Would you support a geneticly made anthropomorphic animal?

[TraLi]

As I feel that particular aspects of that article were directed to me specifically, I shall take the time to revisit a few points. When I mentioned engineering bodies with a purpose in mind, I feel secure in that statement, because unlike procreative reproduction, in which we have very little control over any aspects of the resultant child (although this may be changing too in the near future), we would be altering genetics to achieve a being with singular traits and abilities that they would not have had without our intervention. That is what I meant by a purpose.

Er, to be honest I wasn't really tracking who was saying what, but wanted to add my opinion to two points of the overall conversation. Your assertion here about adding specific traits ("phenotypes") to an organism wasn't actually one of them. I was speaking more towards the existential quandary. But yeah, the concept of "purpose" is more than a little ambiguous.

You bring up a good point. Still, my thoughts on this topic, and so many others, always seem contrary to the norm, so... I don't think the mechanism you describe for engineering is likely to come about. That's not to say it's wrong, just that there are easier ways to accomplish similar goals. I do not believe growing a macro-scale organism (large animal) outside a womb is likely to ever happen. It's hard, and we already have a solution proven to work quite well: in utero. So in that light I propose the creation of anthropomorphic animals should be procreative. My final sentence hints at that, and a few other things. With a little humor intended, "Don't mess with someone else's genes, mess with your own." If it works you and your altered genes survive for later generations. That might seem harsh, but I think the decision to alter genes should be up to the individual who's genes are getting altered. And requiring that to be the case means people will put a lot of thought into the decision and be very careful. At least one hopes.

I can see the alterations performed incrementally, whether from safety concerns or a limiting technological or biological capacity. But creating a being from scratch is wrought with all sorts of additional problems. Again, I'm not saying its impossible just that there are easier ways. Use what's already available.

And when you said that not everything has the potential for help and harm in equal measure, again I disagree. On the base of good and evil, everything has equal potential for both, hence free will. On help and harm, these are more judgements made by outside sources. And being such, they vary from perspective to perspective. If you were to look out far enough, you'd see that even acts you consider atrocious have consequences you consider unprecedentedly great.

Pretty sure we mostly agree here... though I wouldn't use the terms good and evil because, as you say, they're intrinsically subjective. We're looking at the same thing from different directions. My points were more along the lines that we can't look out far enough to make a reliable conclusion. The equal measure bit was more an acknowledgement of a counter argument, and fairly weak.

Now, in clearing up some points on religion. I believe the word you were looking for is Abrahamic, or Judao-Christian. And when you say that, as you understand it, God has a purpose for everyone... Rather than say this is incorrect, I shall tell you things as I understand them. God gave all things free will, that they may choose to follow Him, or not. That they may choose who to be, and how to live. It is one of the great freedoms that cannot be taken from us. So when you use the word purpose, I get a little sketchy on what you mean.

Thanks, Judao-Christian is apt.

Don't worry, my understanding of religion is pretty sketchy to begin with. :) I am often told by Christians that every person/place/thing has a purpose in God's plan. What you read is my feeble attempts to frame my argument in a foreign ethical framework. What I was failing to allude to is imposing our will on the supposed anthropomorphic being isn't anything we have a right to do, even if we are its creators.

[Sithil]

Secondly, this is only physical form we're discussing. Trait combination, engineering individual bodies with a goal in mind. This is not an afront to humanity. Humanity (and in fact all things), as I know them to be, are spiritual beings. The nature of them, their heart, does not depend on the body, but on its own infallible existence. What can be changed by this, however, are the experiences that are likely to occur due to their physical form. Still, in the end it is no less, no worse, of an existence than what we have now. The moral concern is not that they may regret their existence, for that happens enough as it is. The concern is that they may regret aspects of their existence that can be blamed upon a singular entity. However, by the same token that entity may be accredited with improving the lives of others. In the end, everything will be as it will be, and all actions have as much potential to help as to harm.

In fact, harming the creation is what we're all really worried about. It's a mistake to confuse that problem with the act of creation. Every creation has the potential to harm and be harmed, but it also has the potential for good. Not everything has each in equal measure, of course. My feeling is that anthropomorphic animals have the potential to improve our understanding of the world around us quite a lot, improve the odds of our civilization surviving a major catastrophe (through diversity), and maybe they'll look good while doing those things. As mere mortals, we can't know our children's whole future with any degree of certainty. The best we can do is support them when they're getting started, guide them away from trouble, and prepare them to face the world on their own. And they would be our children in every way.

And when you said that not everything has the potential for help and harm in equal measure, again I disagree. On the base of good and evil, everything has equal potential for both, hence free will. On help and harm, these are more judgements made by outside sources. And being such, they vary from perspective to perspective. If you were to look out far enough, you'd see that even acts you consider atrocious have consequences you consider unprecedentedly great.

All this is very good, and I concur with that there is potential for both harm and gain. Whether or not the potential for either is equal or not, however, should not be the true concern, but rather, as I have expressed, whether we can accept the potential harm. Because if we can not, then it makes no difference how much greater, if at all, the gain may be, it would be irresponsible, perhaps even cruel, to consider it.

As far as the claim that we would only create another race(?) of people with a purpose in mind, I flat-out disagree. We often create people with no purpose in mind -- they're called kids. To burden a child with your own purpose invites rebellion. Or perhaps merely justifies their rebellion. There are plenty of other examples of things we create that lack much purpose. Art, for one. How the anthropomorphic community continually misses that point befuddles me to no end. Maybe it's better to phrase the problem as, "Everything we do we do only for our own gratification?" Personally, I don't have a problem with that as long as we aren't harming others.

When I mentioned engineering bodies with a purpose in mind, I feel secure in that statement, because unlike procreative reproduction, in which we have very little control over any aspects of the resultant child (although this may be changing too in the near future), we would be altering genetics to achieve a being with singular traits and abilities that they would not have had without our intervention. That is what I meant by a purpose.

I am siding with Sylence on this one. A rational being does not make a decision without a purpose in mind for it, including creation, be it new life, or something that might seem as objectively pointless as art. If we were to engineer a new and unique life form, we would force onto it a purpose, whether we mean to or not, simply as a consequence of our hopes and expectations.

The individuals choice is of no concern. Nobody chooses to be who and what they are, they simply are. That is the nature of all existence. As far as race is concerned, it is the same as a black man wishing he had been born white.

I completely disagree. Identity is defined by choice and experience both, but I can not concede that it is beyond the control of any individual. And frankly, your comparison between identity and skin tone strikes me as ill-conceived and rather discomforting.

[Sylence]

I concede that last point. I believe it was the wording that put it to question more than the intention. I did not mean to say that identity was a function of the physical, I meant that nobody chooses what form they take. Choice is, of course, the largest point of who you are.

Again, I apologize. It was very poorly worded, and I try not to do that.

The observed traits of a thing are not of its control. But all of what it truly is, is simply what it believes itself to be.

[TraLi]

I am siding with Sylence on this one. A rational being does not make a decision without a purpose in mind for it, including creation, be it new life, or something that might seem as objectively pointless as art. If we were to engineer a new and unique life form, we would force onto it a purpose, whether we mean to or not, simply as a consequence of our hopes and expectations.

That's fine, but I get to counter that purely rational beings don't exist. :P The closest we've got is an approximation of rationality. I'm more worried about free will and self-determination than why anyone would choose to create such a being. But yeah, I disagree that existing implies a purpose.

This isn't targeted at you, Sithil, but I am bothered quite a lot by the argument that we shouldn't make something because "bad things will happen to it." The argument is far too abstract/generalized to be useful. The world is a hostile environment; bad things will always happen. So why create anything at all, be it art, engineering solutions, or even children? It reeks of paralyzingly fear. If we don't have a specific bad thingtm to discuss, then there's little to gain in discussing it.

[Sylence]

And that's my point about the general equalization of good and bad things. They happen, they lead into eachother, and they'll keep doing that no matter what we do or don't do. So we might as well explore the things that interest us, right? Do right by yourself, and by your own heart, before you try to do right by someone else.

But that'll still lead to conflict. There's nothing I can say that will make everyone agree. This is just how I feel, and what I believe.

[Sithil]

But yeah, I disagree that existing implies a purpose.

Existing necessarily does not. Being created does. Not necessarily one set by an authority you respect, but one you will have to face.

This isn't targeted at you, Sithil, but I am bothered quite a lot by the argument that we shouldn't make something because "bad things will happen to it." The argument is far too abstract/generalized to be useful. The world is a hostile environment; bad things will always happen. So why create anything at all, be it art, engineering solutions, or even children? It reeks of paralyzingly fear. If we don't have a specific bad thingtm to discuss, then there's little to gain in discussing it.

That isn't the argument I am advocating. We should not refrain from something simply because it might have negative results. But we should refrain if we are not ready to handle the responsibility for the potential consequences. Whether or not we are, that is an entirely different matter. And I just happen to be of the skeptical inclination.

[Sylence]

Hmmm... I find I have a bit of a wrinkle to smooth out here. I believe that the act of creation is done with purpose. But it is not always a purpose that extends to the creation itself. Meaning, we can create for no other reason than to prove that we can. Then what we create would be totally free of our will.

What you're describing does happen, where we create something so that it may fill a specific role. But it is not always the case.

[Sithil]

Hmmm... I find I have a bit of a wrinkle to smooth out here. I believe that the act of creation is done with purpose. But it is not always a purpose that extends to the creation itself. Meaning, we can create for no other reason than to prove that we can. Then what we create would be totally free of our will.

What you're describing does happen, where we create something so that it may fill a specific role. But it is not always the case.

Except that is not what I am describing. Even when you create something for no other reason than to show you can, that instills a purpose in what you have a created; to fulfill the expectations and standards you have set for it, that which you have created. It might not be much, and it might not be something difficult to cope with. Then again, it might, it depends. I adressed this in my first post in this thread: even the subliminal, and idealy unintrusive expectations placed upon individuals by their surroundings, can be very traumatic. It's one of the lesser risks of pain we might inadvertedly inflict upon an engineered race, grant you, but even that I am not confident we as a race could handle responsibly.

[Warforge]

In theory sometime in the future if humans don't kill themselves we would be able to make an anthropomorphic animal with a human like intelligence through genetic engineering. If this does happen would you get behind it, be against it or not care?

Creating life is not the wisest path young one. Who knows what would happen.

[Sylence]

In theory sometime in the future if humans don't kill themselves we would be able to make an anthropomorphic animal with a human like intelligence through genetic engineering. If this does happen would you get behind it, be against it or not care?

Creating life is not the wisest path young one. Who knows what would happen.

By that logic, who knows what would happen when you step out of your house in the morning? Or play the lottery? Or have children? Or breathe? None of these may be the "wisest path," but they're the ones we find ourselves walking. If done for the right reasons, this kind of scientific and moral exploration is as viable a course as any of the above.

[TinyVoices]

If done for the right reasons, this kind of scientific and moral exploration is as viable a course as any of the above.

But what reasons would be right for creating a new life form like an anthro? I can't see a need for it.

[TraLi]

But what reasons would be right for creating a new life form like an anthro? I can't see a need for it.

Can you think of the right reason to have children? Does anyone really need kids? Sorry to keep harping on this point, but I really do see anthros as a possible path to continue our own lineage, rather than creating an entirely new species. I pretty much just see them as humans.

If you need a reason, here's one: Natural history shows extremely clearly and frequently (on a geologic timescale) that diversity survives, stagnation does not. Introducing traits that work well for other species into our population gives possible advantages, and improves survival odds in times of strife or cataclysm. It would give our ancestors a better chance to carry on civilization. How's that for a reason? :p

There's also the superficial reason that they just look cute, depending on your tastes, but the cute bits (ears, nose, fur...) do perform their functions quite well too.

Third, they would have a unique perspective on our world. They could easily teach us huge volumes about ourselves and our environment simply by living and interacting. And because they would (necessarily, in my mind) have intelligence and expressiveness on par or better than our own, they can actually discuss their thoughts and opinions with us rather than requiring us to guess what's going through their minds.

So there are a few reasons in support. I think they're pretty good reasons. There are also reasons not to right now. Primarily social reasons. Like how people band together to be total douchebags to other people over a difference in skin tone or size of their nose or cheering for a different team or some other equally ridiculous reason (a.k.a. contriving excuses to attack others). I like to think those issues would be mitigated with intelligence and compassion. Who knows, maybe anthros would bring that along too. They certainly would force us to confront the issue, but that's probably bad.

[tony1695]

But what reasons would be right for creating a new life form like an anthro? I can't see a need for it.

Depending on what kind of anthro, there is the possibility that they can work and live in conditions that are inhospitable for a human. For example, in the Arctic/Antarctic, where it's cold. Yes, we've gotten better about surviving in such conditions, but to have someone we can basically send out in a shirt and jeans, loaded down with scientific equipment that would need an entire team to move over terrain that can't support a vehicle...

Just a possibility.

[TinyVoices]

Can you think of the right reason to have children? Does anyone really need kids?

Well, the Earth is currently becoming overpopulated with respect to our modern level of technology and knowledge, so more children is only necessary to make sure the global population doesn't suddenly plummet in 60 to 90 years. But besides that, I think I could think of several reasons to have a kid. To say they're "right", exactly, might be a bit hazy. You don't need that kind of reasoning for having a kid. Knowing you can support them and keep them healthy is really all that's important.

But to throw a wrench into the societal gears and purposefully create the [censored] that real life furries would cause? Hoping for interbreeding and adorableness isn't very supporting. They're human like, if anything, but not humans. They're animals who can understand math. Big whoop. We're animals too but something bigger as well. If an alien race met us today, they would look nothing like anything we've encountered on Earth. And if they were able to travel lightyears in order to find us in order to communicate with us and do whatever they intend to do with us, I would not see them as animals, as that would be lesser. They may have animal cells or whatever biological classification you want to throw at me, but remember that the word 'rhetoric', for example, has different meanings depending on what subject you look into. I see us as more than animals; the aliens wouldn't be animals. They would be more than us. What that means, exactly, I do not know. Most likely not gods, but definitely above ourselves.

And more so even if we integrated animal traits with humans in order to survive better, I don't see us going completely anthro anytime soon. Maybe night vision, the ability to survive harsher climates, the ability to heal faster, stay younger, become stronger or smarter more quickly. Those would be the traits we might look toward animals for guidance. Digitigrade paws, sharp claws, and thick winter fur coats? Ehhh... Only if those can be used for harsh climates, but then if they stepped foot into NYC in the summer time, they'd be out of their element and thus useless. So, again, what kind of a life would we be forcing upon those kinds of creatures?

And I'm not so sure they could teach us anything about our environment, unless we copied the ability to see or hear in different ways. Again, night vision, or maybe sonar or something which would increase our 3D perspective into something else. We would change the way we react to the world, but not necessarily the way we look. Because, just as you said, the world doesn't want circus freaks right now. If anything, I don't see us looking to become animals in order to advance. That could give us an advantage here or there, but really the bigger prize is in the opposite direction. We would try to become gods.

[TraLi]

Well, the Earth is currently becoming overpopulated with respect to our modern level of technology and knowledge, so more children is only necessary to make sure the global population doesn't suddenly plummet in 60 to 90 years. But besides that, I think I could think of several reasons to have a kid. To say they're "right", exactly, might be a bit hazy. You don't need that kind of reasoning for having a kid. Knowing you can support them and keep them healthy is really all that's important.

Agreed, but I apply that reasoning to our hypothetical anthros as well.

But to throw a wrench into the societal gears and purposefully create the [censored] that real life furries would cause?

That's why I said it would probably be bad, and a reason not to...

Hoping for interbreeding and adorableness isn't very supporting. They're human like, if anything, but not humans.

Hoping isn't exactly the right word. I described in my previous messages a mechanism where that is a natural result.

They're animals who can understand math. Big whoop. We're animals too but something bigger as well.

Disagree, but that's another discussion.

If an alien race met us today, they would look nothing like anything we've encountered on Earth. And if they were able to travel lightyears in order to find us in order to communicate with us and do whatever they intend to do with us, I would not see them as animals, as that would be lesser. They may have animal cells or whatever biological classification you want to throw at me, but remember that the word 'rhetoric', for example, has different meanings depending on what subject you look into. I see us as more than animals; the aliens wouldn't be animals. They would be more than us. What that means, exactly, I do not know. Most likely not gods, but definitely above ourselves.

I don't think that follows. The only assumption we can make is that they have better space travel technology. We can't infer anything else.

Also, I'm not a fan of ranking life like that. The aliens would have more advanced space travel technology, but to say they're somehow objectively better than us... I don't believe in an objectively "better". They'd have different abilities and whatnot from us, sure, but "better" requires a narrower context. Better at space travel, definitely. And a lot of animals do things better than us: smelling, hearing, night vision... We're better at thinking.

Though that can be debated! Am I right? Am I right? (No)

And more so even if we integrated animal traits with humans in order to survive better, I don't see us going completely anthro anytime soon. Maybe night vision, the ability to survive harsher climates, the ability to heal faster, stay younger, become stronger or smarter more quickly. Those would be the traits we might look toward animals for guidance. Digitigrade paws, sharp claws, and thick winter fur coats? Ehhh... Only if those can be used for harsh climates, but then if they stepped foot into NYC in the summer time, they'd be out of their element and thus useless. So, again, what kind of a life would we be forcing upon those kinds of creatures?

Eh, I'm not a fan of digitigrade paws on a biped. They'd be a waste of energy maintaining balance compared to our flat feet. ...constantly dancing from foot to foot, tail flailing around wildly... But I digress.

Fur coats though just mean better insulation; they can help in hot environments too. Cats can comfortably withstand temperatures up to 120F (49C). Reducing our susceptibility to ambient temperatures would also decrease energy (food) requirements. So it's not just for cold places. But fur is more than just insulation; it's a major sense organ, or at least an extension of the skin layer. As humans, we miss a lot of information from shifting air currents. Probably why dogs enjoy hanging out car windows. I guess my point here is that these traits are more complex than immediately obvious. Besides, many fur-bearing animals live in the New York area (and parts further south).

And no, I don't see that kind of modification happening anytime soon either.

And I'm not so sure they could teach us anything about our environment, unless we copied the ability to see or hear in different ways. Again, night vision, or maybe sonar or something which would increase our 3D perspective into something else. We would change the way we react to the world, but not necessarily the way we look. Because, just as you said, the world doesn't want circus freaks right now. If anything, I don't see us looking to become animals in order to advance.

Yeah, altering perception (eyesight, sense of smell, hearing...) is mostly where that comes from. Some from social interaction too though.

That could give us an advantage here or there, but really the bigger prize is in the opposite direction. We would try to become gods.

Eeeee... Not gonna touch the gods thing. :p