Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0_gravitas | Hacker News Reader

Awesome, love this bit mentioned:

```

“It is sometimes argued that … [the creation of part-human chimeras] will undermine an important moral view: that it matters, morally, which species we belong to,” the report reads. ”This argument assumes that we ought to preserve the view that boundaries between species are fixed, natural, and morally relevant, with full moral status reserved exclusively for humans. Yet even if creating part-human chimeras alters public attitudes in this way (and it is not obvious that it would), it is unclear why it is important for us to preserve the view that biological humanness is both necessary and sufficient for full moral status… Accordingly, it might be a good thing if the creation of part-human chimeras prompts us to rethink the significance we currently attach to species membership.”

```

Love things that poke at the arbitrary borders in our heads, its part of the reason that I appreciate what the pandemic has shown us about the education system here in the US: <inflammatory-statement> we were forced to confront the reality that the main purpose of grade-school is more so to act as a glorified mass-daycare, rather a 'critical source of development of intelligence/knowledge/maturity'. </inflammatory-statement>

View on HN

From my perspective, the fact someone could say that a line is drawn "arbitrarily" is absolutely a worthless red herring. You could argue that the difference between pre-birth and post-birth fetuses is fuzzy and arbitrary, but we still don't allow people to kill newborns. You could argue that the difference between a child and an adult is a fuzzy, arbitrary line, but we still don't allow the exploitation of children. We can argue that the line between a combatant and a non-combatant in a warzone is a fuzzy, arbitrary line, but we make killing civilians a war crime. The fact that moral lines can be drawn in a way that someone considers to be arbitrary is basically no different in form or substance from arguing that morality does not exist. Nothing is fixed. Everything is fuzzy. If you can't draw a line because you could draw it somewhere else, the end result is barbarism.

In fact, now that the line can be blurred means we will need to put the matter up for lawyers, legislators, and judges to decide. What can go wrong there?

I'm pretty sure the idea that drawing a line somewhat arbitrarily implies there shouldn't be a line is a straw man. Who is arguing this? The quote from the article advocates for more stringent morals--that beings that aren't fully human should be given similar moral weight as humans. It also suggests, more broadly, that we should reconsider both where these lines are drawn and if they should really be lines instead of gradients. But I see no indication that the lines should become less restrictive or any trend toward barbarism.

I took issue with the quoted part: "it is unclear why it is important for us to preserve the view that biological humanness is both necessary and sufficient for full moral status."

Notice how they said both "necessary and sufficient"? When both are included, there's an implication here that it might be possible for someone to be fully biologically human and yet without full moral rights - that, for example, someone with a different number of chromosomes isn't entitled to life - that someone can be a human and that being human is not "sufficient" for them to have human rights. That's dystopian. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith on the part of the author.

>That's dystopian. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith on the part of the author.

I think you are. Because while your examination of the logic is sound as far as it goes, I think you stop where the author trusts you to continue.

The idea that humans don't deserve full moral rights is so unpopular that author trusts you to infer that they hold some other view. Along the lines of "maybe there are non-human species which deserve full moral rights as well."

I will deliberately not get more specific than that about what the author, because if I did I would probably be bringing the details of my own views rather than theirs. But for myself, it seems highly plausible that other species with highly sophisticated individual social behavior may be able to suffer in ways we're used to thinking of as unique to human experience. And I think there are other people, maybe not yourself, who might accept this plausibility if they are forced to confront the reality of human chimeras.

Of course, there's also the priests, and I expect a very different reaction from them.

I think the other direction is implied, that is someone not being biologically human can be considered conscious and “human” like a chimp, or some hybrid chimera monkey-human.

> You could argue that the difference between pre-birth and post-birth fetuses is fuzzy and arbitrary

If you don’t view the “attached” women as a living person that can die from childbirth.. Also, there is a very real difference between a first trimester fetus and a third trimester one. The latter is only ever aborted when the life of the mother is in danger (eg. with mothers less than 18).

Just a nitpick.

I'd like to believe that something like this would lead to only eating fruit that has fallen from the tree and started to rot, and people wearing face masks at all times and sweeping the ground in front of them as they walk to avoid killing anything, but it will probably go the other way - a caste system would form.

Wow what a ridiculously asinine and misleading comment (the qouted comment, not the HN comment).

The moral reprehensibility of such an experiment is not the result of humans treating any other species as lesser, morally- rather, it is because it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes. To bring a sentient being into the world which is created by human engineering process is immoral because there are no guarantees that we do not create something which is horribly mutated, fucked up genetically, and experiences only pain for its entire life.

It has nothing to do with humans thinking they are better than animals, and everything to do with the fear of humans thinking they are better than God (or nature if that strikes your fancy)

I didn't put this quite as eloquently as I would like to have, but for fucks sake y'all - get your head cut in and don't drink the coolaid of these psychopathic scientists that think they have a better understanding of morality through science the the aggregate of a long heritage of human moral reasoning.

So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?

While I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point OP made, it's pretty clear that 'creating a sentient being' is the line being crossed. Modding a being already in existence is not at all comparable.

Are trans folks immoral : No I don't care what someone choses to do with their own body, that's their business.

Organ transplants :

No, this is a life saving (or condition improving) medical procedure. Same for prosthetics.

I am referring only to experiments where the outcome might be the creation of a new species of sentient being. Pretty much I'm drawing the line at exactly the posted experiment.

It would absolutely be immoral to genetically engineer a human to be born so that their gender identity and their biological form don't match. It would absolutely be immoral to genetically engineer a human so that they need to have organ transplants. It would absolutely be immoral to have scientists in the lab spend years doing research on how to create a human being that will be born needing to use a prosthetic leg.

I don't think anyone is saying that if a fucking Frankenstein's monster human/monkey hybrid were engineered, that people would say that the chimera itself had committed an immoral act. They would say that it was wrong to make that thing. You don't even understand what point you're trying to make.

If the technology were readily accessible to conceive what could be referred to as a "super human" (without genetic disorder, resistance to disease, no predisposition for mental illness, superior athletic ability, high IQ), would it absolutely be immoral to conceive a human being via an entirely natural process?

If it is absolutely immoral to genetically engineer a human being that would require an organ transplant then it would seemingly also be immoral to not utilize readily accessible technology that could have prevented such a disorder, no?

>"If it is absolutely immoral to genetically engineer a human being that would require an organ transplant then it would seemingly also be immoral to not utilize readily accessible technology that could have prevented such a disorder, no?"

Well, actually, no - that doesn't necessarily follow. It's not valid to say "if it's wrong to do x then it's wrong to not do things that prevent x" - you can substitute X for plenty of other things. It's wrong for me to steal money from a friend, but it doesn't logically follow that I'm morally obligated to buy a security system for my friend so he doesn't get stolen from. The analogy is kind of funky here, but I think you get what I'm saying.

There's an intentionality that exists with genetic engineering that doesn't exist with people having kids the old-fashioned way. If someone has a child, and that child turns out to have a birth defect that causes issues, that's a sad accident most of the time, and accidents don't have the same moral quality as intentional acts, like genetically engineering someone.

Let's not lose track of why this came up. The question was "So, are trans folks immoral? Organ transplants? Prosthetics? Where do you draw the line?" and that was in response to "It is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes. To bring a sentient being into the world which is created by human engineering process is immoral because there are no guarantees that we do not create something which is horribly mutated, fucked up genetically, and experiences only pain for its entire life."

Asking if we're morally obligated to try to make super babies is a distraction from that earlier question. I said what I did not because I wanted to argue for or against the validity of eugenics, but because I wanted to call attention to how absurd the line of reasoning was.

The person commenting thought that they hit on a pretty solid point when they seemed to equivocate scientists making human-monkey chimeras with people that have to use a fucking cane. I pointed out that no one is intentionally genetically engineering people to force them to have to use canes, and then you've come along to say that if it's possible to ensure that someone will be born without having to use a cane, then they're morally obligated to do that. Somewhere we went off the rails, huh?

> no predisposition for mental illness,[...] high IQ

Already you've delved into ideology.

> So, are trans folks immoral?

Yes.

> Organ transplants?

OK, as long as they were taken from someone who was actually dead. Not all organs can be taken after death. In these cases, the transplant surgeon ends the donor's life in the process of harvesting.

> Prosthetics?

OK.

Is biological death the same as clinical one? Should someone be resurrected?

Death is irreversible, but our understanding of it keeps improving.

At one point, pulmonary arrest was considered death. Then, cardiac arrest. Now, we use the cessation of brain activity as an approximation, but there have been plenty of cases of patients with zero brain activity making full recoveries.

The best definition of death is probably information-theoretic death. But that's not something we know how to measure (yet), so the organ harvests continue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-theoretic_death

"...create something which is horribly mutated, fucked up genetically, and experiences only pain for its entire life."

'God' does this all the time already. Friends of mine recently had a baby girl; she is missing part of one of her chromosomes. The family is very religious, and is being torn apart trying to understand how their 'loving God' could have done such a thing. So this 'morality' you speak of is making a tragic and difficult event far worse.

You are also neglecting the 'unnatural' processes that allow many worthy people have children via IVF.

'Natural' science and medicine had it's place back in medieval times, but not now. Same goes for religion.

Eh like I said I was not as concise as I would like to have been in my comment :

IVF is not creating a completely new, engineered organism. Not really what I am talking about.

And man, the idea that religion has no place in the modern world would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. Religion serves a veokry important role in society and we abandon it at our peril.

I am sorry to hear about your friend, but this is really not comparable to engineering a new unique organism. And I'm sure her pain would be just as great or worse without a god in her life. Christians realize that there are trials in the world. Re: the book of Job.

As someone that doesn't abhor religion, the following isn't meant as argumentative, but rather curiosity:

> Religion serves a very important role in society and we abandon it at our peril.

What "important role" might that be? I don't see the necessity of religion and don't think there's anything inherent of religions that can't be supplemented by the surrounding culture.

I think that reasoning about morality without an irrational, faith-based approach leads to a "slippery slope" if you will of reasoning. Essentially, I believe that the fundamental utility of religion is that it provides a framework for morality which is external to logic : therefore it allows one to establish moral barriers which cannot be cross regardless of any logical rationalization. This is important when considering things like eugenics - there are rational lines of thought that lead you to very very ugly conclusions. If you have an arational "hard stop" at the personal and societal level, we avoid these situations.

This seems similar to the Jordan Peterson view that religion, mythology, and even good fiction serves to encode generational wisdom on how best to organize a society.

Maybe similar. While I agree with that view, I think religion is more than that.

My practical argument is not that it encodes generational wisdom, necessarily, but rather that it is a source of moral reasoning that lies external to pure logic, which sacrifices what is right for what is practical, or expedient, in many cases

Empathy stops people from doing awful things pretty regularly. Moreover, many religions allow people to subvert their empathy w.r.t. people who don't fit heteronormative standards. Hell, some sects of Christianity are pretty awful to women.

I don't see a use for religion other than to allow people to skirt their responsibility in having/maintaining a mature line of empathy.

Empathy can also lead you to make destructive decisions and fallcious moral reasonings.

Truly though, any sect of christianity that abuses non heteronarmative people or women is not living by the law of the bible.

I know this sounds like a "no true scotsman" fallacy but really, If you read the bible, 100% of awful christian behaviour is in spite of the bible, not inspired by it.

I think logic builds a stronger moral foundation than religion ever could.

Almost all of the worst atrocities in history have be committed due to faith/some other non-logical idealism. In this way relgion does very little to create a "hard line that can't be crossed" in fact it's often used as the justification.

Empathy can be derived from logic and is sufficient for deriving modern morality.

I'm not saying all religion is bad, just that it doesn't have utility over and beyond logic. Logic is more than sufficient to establish all of the perceived benefits of religion with none of the inherent risks/downsides of organised religions.

In my travels around the U.S., I encountered many institutions helping the disadvantaged, and almost all of them were religious, mostly Christian or spiritual. I don't know any other organization or entity feeding, clothing, listening, aiding those who need it, day in and day out, giving time and effort and resources without expecting anything in return. No photo ops or social media posts.

With Christianity supposedly in decline, especially in tech, how will we replace it?

Some would argue it's the role of the state to look after the disadvantaged. This model works very well in much of the OECD. Conflating religion and welfare is not a winning combo imo. Further, the state can do so in a way that doesn't impose, foist or solicit religion on the poor.

I've never seen religion foisted or solicited in any way you suggest.

I HAVE seen the state fail to help after burning through millions in many places.

If I wanted to provide help to the poor without involving my religion, I would do so by donating to charities that aren't religious, or I would do so away from church. Religious institutions help the poor in part as a recruiting drive. That doesn't mean the poor don't benefit, of course, but it is opportunistic IMO.

> I HAVE seen the state fail to help after burning through millions in many places.

Sure, but that's a red herring. It's fair to say both have a checkered past.

Sikh temples unconditionally offer free meals to all without concern for a recipient's religion or economic status.

Religion and charity are voluntary. You can choose to donate to charities that will most effectively utilize your donations. You don't have that choice with a state, and the outcomes are not always good. Even in Democracies, the state social services are often such inefficient massively entrenched institutions that they are resistant to change.

Religions also serve as bulwarks against increasing state power. Depending on your perspective this could be a good thing or a bad thing, but I'm more concerned about the great harm an unrestrained state can inflict on the world than what good it may be able to do.

>If I wanted to provide help to the poor without involving my religion, I would do so by donating to charities that aren't religious,

That's what I'm referring to, you'd donate to professionals, but would you do any of it yourself?

That's a great call out, actually. I haven't, but I should.

By just helping people?

Who is going to do it?

Who wont?

The US made the welfare state a dogmatic evil. In other places it's percieved as necessary, and it does replace the role of religious institutions of taking care of the underprivileged.

So, learn from europe and other social democratic states. Stop believe in the dogma of the invisible hand, and that what makes money is inherently good.

> IVF is not creating a completely new, engineered organism

IVF seems pretty un-natural...

It's not too clear what "completely new, engineered organism" line you're taking here.

Religion needs a major update, tbh. People are following something written thousands of years ago, which is asinine. Either make a modern version or abandon the whole thing in favour of just being a normal human. It doesn't take much - be kind, understanding, don't hurt others, that's like 90% of it.

i heard someone make this interesting observation: handicapped people could be a test of god for the rest of us.

but your friends may also consider this:

any suffering in this life is rewarded in the next life (the life after death)

god doesn't give us tests that we couldn't possibly pass.

if you are compassionate, i hope you won't ridicule your friends for their belief but try to help them come to terms with their situation using their own belief to strengthen them

> god doesn’t give us tests that we couldn’t possibly pass

I get that you’re framing this in a context that OPs friend might take solace in, but when you put it like that it just sounds like a cruel joke to me.

i appreciate that you take this in the spirit that it was meant.

it just sounds like a cruel joke to me

what would be the alternative?

when anyone suffers, they need help to end that suffering, but also hope and encouragement that they will get through it, because some things just can't be fixed with material means.

if you look at this as if there is a god out there that goes: hmm, this family needs a test. how about i mess up their baby?

that would indeed be cruel. but that is not what i believe is happening. i don't know what that particular child suffers from, but by now we can explain many birth defects to some humans mistakenly or intentionally doing something wrong, like poisoning water with chemicals or malfunctioning nuclear reactors, or what not. i don't believe that any of these are pure acts of god. but they could all be prevented if humans as a whole were more diligent. (i don't mean that any individual could have done anything by themselves, but that as humanity we need to work together to avoid and remove things that cause people to suffer[1])

this is a consequence of free will. bad things happen, because if god were to prevent them, then we would not have free will.

nevertheless on an individual level god does promise that whatever suffering we experience is rewarded in the next life, and that we are all given the capacity to pass the tests that we experience and get through that suffering.

[1] that is in fact happening. we have eliminated many diseases and quality of life on average is improving globally. there is more work to be done, but we are getting there.

> it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes

I disagree on two parts:

1. I think it’s immoral to oppose the creation of sentient beings.

2. If we create sentient beings, those beings will have been created by a natural process, because we (and our actions) are natural processes.

Interesting points. Personally, not sure I agree with 1. Lots of scenarios where creating a sentient being would be bad - like if that being can only experience endless pain.

On point 2 : well you got me there. Let me be more precise : its not the "natural processes" part that is important, but my point was rather that this type of hybridizing results in the creation of organisms which have not been time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution. We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Quite tragic in my view if this is the outcome.

I just think we'd better not even go there.

Both of your objections are true for natural evolution.

> “time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution”

Those refining pressures are not kind or gentle.

Sure, but we can't stop those processes.

We can stop ourselves from being unkind, though

> We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death.

Although I think this is unlikely, let's accept it as true for the sake of argument.

Eventually I think it's fair to presume we'd come to understand which variations of the process produce your 'abomination' and solve that problem, such that we go on to produce many, many more organisms that don't suffer this same experience.

Would this not be a better outcome than 'not even going there'?

Personally, I think it would not be a better outcome, no.

What would be the point of creating new species? Sow more division and war and violence. I just dont see it turning out well. Inherently humans would be the "creators" of the other species. Sounds like a recipe for some horrible problems with speciesm.

> What would be the point of creating new species?

I've not given it a lot of thought but off the top of my head:

Imagine a monkey or ape that possesses above-average (for an ape) intelligence that could be a home-health assistant, taking care of an elderly person who wishes to maintain some independence and not move into a nursing home. Or a disabled adult who needs special care throughout the day.

Speciesism seems a remote risk when you consider the fact that our moral circle of concern has only widened across history.

Just to be clear about what evolution optimizes for: It’s propagation of genetic information.

Evolution is not kind. And evolution doesn’t optimize for happiness or even health beyond reproductive.

Evolution has produced plenty of humans who plead for death. We treat it as a disorder and try to fix it.

I’m wholeheartedly on board with (1) not creating more suffering and (2) reducing suffering. However I’m not convinced that evolution does better on either of those two fronts than empathetic humans.

the common definition of a natural process is one that happens without human intervention.

you are applying a different definition that is problematic. by your definition murder could be considered natural

Murder is natural. I never said everything natural is good. I merely said that everything is natural.

uhm, bringing up natural as an argument in defense of the creation of sentient beings heavily implies that you consider everything natural as good.

since we obviously agree that murder is not good, and you also agree that not everything natural (by your definition of natural) is good either, using natural in support of your argument no longer works.

this doesn't invalidate your argument. we can still discuss whether creating sentient beings is acceptable or not. just arguing whether it is natural or not does not help us here

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural only one sub-item of these fifteen definitions of natural say "no human intervention".

Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature

Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual"

According to this, murder is in fact quite natural.

I don't like arguments about definitions, because they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.

I don't like arguments about definitions

i agree. i do however like to clarify definitions so that we all know what we mean. i am quite happy to continue the discussion with OPs definition of natural, because now that we understand what that definition is we can get back to the actual core of the issue.

For the purposes of moral evaluation, why would you say that our actions fall into the "natural process" bucket? I would place our actions in the "unnatural process" bucket because our actions involve unnatural language which comes from a combination of intention, objectivity, and abstraction.

What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans. From a purely deterministic point of view, I totally see his point honestly.

Ive often thought that the dichitomy between human action and natural processes is a false one.

> What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans.

If we define "natural" to mean "things that happen", then sure, I would see no difference between natural things and human things. But we use the word "natural" to separate some of our actions from the actions of animals.

I think we could come up with a list of things that people do that animals don't do. Looking at actions from the standpoint of culpability, intentionality, objectivity, language, and planning might shed some light on what actions we would consider "natural". For example, feeling attracted to another person would fall under the "natural" category because we would not consider ourselves "culpable" or "use intention" for such an action. Another example: desire paths made by humans in the grass would probably fall under the "natural" category because people do not plan the paths with language or use objectivity to create the paths. We simply walk "mindlessly" and the paths spring up from under our feet. Another example: asking a stranger for directions would fall under the category of "unnatural" because we need to use language and an objective view of the world around us to engage with another person to share information.

Stealing from another response:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural only one sub-item of these fifteen definitions of "natural" mentions a difference between human vs non-human.

Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature

Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual"

According to this, of course, something like murder is quite natural. Is the stranger giving you directions not following that "nature" within which makes him help you for nothing in return? Is your request for help not a natural thing?

Ultimately, I don't like arguments about definitions, because I think they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.

In my previous post I mentioned that I want to separate human actions from animal actions, and that we can actually do that using some sort of test. We have used the word "natural" and "unnatural" to talk about this difference, but I also used lots of other words.

I want to find what essential quality separates people actions from animal actions. It seems to me that all unnatural things got "affected by human discernment". Using that rubric, I find it interesting that all of the definitions of "natural" you provided fall into those categories of either "fundamentally affected" or "not affected" by human discernment where things left in their base state we call "natural" and things left in their affected state we call "unnatural".

Examples:

1. Natural justice - that humans have a kind of justice beyond what nature provide which also implies that humans have sussed out the various justices allotted by nature.

3. Adopted vs natural child - human convention creates long-lasting parent-child relationships without a birth connection.

10. Growing without human care

13. (a) Closely resembling an original, (b) freedom from artificiality -- both of which require a human to create the artificiality.

Bee and wasp foragers give each other directions to food sources every day - not usually by pheromonic recruitment, although a few species including V. mandarinia do use that method, but by communicating. As far as we know, they don't have symbolic language or anything like the same level of abstraction we do, which is reasonable when our brains outsize theirs by eight orders of magnitude, but that doesn't stop them telling each other what they need to know. And that's just hymenopterans; we should also talk about corvids, who are well known to pass knowledge across populations and generations, and also to possess tool use and theory of mind.

The definition of "unnatural" toward which you're extensionally groping here is "things only humans, and no other animals, do". I suspect you are going to find it a considerably narrower category than you presently appear to imagine. I also don't think it is going to lead you anywhere useful; many anarchoprimitivists have trodden this ground before you, and if nothing else it may be worth familiarizing yourself with some of their work lest you find yourself in one of the same pitfalls they so often do.

Human language and animal language also differ in that people use grammars which recurse which shows a sense of abstraction (as you stated) and also objectivity.

Do you see a narrow difference between human output and animal output? Would you consider that difference somehow not "useful"? I think the bird and bee examples do not provide a compelling sense of language in the same way human talking does because animal language appears tightly bounded and human language through its recursive features appears possibly limitless.

You see a difference of kind where I see one merely of degree, and your confidence in the sufficient extent of knowledge of nonhuman language and communication, to draw such clear delineations as you do, strikes me as unwarranted. It is a relatively recent innovation in modern understanding even to recognize that any animals beyond our own species have language; where come you by this idea that we know enough about how nonhuman language works to even attempt so broad a conclusion? - or, for that matter, even enough about how human language works? Anyone who's ever tried to explain a complex idea to someone and have them comprehend it, or tried to become a polyglot beyond the age of about ten, should have a better sense of our own limitations than you evince here.

Something that contributed to caring about all life on this earth was understanding it will likely not last forever, either due to the sun expanding or, ultimately, cooling near zero. Related song: Born to Die, by Kelly Clarkson

Off-topic, but responding regarding US schools: as a licensed physics teacher I generally agree; schools are holding pens, with an upside of strengthening peer-bonds through suffering together. The experience that best lined up with helping students find joy in learning (so they might continue on their own, at the library, etc) was teaching at an alternative public school. The small team of teachers was able to get to know all the students (in a community-size below Dumbar’s number) enough to genuinely care and get closer to meeting individual needs, as if everyone were on an IEP (individualized education plan). I don’t know what changes to prioritize except early-childhood education to minimize trauma and educate our first teachers (parents). It’s a big, complex system with inertia.

The problem is not acknowledging that elementary school functions as daycare. That is obvious and important. The problem is asserting that it only functions as daycare (which many do - in bad faith - when the topic is discussed).

>The first orks of the sixth World emerged during the Unexplained Genetic Expression in the year 2021 as either young humans changed to orks or ones born as orks from human parents. They are considered metahumans, like trolls, elves, and dwarfs. Orks are able to interbreed with humans and fellow metahumans. Despite this, their offspring will be of the race of only one of their parents. No half-breeds exist.

-Shadowrun RPG

Four observations like this, and more, I suggest Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It’s a phenomenal book about inspecting humanity from an outsider perspective

https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/ishmael-daniel-quinn/11018186...

Second the recommendation.

Added to the list!

Its child jail where you are given obedience points for doing busywork. Total waste of time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com