Bridgette asks the question of: Would you ever try to get your pet cloned?
My answer is no. As much as I love my cat now, and my two cats and one dog who have passed away, I would not want to see them cloned because there is only one of them. Cloning a pet does not mean they will be the same. I don't know much about clones myself, but everyone thinks the original and the clone will be the same. I think it is possible for the clones to have a completely different personality. Also, cloning is an expensive process, from what I have heard. To me, it is not worth spending a crap ton of money for a copy. Copies do not live up to originals, in my mind.
This is supposed to be my last blog post, but I will still pose a question in case anyone would like to answer, or at least would like something to think about. What do you feel the pros and cons of cloning are?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
An Extension of Ethical Examples in Modern Media
Last week I talked about Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. I will be doing the same for this post, because of chimeras. They were mentioned in the biotechnology chapter, which we talked about recently, so I thought it would be appropriate.
Sunday morning, I saw the fourth espisode of Brotherhood at 1:30 AM. In this episode, the Elric Brothers travel to the house of an alchemist who was able to give chimeras the ability to speak as a human would. Chimeras had existed before, but they had never before been able to speak like a human. The story the Elric brothers are told is that this first speaking chimera told the alchemist that it wanted to die, so its wish was granted. This was how the alchemist became a State Alchemist, but he was in danger of losing this license. To pass the re-examination, he fused his daughter and their dog together into a chimera, after the brothers had visited and gotten to know them. (I should also mention that the mother was gone. I think she passed away.) In the end, the new chimera had to be killed, much to the heartbreak of the brothers and many fans of the show. (Note: These same events also took place in the original Fullmetal Alchemist, but I have not seen that episode myself.)
So now my question is this: Does this apply to chimeras made through biotechnology at all? What are your reactions to this based on what we have read about?
Sunday morning, I saw the fourth espisode of Brotherhood at 1:30 AM. In this episode, the Elric Brothers travel to the house of an alchemist who was able to give chimeras the ability to speak as a human would. Chimeras had existed before, but they had never before been able to speak like a human. The story the Elric brothers are told is that this first speaking chimera told the alchemist that it wanted to die, so its wish was granted. This was how the alchemist became a State Alchemist, but he was in danger of losing this license. To pass the re-examination, he fused his daughter and their dog together into a chimera, after the brothers had visited and gotten to know them. (I should also mention that the mother was gone. I think she passed away.) In the end, the new chimera had to be killed, much to the heartbreak of the brothers and many fans of the show. (Note: These same events also took place in the original Fullmetal Alchemist, but I have not seen that episode myself.)
So now my question is this: Does this apply to chimeras made through biotechnology at all? What are your reactions to this based on what we have read about?
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Speciesism: A Response to Skyla
Skyla asks: Topics such as racism and sexism are serious in our society but why do people push speciesism under the rug as if it is unimportant or a nonexistant problem?
I believe it is because humans may not see their treatment of animals as speciesist, or may not even realize that their treatment of animals is wrong in some way or that they are treating animals differently than they deserve to be treated. They don't think that animals should get as much care, love, and attention as a human and so ignore the animals, as well as ignore speciesism. Sad to say, many people do not see animals as equals but as something lesser than humans. Since that is the norm, they may not even second-guess that there is a name for this, or that it is wrong.
My question now is this: How can we make these kinds of people see that they are being speciesist? Would they even care if they knew?
I believe it is because humans may not see their treatment of animals as speciesist, or may not even realize that their treatment of animals is wrong in some way or that they are treating animals differently than they deserve to be treated. They don't think that animals should get as much care, love, and attention as a human and so ignore the animals, as well as ignore speciesism. Sad to say, many people do not see animals as equals but as something lesser than humans. Since that is the norm, they may not even second-guess that there is a name for this, or that it is wrong.
My question now is this: How can we make these kinds of people see that they are being speciesist? Would they even care if they knew?
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Ethical Examples in Modern Media
Forgive me for sounding like a total dork here, but as we were sitting in class the other day and talking about the "yuck factor", I couldn't help but note some similarities between what we are talking about now and two anime series, Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Both of the series have the same premise, but from what I have heard Brotherhood is closer to the manga than is the original Fullmetal Alchemist.
In the series we have the two brothers, Edward and Alphonse Elric. They lost their mother to sickness, and so they made a plan to use alchemy to bring their mother back to life, by using human transmutation. Their father is an alchemist, but he has been out of the picture for quite some time. After years of studying alchemy (which does exist in their world; it's a world parallel to ours) they make the attempt, but it goes horribly wrong. A portal to another dimension opens, reaching out for a toll because, in alchemy, there is a law of equivalent exchange: you cannot create something out of nothing. At first, Ed loses his leg below the knee, and his brother is taken and rendered apart. In their place is a creature, maybe female, that is supposed to be human but is only human in the barest of senses: it is made out of blood, with sunken areas where the eyes and mouth would be. Viewers do not see what happens to this creature, but in desperation, Ed crawls over to a suit of armor and knocks it over. (When a state official goes to investigate after all of these events, viewers do see a dark stain on the floor.) At the cost of his arm, he is able to rend Alphonse's soul to the armor. From then on, any time anyone encounters the brothers without knowing them already, if they find out about Al, that he's not just wearing the suit of armor, they recoil because, to them, it is unnatural.
This made me think greatly of transgenesis, taking genes from one species and transferring it to another, like with taking Al's soul and binding it to the suit of armor. Also, how everyone recoiled from him definitely reminded me of the so-called "yuck factor".
My question now is: Are there other parallels between what we've been discussing in class and what has been discussed here?
In the series we have the two brothers, Edward and Alphonse Elric. They lost their mother to sickness, and so they made a plan to use alchemy to bring their mother back to life, by using human transmutation. Their father is an alchemist, but he has been out of the picture for quite some time. After years of studying alchemy (which does exist in their world; it's a world parallel to ours) they make the attempt, but it goes horribly wrong. A portal to another dimension opens, reaching out for a toll because, in alchemy, there is a law of equivalent exchange: you cannot create something out of nothing. At first, Ed loses his leg below the knee, and his brother is taken and rendered apart. In their place is a creature, maybe female, that is supposed to be human but is only human in the barest of senses: it is made out of blood, with sunken areas where the eyes and mouth would be. Viewers do not see what happens to this creature, but in desperation, Ed crawls over to a suit of armor and knocks it over. (When a state official goes to investigate after all of these events, viewers do see a dark stain on the floor.) At the cost of his arm, he is able to rend Alphonse's soul to the armor. From then on, any time anyone encounters the brothers without knowing them already, if they find out about Al, that he's not just wearing the suit of armor, they recoil because, to them, it is unnatural.
This made me think greatly of transgenesis, taking genes from one species and transferring it to another, like with taking Al's soul and binding it to the suit of armor. Also, how everyone recoiled from him definitely reminded me of the so-called "yuck factor".
My question now is: Are there other parallels between what we've been discussing in class and what has been discussed here?
Monday, December 6, 2010
Growth Hormones
Now that we're talking about Bio-Tech, I thought this would be a good time to post this blog. On the sides of certain food products nowadays, there will be disclaimers of "No growth hormones have been used in this product..." The places I've seen them the most are on Ben & Jerry's ice cream and on the side of Odwalla bottles. With so many foods being produced with growth hormones or some kind of hormones, so it's nice to see some companies sticking to natural products. Of course, some of these claims may not be true. I was told of a story with Snapple Apple by my friend, and how the bottle claims that there were real apples in the drink. Yet when he looked at the ingredients, there were no apples in sight.
My question now is: How many of these "no hormones" claims can be believed from these big companies?
My question now is: How many of these "no hormones" claims can be believed from these big companies?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Animals as Property?: A Response to Jake
Jake asks: Does calling animals property propogate the propensity to abuse animals?
I made the point once in class, as Jake does in his post, that calling animals property gives humans the idea that they can do whatever they want with said animals. The idea that an animal is property may mean to some that the animal needs to be taken care of, based solely on the idea that, "This is mine." Most people take care of the things they own, but what about people with short tempers? They can kick or kill an animal and use the claim that, "It's my property." Any sane person would know that this is wrong, and this sentiment does not hold up well in court. Calling animals property would, I feel, hurt animals more than it helps them. It devalues them more so than they already are by some.
My question now is: How do we fix this devaluation of animals? What can be done about it?
I made the point once in class, as Jake does in his post, that calling animals property gives humans the idea that they can do whatever they want with said animals. The idea that an animal is property may mean to some that the animal needs to be taken care of, based solely on the idea that, "This is mine." Most people take care of the things they own, but what about people with short tempers? They can kick or kill an animal and use the claim that, "It's my property." Any sane person would know that this is wrong, and this sentiment does not hold up well in court. Calling animals property would, I feel, hurt animals more than it helps them. It devalues them more so than they already are by some.
My question now is: How do we fix this devaluation of animals? What can be done about it?
Friday, December 3, 2010
Compassion
The point was made the other day by several of us in class that religion alone was not a compelling argument for animal ethics because not everyone follows the same religion and some people don't follow religion at all. Yet I've noticed that many different religions still teach the same basic principles, and from the readings we have done plus knowledge I've gathered on my own, compassion towards others and towards animals seems to be a key theme (though I do acknowledge that some of it depends on your interpretation of certain texts).
Compassion is something that just about anyone could understand. In its bare sense, I take it to mean to be kind to others and treat them with respect. A lot of humans don't necessarily think about treating animals this way, and that is where a lot of problems surrounding the treatment of animals and the debates in animal ethics come in.
My question now is: Would it be possible to spread animal ethics to those who do not follow religion based on compassion, or is this idea still limited by religion?
Compassion is something that just about anyone could understand. In its bare sense, I take it to mean to be kind to others and treat them with respect. A lot of humans don't necessarily think about treating animals this way, and that is where a lot of problems surrounding the treatment of animals and the debates in animal ethics come in.
My question now is: Would it be possible to spread animal ethics to those who do not follow religion based on compassion, or is this idea still limited by religion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)