that it's okay to terminate life functions of "brain dead" humans.
"Being a supernatural doesn't mean that the material doesn't hold value."
That must be some nice crack you're smoking. Perhaps if you'd share it with us we could understand you.
"Also, I can't wait till Larry and his friends to join the coming "Chimeras and Humans Together Sexual Liberation Front.' "Why can't I marry my Mouse!" "Its discrimation!"
I married my cat a long time ago and have discussed that marriage at length on his blog. Where have you been?
posted on 01.28.2005 8:57 PM11
Oh we stupid Christians have never considered the possibility of this before....read from Christian "thinkers" before you make such assinine statements. There is no such thing as soulless animals unless you are talking about corpses.
I wasn't aware that Christian thinkers had ever reached a consensus that animals had souls.
posted on 01.30.2005 8:54 AM