Real Sheeple!
30 March 2007 by KA
From here:
“Scientists have created the world’s first human-sheep chimera - which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs.
“The sheep have 15 per cent human cells and 85 per cent animal cells - and their evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer.
“Professor Esmail Zanjani, of the University of Nevada, has spent seven years and £5million perfecting the technique, which involves injecting adult human cells into a sheep’s foetus.”
Science has finally created the ‘One True Christian’.
Can you say, “MMM-Baaah!”, boys and girls? I got a feeling somebody’s going to get fleeced.
30 March 2007, on 3:51 am
OH boy!…chimera, indeed!
Now just WHERE are the 15 percent human cells going to manifest.
Somehow, I just flashed on an image of an extremely horny sheeple farmer sneaking up behind one of those new fangled mixed breeds…yeah, you guessed it…when suddenly the sheeple notices; and suddenly turns around saying [with a Scottish accent, of course]:
“Not tonight, you horny bastard…
I’ve got a headache!…
MMM-Baaah, my ass!…
Humbug, I say!”
30 March 2007, on 4:03 am
As a primitivist and having an absolute disgust for anything that even faintly smells of dominionism, this really stinks! This is so utterly vile. It is an abomination! I dunno if this is a bizarre attitude for an atheist to have, but dammit, I think this is the most vile and disgusting thing I’ve ever heard about, except maybe the actual transplantation of animal organs into humans.
I almost wish there was a hell so that the people who thought this up could burn in it.
I’m sorry, but I consider animals to be my brothers and sisters, and this is really disturbing. I dunno if there’s an atheist “party line” that anything that science can do is fine and dandy, but I don’t subscribe to it.
30 March 2007, on 4:50 am
RE: Marcy
Atheists run the gamut of all political, economic and social positions. The only guarantee is that atheists don’t believe in the existence of gods. All of them, including yours.
So, atheists will have a variety of opinions about this, just as theists do.
30 March 2007, on 9:37 am
This stinks.
It’s not as if there is any shortage of HUMAN organs that could be used for transplant.
If I have a computer with a faulty motherboard, I can still pull out the graphics card and maybe the HDD — in fact any bits which still work — to use to build another one.
Why shouldn’t it be the same with humans? People are dying all the time. Organ-harvesting should be performed as a matter of course. If someone needs a liver, we should be ripping out the livers of every RTA victim — well, except the drunk-drivers — to find a match. And without any apology.
CORPSES DON’T HAVE RIGHTS. Living people do.
30 March 2007, on 9:38 am
I have mixed feelings on this one. Many people love a tasty lamb chop and have no problem at all ignoring the abuse and slaughter of millions of animals for our own consumption, so most people could give two hoots about animals’ rights.
This mixing of animal and human cells seems all so Dr. Moreau to me! Will all this experimenting backfire and bring about many other problems and ethical questions?
On the other hand, if I were dying and needed a liver or some other organ, and one of these chimera organs could save my life or the life of one of my children, my instinct to want to survive and to want my loved ones to survive would probably, in all honesty make me selfish enough to accept it.
30 March 2007, on 9:42 am
Why shouldn’t it be the same with humans? People are dying all the time. Organ-harvesting should be performed as a matter of course. If someone needs a liver, we should be ripping out the livers of every RTA victim — well, except the drunk-drivers — to find a match. And without any apology.
CORPSES DON’T HAVE RIGHTS. Living people do.
AJS - I agree with you. What good are organs to a dead person? They will only rot away or be cremated with the whole body.
30 March 2007, on 10:27 am
So, Macy, you’re a primitivist in art, or in philosophy?
As a philosophy, I think that it adheres to the ‘noble savage’ myth, & as such, isn’t quite up to standard.
AJS:
Couldn’t agree more. However, there is the issue of compatibility/rejection to consider.
Mostly, we tend to value our dead a little more highly than we should. Lots o’ folks would have a problem seeing Uncle Harvey (or imagining) sliced & diced (harvested is the PC word) as spare parts.
30 March 2007, on 11:45 am
Couldn’t agree more. However, there is the issue of compatibility/rejection to consider.
Mostly, we tend to value our dead a little more highly than we should. Lots o’ folks would have a problem seeing Uncle Harvey (or imagining) sliced & diced (harvested is the PC word) as spare parts.
KA - Yes, we do value our dead more highly than we should…we should value the memories of that person and how the person lived rather than the useless remains.
It would be different if Uncle Harvey’s wishes were in writing to be “sliced and diced” for parts…if everyone would sign the back of their driver’s licenses to be an organ donor, or carry an organ donor card it would be easier for families to make that decision since it was the wishes of their deceased loved ones.
30 March 2007, on 12:04 pm
And this idea may make some cringe and others to howl in outrage:
From a Darwinian standpoint, where Nature took care of genes that weren’t worth replicating, we now have a population that is full of defective genes. And we have the medical knowledge to do an end-run around the problems, while still replicating and passing them on to future generations. Diabetes and inheritable heart disease for JUST two!
And to those that knowingly and wilfully pass on the most serious defect, and the ones who produce children who they call “gifts from gawd”, I say, “Stop it! Just stop! Even if it doesn’t show up in this generation, it sits like a time-bomb waiting to be detonated in the future. So, just stop!”
We’ve all seen that Xerox copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy-adinfintum that is unreadable! That’s what happens with our bad genes. They don’t get clearer over time–they get worse…
30 March 2007, on 12:13 pm
Well, not necessarily. I’m sure there are primitivists who are into the whole noble savage thing, but basically, they are smart enough to do research and know that primitive people can be just as weird, nasty, whatever, as modern humans. However, we’ve lived as hunter-gathers for hundreds of thousands of years, but in a measly 10 thousand or so, “civilized” humans have brought about the near destruction of the earth. I don’t read a lot of peak oil blogs b/c it just scares me, but apparently we’re in for some serious nastiness soon.
Anyway, I think the defining factor is our “playing God.” That’s when we screwed everything up.
One last thing: not only is the noble savage a myth, but also the idea that primitive existence was “red in tooth and claw.” Sure, there were negatives about that way of life, but in trying to fix the negatives, we’ve just made more of them (and sometimes much worse).
30 March 2007, on 12:16 pm
I am with you on that, Naomi.
30 March 2007, on 12:59 pm
Umm. Read more Niven, particularly the near future stories involving organleggers. Not saying we shouldn’t do it, but having the technology to do it opens up several cans of worms.
I eat cows and pigs and chickens; I fail to see the difference between breeding them for meat or eggs or fleece and breeding them for parts. Either way their deaths go to make my life more pleasant.
30 March 2007, on 1:27 pm
Macy:
Oh, no doubt about it. However, infant mortality (for 1 example) is much higher among the more primitive cultures.
Stardust:
Which reminds me - I should get out & get an organ donor card (for whatever organs are still usable, hehehehe), & let my family know that they should just cremate me, or maybe do the Parsee air burial thing.
Naomi:
Well, I ain’t howling about it, but not crazy about that idea. It’s bordering on negative eugenics, & it poses a moral dilemma. W/in the next decade or so, I’m betting many of those recessive genes will be treatable. As I’m somewhat of a transhumanist (positive eugenics), it IS possible to step in & correct problems that arise.
From a Darwinian viewpoint, we’ve evolved enough to reach in & change ourselves. As such, we should use those tools to further the species.
But, IMHO, we shouldn’t use them to discriminate against selected groups.
30 March 2007, on 2:14 pm
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
As a childfree person and a staunch believer that 100% of modern humans’ problems are either caused by, or are exacerbated by, overpopulation, I fail to see the terribleness of infant mortality.
Had I been born in a different era, I would’ve died shortly after birth (I had a diaphragmatic hernia and collapsed lung). I got no problems with that. Had I died, oh well. Everyone dies. In my mind, it’s no worse for a child to die as for an elderly adult. It’s part of life. I cry and wail and mourn when my pets die…and then I get over it. I cry and wail and mourn when family members die…and then I get over it.
I have no fear of death. I do, however, have fear of pain, fear of being helpless in a nursing home, fear of being disabled. But I am not afraid to die.
30 March 2007, on 4:16 pm
Macy:
Well, pardon me for being speciocentric.
Guess I’m cursed w/an overabundance of empathy, especially in re: my own species. As I love life, I love the living, & my motto’s always been, the more the merrier.
Life brings both pain & pleasure. Avoid the former, revel in the latter.
30 March 2007, on 4:31 pm
OK, GifSters…
All this talk of Organ Transplants etc. brings on another irresistable compulsion for that “Meaning of Life” Python clip…Actually it’’s the complete ’seque’ clip: Live Organ Transplants into “The Galaxy Song”…and back.
I had forgotten how the two segments were ’stitched’ together”
For those interested…Here’s the best sound/pic quality…Full version (7:09):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdXVQymTImo
30 March 2007, on 6:34 pm
My fear, unfounded or not, with automatically regarding and treating all human corpses as organ donors is that we might see abuses occur such as medical personnel making sure that perfectly healthy patients who come in for simple appendectomies never wake up from the anesthesia. How would we then be able to know when the now-organ-donor’s death was due to natural causes, a mistake on the operating table, sheer negligence, or a deliberate murder in order to harvest organs? It would be so easy to say “I know Uncle Harvey just needed a root canal but I guess his system just couldn’t handle the drugs, so oops! I’m afraid he didn’t survive the procedure. But great news: those kidneys he took such good care of won’t go to waste!”
I mean, I realize I’ll die at some point, but I’m in no hurry to shuffle off my mortal coil!
31 March 2007, on 1:36 pm
Eve:
Hmmm…who do you see, Dr. Frankendentist?
1 April 2007, on 2:03 am
[...] Question: What is the difference between chimps and sheep? By Naomi Recently, we read KA’s Real Sheeple!, where we discussed “harvesting organs for humans”. Now, I give you this: [...]
1 April 2007, on 7:46 am
I have no problem with this line of research into transgenic animals, pigs already produce human hemoglobin. Mice have produced human hormones. If I could have a pig in my backyard with a heart, lungs, kidneys, liver or any other organ that is transplantable, that is a perfect match to my own dna (cloned) I would. For two reasons 1.) there would be no chance of rejecting my new organ(s) because the match is genetic 2.) anti-rejection medications are very harsh and usually within a few years a new organ is needed. The anti-rejection meds and need for another transplant may not bother someone that is 60 or older but for people like my 8 yearold niece, who will need a new kidney when she is 18 or 20 if she is lucky and this pattern is hers for the rest of her life. Besides I would eat the leftover pig.
1 April 2007, on 11:55 am
[...] Recently, we read KA’s Real Sheeple!, where we discussed “harvesting organs for humans”. Now, I give you this: [...]
2 April 2007, on 9:49 am
Eve said:
The ready availability of usable organs from people who died outside of hospital, and the reduced amount of paperwork when using organs from someone who did not die on an operating table (let alone while you had a scalpel in your hand), is what stops it from happening. There are photocopiers in most newsagents’ shops, but almost nobody makes “pirate” copies of the daily papers because it’s just too much bother. Why would a surgeon kill a patient just to obtain a kidney, knowing full well that there would be some awkward questions asked, when there is already a fridge full of suitable kidneys downstairs?
Besides which, there are only so many times one can get away with the old “oops, too much dope” routine. All deaths in hospital are investigated; and if a surgeon appears to be losing too many patients, it will be noticed.
2 April 2007, on 3:10 pm
Eve,
You can take this at face value, but even if you are an organ donor they cannot just ‘let’ you die. Unless you have a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate {sp?}), whoever is in attendance will do everything they can to bring you back. What many people don’t realize is, this usually means cracked or broken ribs (from the chest compressions), second and/or third degree burns (from the defibrulator), and/or an irritated throat from having that tube shoved down it to help you breath.
In a dentists office, you usually have just the dentist and an attendant. However, unless the patient it a child, there is a good chance that they have underwent anesthetic before. If no reaction was ever shown before, it would arouse suspicion at that time. Also, any time that happens, there are investigations to verify that everything was done appropriately. So, any anomilies, like twice the normal amount of anesthetic, will be picked up.
-Berlzebub
2 April 2007, on 7:13 pm
Thanks for the reassurances, guys! I think I chose the dentist as an example because of my phobia of them…