🚀 go-pugleaf

> 	The *idea* of the chimpman is not what bothers me so much as what
> the life of the creature would be like.  You would be bringing an assumedly
> sentient life form into a world which would reject it.  The life of the 
> chimpman would be like the life of the elephantman.  His differences would
> set him so far apart from society that he abhorred.  No one has the right
> to create sentience when he knows that sentience could never live a happy
> life.

This is a false assumption.  If I created the first chimpman, I can guarantee
that the first generation or two would have a happy and loving environment.
Maybe if somebody else did it, it would be more like the hell of a public
mental health facility, but that does not mean all attempts to give birth
to chimpmanity would have that problem.

Or are you arguing that over the long term chimpmanity would suffer from
race/species prejudice?  If you ask a victim of prejudice whether they
would rather never have existed, I'm sure you'll get a firm no.  What they
want is elimination of prejudice, not elimination of themselves.  Even if
such prejudice becomes a problem for future generations of chimpmanity,
I'm sure they will be grateful for their creation, and human culture might
even be improved as a result of being challenged by the assimilation of an
inferior species.  (Or possibly a superior species, if the chimp DNA happens
to contain greater potential to benefit from neotenization than the ancient
ancestor of Man.)

> *sentience*.  I hold that all sentients possess the rights of humans, and that
> they should be treated just as we treat humans.  The creation of these 
> mules would be mere exploitation of them.  Exploitation is immoral, illegal.
> That is why child pornography is illegal.  This would possibly be worse than
> child pornography, if that can be imagined.  That is why I draw a line.  

How do you know what's sentient and what's not?  What would a cat or dog
need to do to be considered sentient?  Aren't we really talking about
language here?  And now that a few chimps and gorillas have been taught
sign language, does that mean they're sentient?  And since you've already
indicated a willingness to use chimps for medical research, what's wrong
with doing a little biological/anthrological research too?

> 	Neither dogs nor chimps possess sentience.  They are incapable of 
> complex thought.  They have simple social structures.  If one argues that
> chimpanzees posses very complex social structures, then I would like to
> introduce you to human society - a world of not only personal inter-
> relationships, but also of governments, corporations, money, and religions
> of every imaginable kind.  All human societies have complex social structures.
> Even nomadic tribes still in the prehistoric era show obviously complex
> societies.  The character of sentience should be obvious.  

Oh, it's "social structures" which define sentience?  One nebulous term
defined in terms of another.  How about if I raise the chimpman as an
atheist.  He won't have a religion, and I won't raise him to loyal to
a particular government.  We'll live on a backwoods farm, and I'll keep
the account books.  He won't be taught to use any tool more complicated
than a rifle.  Will that satisfy you that he is non-sentient?

> 	Without the sentience, the animals possess no rights.  Just as 
> we use animals for every kind of research imaginable already, I do not 
> see how hybrids would be immoral.  How many animals right's activists
> protest mules?  Not even they see the hybridization of animals to be immoral.
> Going a little further, I have no objections to species engineering
> either.  In fact, engineering larger cows, better grains, and new animals
> that fill new niches in the economy (Has anyone read _West of Eden_?) would
> be a tremendous development for mankind.  I doubt animals right's activists
> would agree here, of course.

I see.  You're against nuclear power, but that doesn't stop you from using
the electricity it generates.  You're against air pollution and greenhouse, but
you continue to drive a car.

> 	Indeed, the mind makes gives us the sentience which is central to
> our humanaity.  No chimp brain could hold the mind of a human They
> should already be maximizing the potential of their brain.  I wouldn't
> find the transferring of the mind of a person to another medium unless it
> was against their will.  If someone wished it, I do not feel it is my 
> choice to decide.  The only exception would be if everyone wanted themselves
> uploaded to computers, which might have an interesting effect on the power 
> consumption of civilization...

I disagree that a chimp brain couldn't hold a human intelligence if some
way could be found to upload a copy, perhaps perform a little translation,
and download it.  It might not be a complete human intelligence, for example
it might lack language skills, but it would be something.  If we could do
this experiment, then upload it back from the chimp and re-download to a
human, it would be the most important experiment ever in animal behavior.
For the first time, we could understand what another animal perceives by
experiencing it directly, rather than performing laborious experiments
in perception.

Brains are composed of a large number of separate neural organs, e.g.
cerebellum, pons, hippocampus, etc.  If we could temporarily transfer
a human consciousness into whatever organs the experimental subject had
in its brain, we could look at the world through its eyes.  When the
"neuronaut" was returned to his own, human brain, he could use his language
organs to tell us what he saw.

> >Or is your uncomfort connected to the technology involved?  If I could produce
> 							     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >a sentient chimp solely through selective breeding, could I count on your
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >approval?
>  ^^^^^^^^
> 
> 	Yes and no.  Creating a new being would not be bad in itself, but
> your intentions may make it so.  If you create them for exploitative reasons,
> you have created a permanent underclass expressly for exploitation.  This 
> is immoral.  It is sort of the old question - is a gun immoral?  It depends
> on your intentions.

What if I have no intentions other than curiousity about the end result?
That's a very pure intention--no malice or greed.  Okay, maybe a little
greed when I think about the possible commercial aspects, but not with
any notion of harming the little darlings in any way.  What if dogs didn't
exist, and I was talking about creating the first dog?  Wouldn't that be
a 100% warm and fuzzy motive, which everybody should approve?  Think of it
as being like a dog, but enhanced like the talking animals one often find
in children's stories.