Would you support a geneticly made anthropomorphic animal?

[Yash]

I wish every debate thread would stay this civil. This thread is putting a tiny little tear of joy in my eye.

[ajwilli1]

Going to just keep my opinion short and sweet.

I think it would be cool, but it raises many questions. What role would they play in society, would they have less rights since most humans would see them as inferior? How would they react with sentience forced upon them?

[Talonmaster Zso]

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

Unless you want humanity to die out (admittedly that'd be one heck of a way to deal with the future: "Sterilize everyone, this is the last generation, party and party hard because in another 60-80 years we'll all be dead"), there's a fairly good reason right there.

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.

If we're blending animal genetics with ours we're actually hurting ourselves long-term because the instances of Zoonosis are going to skyrocket. Let alone that if we've mastered genetics to such a point - mixed in with out technology - we aren't going to need to give someone a fur coat because it got colder outside (let alone how it'll always be nigh-on infinitely cheaper to provide someone a coat than it would to have them grow it themselves due to expensive genetic tweaking under the watchful eyes of trained experts).

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.

There's nothing saying that either:
1) Such replaced parts must perform like their animal counterpart.
2) That such parts are solely a boon (consider color-blindness in a number of species, how others can't hear within a certain range that people are capable of, etcetera)
3) Even if they do perform better that someone must get the Full-Furry treatment (one doesn't need to have Gorilla arms to drug themselves to higher strength, for example). If anything I would imagine that the more severe the cosmetic changes (thus by extension your internal ones), the more expensive it would get and the less practical. Plus we're reaching points that technology can really do a lot to help people (we're coming extremely close to finding ways to provide sight to the blind, and our hearing aids have only got better over the years).

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.

Um... how? I'm not seeing how making humans that look different is going to either teach us about the environment (especially since they're entirely man-made: This is roughly akin to using one's potted domesticated plant to try and understand the Rainforest) or ourselves (unless the theory is they're more human than humans?).

And because they would (necessarily, in my mind) have intelligence and expressiveness on par or better than our own,

Oh, we're in wishful thinking territory wherein Furries are better than people because because. Carry on, I guess.

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.

There is no "maybe" about it, unless - once again - we're entering wishful thinking wherein they're better than either of their base components. Discrimination, murder, and so-on are very much things in nature, and considering a number of people on this forum [in this and prior threads] have already harped about how they'll be the future or need to pre-emptively strike the hateful humans or so-on (let alone the superiority complex that would crop up if people actually do make a more intelligent, stronger, faster, better-sensed lifeform than humans that they cannot be the peer of unless they under drastic genetic alterations to match), so it's a fairly safe assumption that there's going to be at least isolated cases of things like anthropomorphic beings pushing to have non-modified people be treated as third class citizens or the like.

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.

It'll always be immensely cheaper to provide someone with proper clothing, specialized equipment, and so-on than it will be to genetically alter somebody's body specifically for an environment that - after their augmentation - they will probably be immensely under-suited to leave since the sort of anatomy you'd need to thrive there is entirely different from more temperate environments.

I mean, consider what's listed here. Now consider that the average liposuction - liposuction - cost is a little shy of $3,000 USD. Even buying top-of-the line copies of what's included above, you'll probably only come close to even to the cost of a liposuction procedure. This scenario's talking about a complete re-write of multiple systems of your body ranging from epidermal to endocrine to nervous and so-on. I think such is going to cost more than a liposuction job.

[TraLi]

Hoo boy, this is a long one even for me.

Unless you want humanity to die out (admittedly that'd be one heck of a way to deal with the future: "Sterilize everyone, this is the last generation, party and party hard because in another 60-80 years we'll all be dead"), there's a fairly good reason right there.

There are plenty of people for whom children are, well, unexpected -- likely enough to maintain a viable population. But that completely misses the point, which was that people are frequently created without thoroughly thought-out strategies. I've never supported the idea that everything is the result of a selfish scheme. I don't see how you leapt to genocide...

What the heck do you mean "deal with the future"? I hope you didn't mean it, but your phrasing kinda implies you dread whatever the future will bring.

If we're blending animal genetics with ours we're actually hurting ourselves long-term because the instances of Zoonosis are going to skyrocket. Let alone that if we've mastered genetics to such a point - mixed in with out technology...

Genetics are a bit more complex than that. You are possibly adding additional infection vectors, but how can you say we wouldn't inhibit others? If, as you say, we became masters of genetic manipulation preventing such diseases would be trivial anyway. But I don't believe "mastering" genetics is required to produce anthropomorphic animals, so yeah zoonosis is be a concern.

...we aren't going to need to give someone a fur coat because it got colder outside... (let alone how it'll always be nigh-on infinitely cheaper to provide someone a coat than it would to have them grow it themselves due to expensive genetic tweaking under the watchful eyes of trained experts).

In the short term, yes. You don't screw with someone's genetics because you get a cold snap; that's ridiculous. If you wanted to colonize the antarctic (Why?!), it might make more sense. It does make sense for space travel. Maybe even planetary colonization, but we don't need to worry about that for a while. I worry more about humans surviving the next couple centuries on this planet...

As for expense, the comparison to textile goods doesn't work. Almost all of the expense of textiles goes into manufacturing the product. All of the expense for genetics goes into trying to understand what to produce; the machinery to reproduce the product is literally everywhere around us and inside us. So genetics could have a modest initial investment, and an almost free marginal cost. Or they could require a huge initial investment and almost no marginal cost. Or every individual could require a massive investment, but that model isn't likely to be pursued. Genetics are weird that way. There is great potential towards the modest initial and extremely low marginal cost though. It might be better to compare the cost of all coats ever manufactured to the cost of our hypothetical fur coat.

There's nothing saying that either:
1) Such replaced parts must perform like their animal counterpart.
2) That such parts are solely a boon (consider color-blindness in a number of species, how others can't hear within a certain range that people are capable of, etcetera)
3) Even if they do perform better that someone must get the Full-Furry treatment (one doesn't need to have Gorilla arms to drug themselves to higher strength, for example). If anything I would imagine that the more severe the cosmetic changes (thus by extension your internal ones), the more expensive it would get and the less practical. Plus we're reaching points that technology can really do a lot to help people (we're coming extremely close to finding ways to provide sight to the blind, and our hearing aids have only got better over the years).

We wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) replace unless there was adequate benefit.

Electronic prosthesis require power sources and don't play well with biologicals. They also don't last very long compared to a human lifespan. That's especially true for any moving parts. They can help, sure, but it's a lot of work keeping them running inside a living organism.

Stem cells are great, but suffer from the exorbitant individual cost. Every stem cell procedure has to be custom tailored for each individual patient and procedure. And they are unlikely to scale past anything larger than nerve damage.

The ideal way to reinstate someone's sight or hearing (in the case of physical trauma) would be to get their bodies to grow a replacement part. Humans can't do that right now, but it is a trait found in other organisms. It sounds gruesome, but what if the solution to replace an eye was as easy as snipping out the damaged tissue and letting the body naturally regenerate it? That's possible if we could isolate the trait and then implant the gene into a large portion of our population. This is of course ridiculously far-fetched (and horribly simplified), but it would reduce individual medical costs and provide higher-quality results for the cost of a single research project.

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

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.

Um... how? I'm not seeing how making humans that look different is going to either teach us about the environment (especially since they're entirely man-made: This is roughly akin to using one's potted domesticated plant to try and understand the Rainforest) or ourselves (unless the theory is they're more human than humans?).

They wouldn't be "entirely man-made"; I advocated adding traits to humans, not creating a new and separate species. And they wouldn't be purely cosmetic... almost nothing in nature is.

We are limited in our senses. All creatures are. Widening our range of hearing provides more information than we have now. Increasing the spectrum of light our eyes can see provides more information. An outsider's perspective on human culture provides more information. More information results in learning.

Define human.

And because they would (necessarily, in my mind) have intelligence and expressiveness on par or better than our own,

Oh, we're in wishful thinking territory wherein Furries are better than people because because. Carry on, I guess.

No. Intelligence is a necessary requirement.

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.

There is no "maybe" about it...

I know you mean there's no uncertainty regarding social conflict, but it sounds like you think anthros would certainly bring about intelligence and compassion. :P I agree though, social conflict is unavoidable. We likely disagree on the extent as I think the vocal minority skews perception towards violence. If it is an intrinsic part of nature, then it can't be an argument against anthros without also being an argument against creating humans. In either case there should not be an argument about dropping such petty concerns.

I stand by my wish for increased intelligence and compassion.

...unless - once again - we're entering wishful thinking wherein they're better than either of their base components.

Please stop making assumptions about me.

Discrimination, murder, and so-on are very much things in nature, and considering a number of people on this forum [in this and prior threads] have already harped about how they'll be the future or need to pre-emptively strike the hateful humans or so-on (let alone the superiority complex that would crop up if people actually do make a more intelligent, stronger, faster, better-sensed lifeform than humans that they cannot be the peer of unless they under drastic genetic alterations to match), so it's a fairly safe assumption that there's going to be at least isolated cases of things like anthropomorphic beings pushing to have non-modified people be treated as third class citizens or the like.

Wow. That's... disconcerting. I have a low opinion of anyone that advocates social classes or violence. But the actual argument just sounds like fear and jealousy.

My dad gave me some wisdom at a very young age that's relevant here: There is always someone better. Right now there is someone somewhere that's smarter than any of us here. There is someone faster. Someone with more acute senses. Probably those aren't all the same person. Yet I have no desire to injure those people. Conversely, I have discovered a few things I can do better than most people. I don't consider others inferior; I'm certain they can do some things better than myself.

Violence is stupid. No matter who "wins", all parties are likely worse off. A superior intelligence would find an easier solution. A more compassionate being would naturally avoid hurting others.

It'll always be immensely cheaper to provide someone with proper clothing, specialized equipment, and so-on than it will be to genetically alter somebody's body specifically for an environment that - after their augmentation - they will probably be immensely under-suited to leave since the sort of anatomy you'd need to thrive there is entirely different from more temperate environments.

As I said before, that's true for short term, but not long term. The constant supply of, well, supplies would exhaust the budget required for genetic alteration.

You are definitely correct in that we should not create organisms with human-like intelligence that can survive only in niche environs. Instead, why not strive to widen the definition of temperate?

I mean, consider what's listed here. Now consider that the average liposuction - liposuction - cost is a little shy of $3,000 USD. Even buying top-of-the line copies of what's included above, you'll probably only come close to even to the cost of a liposuction procedure. This scenario's talking about a complete re-write of multiple systems of your body ranging from epidermal to endocrine to nervous and so-on. I think such is going to cost more than a liposuction job.

I've addressed this point several times already in this reply. Genetics isn't like surgery. However, it sounds like you're arguing against someone going to a clinic, and then walking out a furry. I said in previous posts that I don't see that likely to ever happen, so we agree there too. ...as much fun as I think that would be.

[Talonmaster Zso]

There are plenty of people for whom children are, well, unexpected -- likely enough to maintain a viable population. But that completely misses the point, which was that people are frequently created without thoroughly thought-out strategies. I've never supported the idea that everything is the result of a selfish scheme. I don't see how you leapt to genocide...

Your hypothetical question was "Does anyone really need kids?" And the answer to that question is "Yes, since negligible population growth is fairly bad for a number of reasons obvious [Ex: No more children = no more new people = humanity ded] and not-quite-obvious [Ex: Look into the population & demographic issues in places such as Japan]". Meanwhile, comparatively... there isn't really much a reason to create Anthropomorphic Animals outside curiosity and "Because we can".

What the heck do you mean "deal with the future"? I hope you didn't mean it, but your phrasing kinda implies you dread whatever the future will bring.

If your species is going to be extinct in another ~100 years you don't need to worry about a lot of stuff. Resource depletion, environmental conditions, what sort of society your children / grandchildren might live in (since there aren't going to be any), etcetera. Sorta like how you'll see people provide astounding answers / quips on a test when they know they're going to fail the class anyways (because at that point it doesn't really matter what they do on future tests, exams, homework, etcetera).

Genetics are a bit more complex than that.

Genetics is fairly complex, but not to the point that increasing genetic similarities will decrease one's susceptibility to zoonosis or the like.

You are possibly adding additional infection vectors, but how can you say we wouldn't inhibit others?

Because we have a precedent in the form of things like mules and other hybrids (which while not necessarily how the scenario will play out, it's generally best to follow KISS and follow precedent unless given reaso to believe otherwise).

If, as you say, we became masters of genetic manipulation preventing such diseases would be trivial anyway. But I don't believe "mastering" genetics is required to produce anthropomorphic animals, so yeah zoonosis is be a concern.

Well, no, it's not required. But if you don't want to leave a trail of abominations and tortured half-lives in your wake you probably are going to want to make sure your understanding's fairly high so you don't accidentally create something that requires machine assistance to breathe or has a 90% chance of turning into a mass of tumors before leaving the fetus stage.

In the short term, yes. You don't screw with someone's genetics because you get a cold snap; that's ridiculous. If you wanted to colonize the antarctic (Why?!), it might make more sense.

We could, in theory, colonize the arctic right now if we so desired. Furthermore, the main issues that reduce the practicality of us colonizing the arctic (Ex: Material limitations on many building and infrastructure materials, that one would be almost 100% reliant on what they imported or produced themselves and have no real environmental safety net to fall back on) wouldn't be solved by genetic manipulation (those pipes are still going to freeze, for example).

It does make sense for space travel.

To limited degrees, yes. However these sensible changes you'd like to make don't requisite anthropomorphic animals or anthropomorphic traits. Similarly, a lot of the limitations are going to be completely separate from the crew (unless you manage to accomplish something like eliminate the need for things like food / water, environmental suits, and so-on) since some of the biggest concerns are energy limitations and mass (which often go hand-in-hand).

Maybe even planetary colonization, but we don't need to worry about that for a while.

It's moderately improbable that any living conditions hostile to humanity to the point that they cannot successfully colonize the planet would be particularly better for anthropomorphic animals (unless we're talking about things like the worms that live in sulfuric vents or deep-sea shrimp, which are generally not the sort of things people desire or envision when they mention anthropomorphic animals).

I worry more about humans surviving the next couple centuries on this planet...

For the most part our survival is guaranteed, outside something like destroying the entire biosphere. Admittedly if we muck up badly enough it's fairly possible that said surviving humans won't live in anything approaching conditions we do today.

All of the expense for genetics goes into trying to understand what to produce; the machinery to reproduce the product is literally everywhere around us and inside us. So genetics could have a modest initial investment, and an almost free marginal cost. Or they could require a huge initial investment and almost no marginal cost. Or every individual could require a massive investment, but that model isn't likely to be pursued. Genetics are weird that way. There is great potential towards the modest initial and extremely low marginal cost though. It might be better to compare the cost of all coats ever manufactured to the cost of our hypothetical fur coat.

Some things forgotten are that in addition to the tweaks to the genetics we're looking at:
1) The training of the people to do so (plus the production and maintenance costs of equipment necessary to do so).
2) The costs of raising such an individual compared to "naturally" conceived persons (which are very likely going to be higher due to increased observation, that you'll similarly need to train people to handle an entirely unique biology that responds differently to chemical treatments, has multiple body systems drastically different from the human / animal base, etcetera).
3) That, in addition to the final product competing with people, they're going to have to compete with machines as well (look at the increased automation of many work places and industries that just a few decades prior were entirely staffed by live persons).

Electronic prosthesis require power sources and don't play well with biologicals.

Everything requires a power source in some fashion or another. Furthermore we have some examples of semi-practical prosthesis now, and there was even a big fuss in the news relatively recently about people using 3D Printing to create functional prosthetic limbs for remarkably cheap. These examples are predominantly sourced towards restoring lost functionality versus the improvement of such, but such things are similarly being researched (look at the exoskeletons being researched for logistical roles in the military, for example, such as the ones that are glorified man-worn power lifters and spinal reinforcements).

They also don't last very long compared to a human lifespan. That's especially true for any moving parts. They can help, sure, but it's a lot of work keeping them running inside a living organism.

It can actually, depending on how well you've worked out the design, be fairly cheaper to maintain such prosthetics than it is to maintain / repair a body (in the very least compare how long it takes to be a properly trained physician versus how long it takes to learn how to properly build and repair many electronic components).

The ideal way to reinstate someone's sight or hearing (in the case of physical trauma) would be to get their bodies to grow a replacement part. Humans can't do that right now, but it is a trait found in other organisms. It sounds gruesome, but what if the solution to replace an eye was as easy as snipping out the damaged tissue and letting the body naturally regenerate it?

It should be noted that for a lot of creatures that this regeneration is possible, you're looking at simplified limbs or organs. It should also be noted that we've managed to use mice to do things like grow replacement human ears and are getting some fairly nice progress when it comes to 3D printing organs.

Seriously, 3D Printing's been surprising people a lot the last few years. We've got to the point we can 3D Print small houses. It's crazy.

They wouldn't be "entirely man-made";

If their production was 100% reliant on humans tweaking genetic code to make something entirely different from what exists in nature, they kind of are.

We are limited in our senses. All creatures are. Widening our range of hearing provides more information than we have now. Increasing the spectrum of light our eyes can see provides more information. An outsider's perspective on human culture provides more information. More information results in learning.

The thing is, we're doing that already without being able to interact with such ourselves. Heck, we've been doing it for centuries (dog whistles, for example, show a fairly good understanding of sound and is almost 140 years old). Tools are a wonderful, practical thing.

Define human.

Your commentary was that they "could easily teach us huge volumes about ourselves". There really aren't many ways to interpret this outside them either being exemplars of what humanity is (despite not being, y'know, humans themselves. Still people, but not humans) or somehow gaining an unprecedented grasp of anthropology simply by existing.

No. Intelligence is a necessary requirement.

I'm not sure how them being smarter than us is a requirement.

I stand by my wish for increased intelligence and compassion.

It's a nice thing to wish, but in actuality our best hope is breaking even. Looking at nature, it's much more probable that we'd see something that modern psychologists would define as socio- or psychopaths (nature be scary, and brutal, and fairly horrific). It's fairly telling that the most compassionate intelligent animal we know of to date (Octopi) are the only "intelligent" species that isn't social (compared to dolphins and their murderous gangs, primates which seem to have a firm grasp of warfare on par with that of primitive human societies, avians which can be all sorts of scary when you've manipulated their favor against you, etcetera). Most of the higher intelligence social animals (and, heck, a number of the lesser intelligence ones too) tend to amount to what most people on the internet refer to as a "A bag of dicks."

Wow. That's... disconcerting. I have a low opinion of anyone that advocates social classes or violence. But the actual argument just sounds like fear and jealousy.

It's, unfortunately, what's probably going to happen if one tries rifling nature for examples of how to conduct society (or, alternatively, dramatically increases the intelligence of animals without giving them the tens of thousands of years trial period humanity had to hammer out its worst excesses and flaws).

Violence is stupid. No matter who "wins", all parties are likely worse off. A superior intelligence would find an easier solution. A more compassionate being would naturally avoid hurting others.

While

I've addressed this point several times already in this reply. Genetics isn't like surgery.

It is when one must undergo a voluntary procedure to purposefully tweak the genetics involved (in a delicate manner, no less: One needs to use the proverbial scalpel in such tweaks as the proverbial hammer is liable to lead to something that's got a bad case of being allergic to itself). Admittedly a lot of this is based purely off speculation rising from the dramatically decreasing costs (and improving effectiveness) of production, robotics, and automation versus increasing costs in medical coverage.

[Bellhead]

Took me a couple days, but I finally caught up. So here's my stance:

As far as I would think genetics would be concerned, anthros would be little more than a challenge; creating not only a viable species, but an intelligent one. Doing this even with an intelligent, evolved species (such as a human) as a base, would be extremely difficult by today's standards, though it would likely get easier, so I see no problems there.

As for the social life of this creation, there are several things I see.
First and foremost, the subject would be shown levels of racism and hatred not seen for half a century, likely because of ignorance.
Secondly, being the first, or one of the firstof the specias, a lot of pressure would be placed on the subject in the area of social development, as he/she would be used as a data reference to later individuals.
This kind of pressure is likely too overwhelming for even the best of us, but might be possible with the right upbringing.

On the morals end: Creating life, or rebuilding it, can be used as either good or bad, depending on those at the controls, and those higher up the ladder. That said, with the best and brightest working on this project with only the best of intentions in mind and the highest levels of experience in child-raising, could create a symbol of peace and order that could potentially end large world conflicts.
On the other hand, being given a life of suffering filled with tests and demands would cause serious mental trauma on the person, leading them to have a dangerous personality, etc., which could and probably would spiral south to the eventual decision that this type of experimentation never be performed again.

A lot of this depends on the goodness of the geneticist, and be extention, the good will of man, so it is likely to not work if tried, though if it is, fingers crossed.
Creating a being such as an anthro would mark the coming of a new age in genetics, and the age where mankind can take a step away from technology for the first time in centuries. This is something I of all people would approve of, though the way it is done would have to be well thought out, and carefully planned.

After the periods of childhood and adolescence, though, I don't believe that anyone, human or not, should have a set, destined purpose that cannot be changed. That said, this new species should have as much of a chance at whatever they do so choose as any human on the face of the planet today.

In summary: Go for it, but do it right or not at all.

[DosMike]

(Sry, but I did not read every post ^^)

I'd support it (with few experimentation)
As long as they wouldn't be suppresed (no hopes for that)
(I should search and maybe continue the story i began to write about a year ago... it was just about that topic)

And i heard you could by a brain transplant for a few million?
But that's something I don't support... where to go with the other brain :/

I'd really like to see a fox race - I love those animals :3

(Oh, and hi there everyone)

[Him]

I typed a few paragraphs about this, but it got deleted... I'm not willing to put myself through that again.

Short answer is no. I would not want to make anthro animals. Maybe make humans anthro, but not animals.

[ghastmaskzombie]

This thread really got away from itself, didn't it? I swear, this must be how cults get started. Frankly, this is the kind of civil, well thought-out, long-winded debate I'd expect to see on the Leftover Soup Forums. That's a compliment, by the way.
...but I digress.
Now, what was I here to say? Ah, yes. I would love to see another species brought up to the same level as our species. I think it would bring us a huge leap closer to answering the ultimate questions of the universe. Finally, we'd have a way to separate the truths from our evolved instincts, with the perspectives of minds evolved beyond the plains of Africa. Of course, that's assuming we wouldn't accidentally program our own biases into their minds. I suppose, ultimately, I'd have to say that humanity as a whole lacks the knowledge and experience necessary to come to reasonable conclusions in discussions like these. Perhaps our descendants, or rather "ascendants" as I prefer to think of them, will be better equipped to understand such matters.
...but I suspect that I digress yet again.

[Pseudoboss]

Once we have the tech to be able to genetically engineer something as complex as a mammal, humanity as we know it would knot be able to exist.

If we've mastered genetic engineering, then we would have had to tackle the problem of human modification. The idea of what is human, what is alive and what is not, what is and isn't okay would have been dealt with ages ago. And there is only one foreseeable answer: humanity ceases to be human. The advantages of being able to fundamentally change who we are, what we are, and what we can be, the ability to remove almost any limitation that we could have, gene therapy would make us smarter, stronger, better, even immortal. Those who accept gene therapy would be so much further ahead than everyone else that normal humans would go extinct, the neanderthal of a anthropogenic evolution.

This means that we would have an entirely different context for the question. Society would not be anywhere near what it is today. It would have answered much harder questions, and I think that the answer these people would say is a resounding "yes", as there would be no reason not to, they would be making hybrid rats, humans and "humanness" would be no more sacrosanct than it is to the rest of the universe, a single point on a vast continuum of sentience.

If I were transported to that future, I would have to agree, especially if they made anthropomorphic dragons. More so if they could make me into one, or at least make me one.

[Commander-Strife]

I imagine that such a thing would be horribly controversial, though... I imagine the most likely case is that the inspiration for creating such creatures would be (at some point this would happen) to give a side specific advantage over the other fully human side.

However... if they were to be successful in making an anthropomorphic animal, with no huge or even moderate (maybe even small) side-effects such as mental disorders... (or even to have some wierd virus mutate or something from them being more of a failed creation, or allowing said successful creature to be a transitional specimen from going form animals to humans much faster) I would imagine that they'd be fairly... well... let's just say the terms Speciest would become an official thing as more and more are created for whatever purpose.

But also there may come a time where people would rather have one of the said anthros for a child instead of a normal, where at some ponit we'd need to regulate such a thing... lest we go the path of "Furthia High" where it's past was that a sort of "Furry Gene" was discovered, which allowed newborns and young children (and i think adults) to literally become anthros or atleast hybrids of such. Eventually it lead to literally every human being replaced by anthros, until none were left.

Until... you know... the first bit of Furthia High xD

It would be very interesting upon that day however. By then though, we should be well into space, though in an alternate universe where genetic research is totally unbarred and pretty much supported in every way... I'm pretty sure those people have Anthros, or atleast functionning cloning technology... though they'd be way closer than us to making an Anthro'd animal.

But... yeah, it'd be interesting for sure... I personally would honestly, ESPECIALLY if they were capable of free will and atleast semi-sentience... like mostly all animals anyways xD

[Kaz]

I volunteer to test the wolf splicing gene when it comes out.

[Tesla Foxtrot]

Since my roleplaying story is based of this, i will now be the inventor of it on this forum!

[Kaz]

Since my roleplaying story is based of this, i will now be the inventor of it on this forum!

Whut?

[Bellhead]

Back on topic, I say yes, under a few non-negotiable conditions:

Subjects would be raised from birth or otherwise very young, with every oppertunity available to a human shown to them.
Subjects would be raised with a family, not kept as experiments.
Subjects would be informed of what they are, when the time comes, they are not to be kept in the dark on themselves.
As with modern families, no subject may be removed from their family on the basis of species or government business.

If treatment of the subject was believed to be too strict, harmful, or disrespectful, I automatically withdraw my approval.