Human/Ape Crossbreeding

[lordmagnus]

Humm, maybe I just wanna see how weird, weird can get. Maybe I think I wanna add a little more chaos to human (primate) society, make people take another long hard look at what if anything makes us different than other primates.

Oh BTW the hand crank centrifuge, modified with a power drill actually works pretty well, using a hand held laser tachometer to gauge the speed, it's just cumbersome.

[Mokele]

Humm, maybe I just wanna see how weird, weird can get. Maybe I think I wanna add a little more chaos to human (primate) society, make people take another long hard look at what if anything makes us different than other primates.

 

See, that would be a good justification for, say, an art exhibit on the topic, but not for actually creating such a creature.

 

Mokele

[ydoaPs]

This is more than an abomination, you would be creating something for the sole reason of just wanting to study it.

Just like breeding fruitflies, bacteria, and plants are more than abominations because they are creating something for the sole reason of just wanting to study it.

 

If it can think as rationally as we can and everything, consider how it would feel about being something that shouldn't be, all because you wanted to play god.

This one is almost a good question. Would it have the same mental capabilities as us? How would we know until the breeding? What level of intelligence is required before breeding is wrong? Is breeding dogs or cats wrong?

 

One likely scenario would be the creation of a species that was halfway between humans and chimps in intelligence. How long would it take people to exploit that? Legally they wouldn't have human rights so they would make clever, strong slaves who were totally dependent on humans. That's just one scenario.

How is that different from breeding horses? Don't we lock chimps in cages? What about capturing dolphins solely for our amusement? Where is the line? How would we measure such a line?

 

 

See, that would be a good justification for, say, an art exhibit on the topic, but not for actually creating such a creature.

 

Mokele

Indeed

[AutomagSam]

Not saying I agree with this, but since I am young and want to educate myself, in detail how would one going about doing what you are suggesting. And spare no details plz.

[Phi for All]

Hummm, this is getting interesting. I am basically lacking a willing human female (although I have had offers from certain fetish forums) a male chimpanzee, and a variable speed centrifuge. I have everything else, and tech. I have a centrifuge, but it's handcrank, and I adapted a RYOBI 18v drill to power it for higher speeds.

And you're repeating this because...? Couldn't you please explain that you are not suggesting an actual mating with a willing human female and a male chimpanzee? That is what's behind the legal ramifications that may get this entire thread shut down and locked away.

How is that different from breeding horses?

Because we don't breed them with ourselves. Because intraspecies breeding isn't interspecies breeding. And finally because the result isn't likely to cause as much legal and moral grief as breeding something that might have partial claim to human rights.

Don't we lock chimps in cages? What about capturing dolphins solely for our amusement? Where is the line? How would we measure such a line?

What do any of these strawmen have to do with breeding other animals with humans? Are you really equating constrained environments with breeding a human / chimpanzee hybrid?

[ydoaPs]

Because we don't breed them with ourselves. Because intraspecies breeding isn't interspecies breeding. And finally because the result isn't likely to cause as much legal and moral grief as breeding something that might have partial claim to human rights.What do any of these strawmen have to do with breeding other animals with humans? Are you really equating constrained environments with breeding a human / chimpanzee hybrid?

When did species membership become a moral characteristic? I guess I missed the memo.

[lucaspa]

There are some moral facets of this that could be explored, but the basic question is:

 

Is it ethical to "make" a person for the sole reason of studying it?

 

Or, really, would it be a "person"?

 

You encapsulated the whole problem with the experiment. Scientifically, it's no different than making a "liger" or a mule, for that matter.

 

The problem is an ethical one and the status of the organism if the experiment succeeds. Is the hybrid a human with all the rights thereto, or a chimp?

 

It is the ethical problems that make the experiment unacceptable.

 

As far as I can see in the article on the Russian scientist, the experiment was never performed. And the Chinese experiments remain that, a rumor.

 

I think some hybrid mammals -- such as the liger -- represent greater genetic differences than between chimps and humans.

 

yourdadonapogos: "When did species membership become a moral characteristic? I guess I missed the memo."

 

The memo is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The "rights" listed in there apply to H. sapiens alone. Therefore there is a moral issue making a hybrid of H. sapiens and another species: is the hybrid a human with all the legal rights enjoyed by other humans or is it an animal without those rights?

[lucaspa]

Not saying I agree with this, but since I am young and want to educate myself, in detail how would one going about doing what you are suggesting. And spare no details plz.

 

Look up "artificial insemination" and "ligers" to get the details. Basically, get human sperm, sedate a female chimp in estrus and inject the sperm into the chimp's vagina. If successful, the baby would have to be delivered by cesaerian section, since a human sized head would not fit thru a chimp's pelvis.

 

Alternatively, get chimp sperm and inject it into a female human's vagina during estrus. This one could presumably be carried to term and delivered vaginally, since the head would not be larger than a human baby's.

 

As I said, it can be done. The issue is whether it ought to be done, and that is an ethical issue.

 

One thing that has not been done, and would cause fewer ethical issues, is to see if you could do in vitro fertilization and at least get the formation of a blastema (5-10 days post fertilization). This is the stage of embryonic stem cells and stored in vitro human embryos. Then you could kill the blastemal cells.

 

WAIT! there is another experiment that can be done. The genes that change in reproductive isolation have been found:

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998.

 

So, since both the human and chimp genomes are now sequenced, compare the base sequences of those genes and see if they have diverged too far for viable hybrids!

 

No ethical issue involved at all with that one.

[Phi for All]

When did species membership become a moral characteristic? I guess I missed the memo.

Hand-waving. You asked how this was different from breeding horses and I gave you three differences. And the fact that we as humans can pose moral and ethical questions helps define those characteristics as being species-specific.

 

With regards to determining rights which are inalienable to humans, chimps are still "alien". A hybrid may not be viewed as such. If it demonstrated cognitive speech would we view it as more human?

[ydoaPs]

Hand-waving. You asked how this was different from breeding horses and I gave you three differences. And the fact that we as humans can pose moral and ethical questions helps define those characteristics as being species-specific.

No, it isn't. You're "reasons" are all based on the false idea that species membership is morally relevant. I might be misunderstanding, but from what I gather, your objections are not about morality, they are about the eww factor. If I am really just misunderstanding you, please rephrase your argument.

 

 

With regards to determining rights which are inalienable to humans, chimps are still "alien". A hybrid may not be viewed as such. If it demonstrated cognitive speech would we view it as more human?

Chimps demonstrate the ability to use sign language. Hell, they even have basic moral codes. They are plenty sentient in and of themselves. Again, being human has no moral importance.

[Royston]

Chimps demonstrate the ability to use sign language. Hell, they even have basic moral codes. They are plenty sentient in and of themselves. Again, being human has no moral importance.

 

Well the more sentient, the more suffering i.e a chimp / human hybrid would 'probably' be all to aware they're a one off, or an experiment. I don't think you could say (for example) the same about a llama / camel cross, annoyingly called a karma.

 

It also boils down to the salient point...why. Now you could say the same for a llama, camel cross, (what really is the point) but the suffering of that alienated individual is nothing to a sentient or self-aware alienated individual. There is no scientific gain from the venture, and if there was, then it would have to be highly justified. So as you can't apply moral importance to species membership, you can still gauge the amount of suffering in this instance, and, whether that suffering is justified for scientific progress.

 

It's pretty clear, it can't be justified (for now), and there is no rhyme or reason such an experiment is needed.

[ydoaPs]

Well the more sentient, the more suffering i.e a chimp / human hybrid would 'probably' be all to aware they're a one off, or an experiment. I don't think you could say (for example) the same about a llama / camel cross, annoyingly called a karma.

Yet that doesn't stop us from experimenting on chimps...

 

It also boils down to the salient point...why. Now you could say the same for a llama, camel cross, (what really is the point) but the suffering of that alienated individual is nothing to a sentient or self-aware alienated individual. There is no scientific gain from the venture, and if there was, then it would have to be highly justified. So as you can't apply moral importance to species membership, you can still gauge the amount of suffering in this instance, and, whether that suffering is justified for scientific progress.

What would cause the suffering? Who is saying it has to be done inhumanely? I'm not sure why you think it would be alone, either. We would learn more if we had more than one, anyway. What if we were to breed a few dozen and have them raised almost as though they were human children? IIRC, this was done with chimps with great results. Where would the suffering come in there?

[Royston]

Yet that doesn't stop us from experimenting on chimps...

 

Well no, but you have to justify the experiment. Where's the necesity in this particular experiment, and does it acquire beneficial results that could outweigh the suffering of a few chimps, to benefit (for example) many chimps. Yes, I know there are plenty of experiments on animals, that are clearly not justified in their benefits e.g cosmetics et.c to which I don't agree with.

 

What would cause the suffering? Who is saying it has to be done inhumanely? I'm not sure why you think it would be alone, either. We would learn more if we had more than one, anyway. What if we were to breed a few dozen and have them raised almost as though they were human children? IIRC, this was done with chimps with great results. Where would the suffering come in there?

 

The suffering would be the hybrid 'knowing' it was a 'first of it's kind' experiment, it would be utterly unique. I was assuming we we're talking about the experiment the OP was considering i.e a one off. But, with your above example, again, where's the necessity. I agree that if they were a group, and also considering the results were an absolute success (they were all born healthy, with no abnormalities et.c), and you could somehow determine they would function socially, and there was some beneficial gain in all of this, well then I couldn't see a problem with it.

[CDarwin]

Hell, they even have basic moral codes.

 

How do you define 'moral code'? Any social animal will have behaviors that are permitted and behaviors that are not permitted. In mammals and birds at least there will be more than purely instinctual components to how these 'codes' are enforced and adhered to. Is that what you mean? Is that all morality is?

 

The question isn't rhetorical, nor is it quibbling. It goes to the very heart of the issue.

 

If a morality is simply functional, than why shouldn’t it be extended only to members of the species that originated it? Do chimpanzees consider humans in their ‘moral code’? Again, not a rhetorical question.

[ydoaPs]

The suffering would be the hybrid 'knowing' it was a 'first of it's kind' experiment, it would be utterly unique.

We can't assume that. What if it would feel special? For example, many humans search for a purpose for their life. These hybrids would actually have one. What stops them from appreciating being the beginning of something new?

 

I was assuming we we're talking about the experiment the OP was considering i.e a one off. But, with your above example, again, where's the necessity. I agree that if they were a group, and also considering the results were an absolute success (they were all born healthy, with no abnormalities et.c), and you could somehow determine they would function socially, and there was some beneficial gain in all of this, well then I couldn't see a problem with it.

I never said I advocated it. I actually don't see a need, although I'm sure we could learn a lot about genetics from it. I'm just saying I don't see anything morally wrong with it.

 

How do you define 'moral code'? Any social animal will have behaviors that are permitted and behaviors that are not permitted. In mammals and birds at least there will be more than purely instinctual components to how these 'codes' are enforced and adhered to. Is that what you mean? Is that all morality is?

 

The question isn't rhetorical, nor is it quibbling. It goes to the very heart of the issue.

 

If a morality is simply functional, than why shouldn’t it be extended only to members of the species that originated it? Do chimpanzees consider humans in their ‘moral code’? Again, not a rhetorical question.

 

If I knew you would have posted this, I would have not packed up my copy of Practical Ethics yet. There is a great section in there(IIRC, it is called An Unusual Institution) which I'd be happy to type out. It is a great example of what I am talking about. Unfortunately, I've already moved it. Once I finish, in an hour or so, I will be incommunicado for a while as I have to wait for comcast to come to base and I have to order the internet for my new room, wait for them to send the equipment, etc.

[Sisyphus]

Yet that doesn't stop us from experimenting on chimps...

 

Which I assume you're against?

 

What would cause the suffering? Who is saying it has to be done inhumanely? I'm not sure why you think it would be alone, either. We would learn more if we had more than one, anyway. What if we were to breed a few dozen and have them raised almost as though they were human children? IIRC, this was done with chimps with great results. Where would the suffering come in there?

 

I guess you have to ask yourself, would it be ok to intentionally genetically alter a group of human beings to be retarded, or to be deformed in some way, as long as we treat them almost as though they were normal? It seems to me to be the same question. If you think it's different, then how is it different?

 

An interesting thought about the chimps. If they were successfully and happily raised as if they were human children, doesn't that indicate they lack the capacity to tell the difference, and that a humanzee with higher capacity might not be so lucky? My dog treats me as if I was the alpha male of his pack. He interacts with me as a dog because he lacks the capacity to do otherwise, and I interact with him as a heavily anthropomorphized version of his real self because I'm a softie and I find it amusing. Would a humanzee be amused?

[CDarwin]

If a morality is simply functional, than why shouldn’t it be extended only to members of the species that originated it? Do chimpanzees consider humans in their ‘moral code’? Again, not a rhetorical question.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if this is analogous. Perhaps it would be better to ask if chimpanzees consider animals with more limited cognitive abilities than themselves in their moral code, such as monkeys.

[Phi for All]

No, it isn't. You're "reasons" are all based on the false idea that species membership is morally relevant.

No, I think you'd just like them to be.

I might be misunderstanding, but from what I gather, your objections are not about morality, they are about the eww factor.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

If I am really just misunderstanding you, please rephrase your argument.

I think you're definitely misunderstanding me since all your rebuttals are aimed at a completely different argument.

 

I stated that one problem might be having a hybrid that exhibited near-human intelligence and that I feel it's very likely "it" (or "they") would be exploited without granting them the kind of rights humans enjoy in a human society. You asked how it was different from breeding horses. I gave three differences, not "reasons".

 

My argument against human / chimp crossbreeding is more of an ethical and legal one rather than a morality issue. We may learn a great deal from attempting it but breeding *anything* with humans and possibly creating something with sentience approaching our own opens up the possibility of extending human rights to them. And if they are performing near-human tasks without the benefit of those rights then I feel it's exploitative.

Chimps demonstrate the ability to use sign language. Hell, they even have basic moral codes. They are plenty sentient in and of themselves. Again, being human has no moral importance.

"Plenty sentient" is not what I'm talking about, nor am I talking about chimps. I'm talking about a human / chimp hybrid that could possibly be much more than "plenty sentient".

[mak2]

I am afraid this experiment has already occured

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you guys ever been to WalMart?

[mak2]

I am new around here and hope you do not mind a little humor. This is a very intersting topic however. I recently conducted a study with historical data at a local large university. The ethical requirments are still very strignet. If I am not in trouble over the WalMart crack I would like to discuss this further at a later date, my wife wants me to watch 24 with her. I gotta go.

[lordmagnus]

Not saying I agree with this, but since I am young and want to educate myself, in detail how would one going about doing what you are suggesting. And spare no details plz.

 

The big problem is anti bodies in the chimpanze or human semen. This problem can be avoided useing common cattle and horse breeding techniques. The other species immune system will auto attack and destroy the semen from the other species. taking the semen from the donor, mixing it with isotonic saline at body temp (to prevent shock) with the addition of a small ammount of dextrose, and an anti biotic such as gentimyacin, the semen can be carefully mixed with the saline by several gentle inversions of the test tube they are placed in a centrifuge, and allow to spin for several mintues (forgive me I don't have my notes handy at this point for RCF's or RPM's) the sperm will form a pellette at the bottom of the tube, and can be gentley drawn off with a pippette, this whole process can be repeated a second to to insure purity, but this sometimes reduces the fertility of the sperm. The sperm pellette can them be injected directly into the uterus of the host subject using very simple techniques, mostly all that is required are stainless steel dilator probes to open the vervix up, and very narrow 1/16" O.D. renathane or teflon tubeing connected to a syringe to supply the injection. first the syring would get like 1/8ml of the saline/glucose solution then the sperm pellete, so that the whole pellette would get injected.

You can get a professional sperm storage for processing from NASCO science's farm sciences catalog, they have PORCINE (pig), Bovine (cattle), and equine (horse) formulations, the bovine is clossest to human.

 

And you're repeating this because...? Couldn't you please explain that you are not suggesting an actual mating with a willing human female and a male chimpanzee? That is what's behind the legal ramifications that may get this entire thread shut down and locked away.Because we don't breed them with ourselves. Because intraspecies breeding isn't interspecies breeding. And finally because the result isn't likely to cause as much legal and moral grief as breeding something that might have partial claim to human rights.What do any of these strawmen have to do with breeding other animals with humans? Are you really equating constrained environments with breeding a human / chimpanzee hybrid?

 

you would use inter-uterine insemination techniques to implant a purified semen pellete into the host uterus. See animal husbandry referances on google. NASCO SCIENCE company's farm and ranch catalog for supplies, etc.

 

You encapsulated the whole problem with the experiment. Scientifically, it's no different than making a "liger" or a mule, for that matter.

 

The problem is an ethical one and the status of the organism if the experiment succeeds. Is the hybrid a human with all the rights thereto, or a chimp?

 

It is the ethical problems that make the experiment unacceptable.

 

As far as I can see in the article on the Russian scientist, the experiment was never performed. And the Chinese experiments remain that, a rumor.

 

I think some hybrid mammals -- such as the liger -- represent greater genetic differences than between chimps and humans.

 

yourdadonapogos: "When did species membership become a moral characteristic? I guess I missed the memo."

 

The memo is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The "rights" listed in there apply to H. sapiens alone. Therefore there is a moral issue making a hybrid of H. sapiens and another species: is the hybrid a human with all the legal rights enjoyed by other humans or is it an animal without those rights?

 

Thankyou, you have captured the essence of the experiment perfectly, yes it really is no different than a liger or a mule, or geep blending, actually from what I've read, humans and chimps are closer related than the previously mentioned creations.

 

Close but not quite, you need to pruify the semen to extract the sperm, and remove the antibodies that would cause a rejection. look up the term SEMEN PROCESSING, it's used into intrauterine insemination techniques.

[lucaspa]

Chimps demonstrate the ability to use sign language. Hell, they even have basic moral codes. They are plenty sentient in and of themselves. Again, being human has no moral importance.

 

Morals are how humans decide to treat each other and other species. For instance, the chimps that recently killed several people in Africa were not charge and tried for murder. Why? Because we don't consider the morals of humans -- "thou shall not murder" -- to apply to chimps. You say chimps are sentient. Therefore, by your logic, we should have arrested the chimps, put them on trial, and punish them like humans if convicted. I don't see you advocating that.

 

The question comes down to: if a human-chimp hybrid is made, does it have all the legal, ethical rights and responsibilities of members of H. sapiens?

 

You haven't answered that.

[lucaspa]

Close but not quite, you need to pruify the semen to extract the sperm, and remove the antibodies that would cause a rejection.

I did look up "semen processing". This is for storage, NOT removal of antibodies. http://nongae.gsnu.ac.kr/~cspark/teaching/chap16.html

 

The antigens that cause rejection (not the antibodies, but antigens that provoke an immune response from the host) are on the cell itself. In mammals they are the major histocompatibility complexes I or II. These are membrane proteins.

 

So "purifying" the semen to sperm doesn't do anything about that. All it does is concentrate the sperm.

 

taking the semen from the donor, mixing it with isotonic saline at body temp (to prevent shock) with the addition of a small ammount of dextrose, and an anti biotic such as gentimyacin, the semen can be carefully mixed with the saline by several gentle inversions of the test tube they are placed in a centrifuge, and allow to spin for several mintues (forgive me I don't have my notes handy at this point for RCF's or RPM's) the sperm will form a pellette at the bottom of the tube, and can be gentley drawn off with a pippette, this whole process can be repeated a second to to insure purity, but this sometimes reduces the fertility of the sperm.

 

Cells are usually pelleted at 300 x g (300 times the force of gravity at the earth's surface).

 

So, if chimp sperm is immunologically incompatible with humans, or vice versa, processing isn't going to change that.

 

Now, it appears that MHC-I doesn't present antigens like other cells, so the MHC-1 on sperm cells would not be antigenic in and of themselves.

 

"I'm going to restrict the discussion to the MHC class I complex for the remainder of this post. MHC class I molecules load peptides that have been processed by intracellular proteases and present them on the surface of cells. This process occurs in nearly every cell in the body, with the exceptions of sperm cells and some neurons. As MHC class I molecules load peptides that have been derived from the proteins produced by the host and those produced by potential invaders such as viruses, this makes them critical in immune function for tolerisation of the effector cells that initiate immune responses." http://immunoblogging.blogspot.com/2006/02/evolution-of-immune-system-mhc-part-ii.html

[lucaspa]

What would cause the suffering? Who is saying it has to be done inhumanely? I'm not sure why you think it would be alone, either. We would learn more if we had more than one, anyway. What if we were to breed a few dozen and have them raised almost as though they were human children? IIRC, this was done with chimps with great results. Where would the suffering come in there?

 

The question, yourdadonapogos, that you keep ignoring is: are these hybrids human or not, and thus have the Constitution and other laws for humans apply to them? By the bold above, you don't think they are. But why not? What percentage of human alleles do you need to qualify as human with the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If we raise the hybrids as "almost human", aren't we depriving them of both liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[lucaspa]

I am afraid this experiment has already occured

 

What experiment? Interbreeding chimps and humans? If so, please provide us with the citation. As far as I can tell, the experiment has NOT been done.