Creating a Humanzee

Landon Caeli said:

It's a highly emotional topic. People try to silence anyone who even "talks" about it.

...Imagine the protests that would break out if it did occur - it would be chaos.

Click to expand...

Why would people protest the science if it happens especially if it's repeatable? It would be a proven fact.

Landon Caeli said:

Because it's considered "inappropriate behavior with animals", and has been deemed "unethical" in both "secular and religious" circles, which may or may not lead to a "slippery slope" in "playing God".

Click to expand...

Behind closed doors, there's nothing inappropriate. It's science you do what you gotta do. Man will always try to play God because we have .1% of the Creator's DNA, my hypothesis.

I personally think creating Ligers is unethical. There are a lot of genetic and behavioral problems stemming from the mix of similar, but incompatible lion and tiger traits.

Most people feel that humans and chimp are different in fundamental ways that make blurring the line between them inherently unethical.

Deliberately making a human that would be very strong, but extremely mentally diminished and hideous would not be an acceptable thing to do, and my mixing half a human with chimp DNA that's what you'd get.

I think re-creating natural extinct transitional primates like Homo erectus or Neanderthals is morally problematic for the same reasons.


One particular problem with creating a chimp-human hybrid is that they have different locomotion methods and a flat halfway point probably isn't great for either.

This reminds me a thing about Soviets in the Cold War wanting to cross humans with gorillas for super soldiers.

Might be Cold War propaganda, but you never know.

Either way, I say no. Some ideas deserve to get shot down without testing.

Landon Caeli said:

Would you view a humanzee as pure animal or part man?

...I don't think it could be considered part man... It would be, exclusively, just an ape.

Click to expand...

Some disparate points:

Since I view humans as animals your question fails to make sense to me. (I recognise it can make total sense to others.)

I have a higher regard for chimpanzees in general than I do for some humans in particular.

I found the casual reference to enslavement of such hybrids in the OP deeply disturbing.

The excellent treatment of the ethical question by @AlexB23 in post #2 was echoed by @QvQ in post #30 - "It is absolutely unethical".

Landon Caeli said:

I think the more secular-minded people believe they're doing the responsible, safe thing by opposing this. The use for caution is purported as a kind of "wisdom". With the religious, we see "playing God" comparisons.

...Then there's people like me, who push the limits to find hidden grains of wisdom in the most precarious of places.

Click to expand...

And, I stay away from folks like that. God bless, and good day. Christians (and Catholics such as us) are called not to play dangerous games. So, I will stay away from your dangerous game as well.

Landon Caeli said:

I think the more secular-minded people believe they're doing the responsible, safe thing by opposing this. The use of caution is purported as a kind of "wisdom". With the religious, we see "playing God" comparisons.

...Then there's people like me, who push the limits to find hidden grains of wisdom in the most precarious of places.

Click to expand...

I mean... I won't lie, I get your point. Some of the most amazing things have been found out about the human body by the most outrageous and horrid actions (Nazi doctors and scientists in the Holocaust and Japanese doctors and scientists in Unit 731, both in WW2, and also beyond).
But there's also a point where one needs to ask "Am I doing this for the greater good of mankind... or am I doing this for myself?" This idea sounds to me to be more the latter than the former.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Some of the most amazing things have been found out about the human body by the most outrageous and horrid actions (Nazi doctors and scientists in the Holocaust and Japanese doctors and scientists in Unit 731, both in WW2, and also beyond).

Click to expand...

Are you defending what was considered egregious Crimes Against Humanity at Nuremberg?
That is the international law that would rule in the humanzee experiments.
Crimes against Humanity as it would be a crime against the Human in the mix.

QvQ said:

Are you defending what was considered egregious Crimes Against Humanity at Nuremberg?
That is the international law that would rule in the humanzee experiments.
Crimes against Humanity as it would be a crime against the Human in the mix.

Click to expand...

How did you get that from what I wrote, especially since the very next sentence begins with a 'but'?!
Why would you possibly think that me mentioning it and describing it as 'the most outrageous and horrid actions' would count as me defending it?!?!
Are you simple?!

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

But there's also a point where one needs to ask "Am I doing this for the greater good of mankind... or am I doing this for myself?" This idea sounds to me to be more the latter than the former.

Click to expand...

I may have misunderstood you however the "But" is not relevant.
It doesn't matter what it is for. It is unethical and a crime against humanity.
It doesn't matter if the humanzee created by a high minded scientist was the perfect lab animal and all known diseases were cured shortly thereafter.
Whether it is for the greater good of mankind or for himself, it is still unethical and against the Code outlined at Nuremberg as a crime against humanity.

QvQ said:

I may have misunderstood you however the "But" is not relevant.

Click to expand...

Yes, you clearly misunderstood.

Landon Caeli said:

I'm firmly convinced that this emotional reaction were witnessing here, in regards to humanzees, is directly related to the reaction by religious and secular people who shun homosexuals.

Click to expand...

... I'm sorry, but how does the idea of people not finding your idea of crossing humans and chimpanzees in some kind of abominable chimera is a good idea, in any way at all similar to homophobia?

ETA: I knew something was missing from this post. Fixed it.

Landon Caeli said:

I think the more secular-minded people believe they're doing the responsible, safe thing by opposing this. The use of caution is purported as a kind of "wisdom". With the overly religious, we see "playing God" comparisons.

Click to expand...

I am a "secular minded" person. I am not opposing the idea of creating a humanzee because such opposition is the responsible position to take. I am not opposing it because that is the safe thing to do, nor as an expression of some kind of wisdom. I am opposing it because I consider it to be wrong.

Landon Caeli said:

...Then there's people like me, who push the limits to find hidden grains of wisdom in the most precarious of places. Because, you never know what you're going to find or not unless you explore it first.

Click to expand...

Yes, such people are often known as Devil's Advocates. A risky role to take on Landon!

Landon Caeli said:

This is an emotional response.

Click to expand...

Do you realize what would happen if science found a way to crank these things out at a dime a dozen?

Perverts would be buying them by the boatloads for target practice, lustful deeds, hitmen, and the like.

In short, dirty deeds done dirt cheap.