this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
583 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59292 readers
3884 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Growing genetically modified pigs with human-like hearts to save human lives? The ethics of that are a bit complicated, but from a STEM perspective it's a really fascinating idea. What a time to be alive.
There's nothing ethically wrong with this until we consider eating meat unethical. As a society, we're nowhere near that.
If you personally don't want to use this, you can opt out.
You're breeding and killing an animal for its organs, and some would find that unethical. But you are doing it to save a human life, so it's a bit of a trolley problem I suppose.
It's not less ethical than doing it for meat, is my point.
Especially since a pig raised for organ transplant probably has way better living conditions than a pig raised for meat in an industrial farm.
I'd argue it's more ethical than meat. You can live a healthy life without meat (provided you're still getting your protein and B12). You're kinda dead without a heart.
I agree, while we're eating meat, feels strange to call the ethics of pig heart harvesting into question.
Except eating meat doesn't save lives
That's literally what the meat industry is though. I guess in americanized cultures more of the animal is seen as waste parts rather than food, but those probably become hot dogs anyways.
Anyways, the way I see it meat for eating, and even pig organ transplants are both raising a pig to put parts of its body into a human's body.
Is it different from breeding and killing an animal to eat it?
I would argue it's more ethically defendable. There are lots of meatless alternatives to eat. A viable hearts for transplant are scarce and if you need one then you NEED one.
eating meat is unethical
capitalism doesnt care for ethics if government banned meat and news articles said moderately disparaging things about it for a week the entirety of the US would likely change their stance
because everyone is an AI that parrots what (they think) smarter people say
if you think im wrong lets talk about how people feel about drugs or literally any problem thats sensationalized. you idiots will believe anything if the news says it.
Ethics are not an absolute and are defined by the society in which they occur.
YOU think it's unethical. I happen to agree. We are in the minority.
And all of that is irrelevant to my point, which is that growing animals for organs is not LESS ethical than growing them for meat, and everyone seems fine with that.
As much as I love animals (more than most people I meet), as a species we must value human life over animal life to some extent. Suffering for corporate exploitation? No, that's cruel and evil. Minimal suffering in an organism to save a human life? I wish there was a way to keep it from being sentient (so no suffering is felt), but I believe it's a fair trade for a human life. But yes, we must always strive to minimize the suffering we cause.
Are you vegan?
Edit: ahh the sweet sweet cognitive dissonance lol
I'm not vegan, though I do recognize the issues. I have reduced my meat intake, but I'm not at zero. I'm perfectly aware I'm a hypocrite, but it doesn't make the claim above (which I agree with but did not author) any less accurate.
So what is true of the pig that if it was also true of the human would make it morally okay to kill the human for their organs?
this is the"name the trait" line of argument and it suffers from the line-drawing fallacy.
So you can't answer the question, got it.
there are many stops on the spectrum from pig to human, and an inability to draw a specific distinguishing line doesn't change the fact that there is a big difference between humans and pigs.
And whats that?
there's a whole spectrum full of differences. I don't think I can explain the to someone who is ideologically opposed to learning.
It's mostly about how cruely we treat food animals normally that I have an issue with. Hunting, for example, I view as a morally acceptable method to get meat. It's natural and the animal is living a life as a natural animal should. If the pig isn't raised cruely, I think raising them to help a person live a life is a moral good. That person took a lot of resources to get where they are, and they have the potential to do a lot of good. The pig did not take nearly as many resources to raise and does not have much, if any, capacity to do good besides by dying. Whether they should exist at all is the real question, and I'd say probably yes, again if it isn't cruel.
Is your answer to my previous question "Potential to do good"?
If a human person was sufficiently mentally disabled to have as much or less potential to do good as the pig, would it then be morally ok to kill that person and harvest their organs?
don't compare the mentally disabled to animals
humans are animals
comparisons don't have to go along the value axis. Saying "mentally disabled people own more clothes than non-human animals" would be an example.
Go virtue signal somewhere else pls.
IRONY
you're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole
Yeah, probably, or at least similarly equally moral. For example if they're born without a brain, which does happen, they don't meet the definition most people use for personhood. I don't see what the difference would be other than they have human DNA and look similar to us, but why should that matter?
The hypothetical wasn't about someone without a brain, just someone with as much or less potential to do good as a pig. They could still lead a happy life, having fun, enjoy being alive, etc. Is it morally ok to kill them and harvest their organs?
Potentially, sure. Somewhere along the line of literally no brain and a fully developed average person there's a point where you will decide it's too far. That point is going to be different for everyone.
Do you think a fully developed capable person capable of doing good and helping people is as valuable as every human along that line? Is there no point for you where you think sacrificing one person who can't do as much to save a doctor who will go on to save thousands?
I hope we get to mass manufacturing lab grown hearts quickly. No need to harm sentients.
1 Star Trek replicator please!
Easy just grow cabbages with human-like hearts to appease the vegans.