Hacker News Reader

Comment by phendrenad2 | Hacker News Reader

I've been thinking about this. If we can create human bodies that never achieve an intelligence level beyond that of a sea slug, then surely nobody rational would be against using them for science. But where is the line? If the human bodies are as intelligent as, say, a mouse, are they then entitled to human rights, and can't be grown for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs? It's a serious topic.

View on HN

On the contrary, as if you under any circumstances should lose your intelligence - I hope not - you would not be considerate a human being anymore. And if there's a market for such, the incentive to give you a - cartoon like - hammer on the head would be there, too.

I mean that's already true to a degree. Pulling the plug on someone in a coma is a fairly normal thing. Unlike what you imagine a coma isn't a binary thing, there's degrees. When does it become okay to pull the plug?

You do get the point, please be careful with the hammer now.

People in a coma are still considered real human beings. The reason why you'd pull the plug is because there is no prospect of survival, or that the resources necessary are too great. Which, as much as it sucks, is a normal thing that happens. People die.

Intentionally breeding people that have no intelligence is a very different thing and I don't even know why we're talking about it as if it's even remotely similar.

Of course they are very different things, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just drawing peoples attention to the parallels that do exist.

> The reason why you'd pull the plug is because there is no prospect of survival

Same goes for a body bred to have no brain, surely. Of course that moves the dilemma to "is it ethical to create humans with no possibility of survival", which is a different question equally worth debating.

Darwin barely mentioned the whole human species in his Origin of Species but it still inspired his cousin Francis Galton to develop Eugenics[1]: Whether you selectively bread humans to improve the species or dumb it down, who's to tell the difference? Darwin himself had less luck with his person contribution to the evolution of the species, his youngest being described as "backward in walking & talking, but intelligent and observant", which was surely due to him having married his cousin: "We are a wretched family & ought to be exterminated."[2]

The problem of a) people ruining their health and b) not having enough donor organs can be solved much easier by encouraging active transport over the personal 2t metal box, reducing sugar, salt and others in our processed foods and of course legislation to make organ donations possible even without the deceased having agreed before. The opt-out in countries like Austria and Spain raises the level of awareness but of course still needs excellent communication.

[1] https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/jan/19/charles-darw...

I’ve never seen ad hominem applied to Darwin before, that’s kind of funny.

On eugenics - isn’t consensual eugenics okay? I feel like the potentially bad parts of eugenics, like murder, are already considered immoral for other reasons. Feels like a baby:bathwater situation.

There are many problems that can be solved with extra organs, not just the one you mention. And the solution you offer to that one isn't as scalable.

Not sure what eugenics has to do with this, I feel like my post was misunderstood.

RealDoll’s CEO perks up.

"The Line" has always been a question with any moral dilemma.

> a mouse, are they then entitled to human rights,

Well, you said it yourself, they are entitled to a mouse's worth of moral rights :).

History teaches us that coming up with categories of “not fully human” tends to very directly lead to awful behaviour.

Okay, what if we find a way to grow just a human arm. Is that sufficiently "not fully human", or would you cop out and say that doesn't count?

(i'm not addressing the parent post's author personally)

i start to consider this "human value == intelligence" line of thinking as hate speech, eugenetics-based racism, and endorsement of violence. no. human value is not based solely on intelligence level (whatever that would be - i doubt if scientists even broadly agree what intelligence is and how to measure it), but on being the member of the homo species. period. nothing else. a human is a human even he was born without an actual brain organ in his skull. stop killing the future of humanity.

The trouble with emotional arguments is they eventually give way to the overwhelming utility of science-based thinking. A lot of people are against genetic modification on an emotional level but our planet wouldn't even support 7 billion people if it hadn't been developed.

i not quite can connect the "not intentionally killing humans" topic with the "allow GM crops grow more food with less labour" topic which i think your reply is about but also not sure that it is.

> If we can create human bodies that never achieve an intelligence level beyond that of a sea slug, then surely nobody rational would be against using them for science

Most of them would become presidents of the USA. And no, i'm not talking about Trump.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com