Replying to Plan To Create Human-cow Embryos

That would seem to be the best way to go with stem cell research.

I think they have already undertaken the research and they did manage to creat a few zygotes that survived for eight days. I do think this is ethically wrong to mix DNA from two spieces and also that it is not feasible. The DNA will not form sister chromatids during mitosis and therefore cannot grow into an embryo.

However now that we are able to get stems cells without growing human embryos (from the fluid surrounding human embryos) we should not feel the need to carry on experimenting with growing embryos of any kind.

I don't think that the research should be stopped because it is potentially helpful and also potentially harmful. If there weren't any horrible people out to monopolize and abuse power, then there would only be controversy over the fact that they are human and cow embryos and both are capable of life until they are mingled together. Also if it were possible (I'm not saying that it isn't) that the cow and human genes could combine together, he/she would probably cause a great amount of curiousity about the traits of the new lifeform. Most likely another scientist (or scientists) will recreate another embryo and test it. There are tons of different outcomes, but a main fact is that no matter what, that lifeform would become an outcast in the society. There could even be the possibility that he/she could commit suicide, murder, anything. (I'm not saying that it can't just help for his/her entire life.) Anyways, there is aposibility of mental instability because of being shunned from a society that caused the birth of themself. It could cause a situation like in Elfen Lied (anime show) where there is another species of humans that have vector hands (they are like invisible hands and are much longer. There are variations in length and in number.) who are considered a threat and are isolated from the moment they are born. If they escape, they kill anything that they come across.

(I didn't want to say "it" because if he/she could possibly survive they wouldn't like being called "it". I'm fifteen so don't blame me.)

Sure, we may create our own purpose and motivations in life, but it is up to the individual to determine what that is. There are many people who dedicate their lives to different purposes, but we as a species don't seem to be predisposed to having any particular purpose other than basic living, eating, breeding etc. That is not to say that other animals don't do anything but eat and breed. There are other animals that play and do things that don't directly pertain to their survival.

If you can't see or are unaware of a higher purpose in life than eating breeding, then by all means, as you say, you are not much more than an ameba, or a cow.
In that case, I would state that there are two different kinds of human beings...

If that's not our only or main purpose, why is it the most difficult part of us to ignore .

We just happen to be a little more advanced in an overall scale than most other species.

But the differences aren't that great, or should I say not great enough.

Not a good example, but it's like saying the use of a 64-Bit CPU is an entirely different species compared to 32-Bit (and it really isn't *that* different).

Were more complex than that of course, but so is other life on this planet (think in proportion) .

E.G, most animals have a brain, that functions more or less the same (it's still a brain), many have limbs like ours, mouths, heads, feet, bodies, a heart, they eat, they sleep, grow, many can walk, run, learn, some can even learn to talk like us.

Those are just the *I can see it* similarities, I don't know about under the hood.

I absolutely agree with you in that science and technology in fact prevent humanity from evolving. Actually I'm a firm believer that humankind is devolving from a higher state. But I don't agree with you in that we have no more value than any other being or thing. Of course we are all part of a system, with a delicate equilibrium, and one species cannot survive without the other. That is from a functional point of view. But that 2% difference in the genetic code that tells us apart from other beings is exactly THE difference. We as human beings are more than just a part of an ecologic system, in fact the awareness of being part of such thing is something only us are capable of having. We're not just a bunch of cells roaming the planet whose only purpose is feeding and breeding.

It seems that the problem is what is the concept of human life. Something is human the moment it has the "essence" of humanity. From the moment of conception, this first cell has all the information that makes up for all a human being is. There isn't a stage later on in the whole process of embryo development that changes in essence so drastically to tell exactly -before this it isn't human; after this, it is. So tampering with cells, embryos, fetus, babies, adults or elderly people is exactly the same.
From all the advances and technology, I don't see any evolution or development in humankind: we may have the power to do anything, now is it correct to do it? For example, anyone has the means or the power to terminate another person's life. Does it mean that if we can do it, we have to?
So if we can play with cells and genes, does it mean that we have to do it? Does it mean that it's the only way we can deal with diseases?

I see what you are saying, but I guess I just don't really think of the essence of humanity being particularly precious over any other organism. I don't see humans as being any more important or higher in status than any other organism. We may be smarter, but the world wouldn't be the same without everything else. We share the same genetic code with most other animals on the planet (just different programming). Only about 2 percent of that programming separates us from other species.

If anything, I think that our technology and advances in science would stop us from evolving. Technology takes the place of evolution. Evolution works through the death and survival of organisms (survival of the fittest) from their environment, predators, etc. Bad genes are lost when individual animals with those genes cannot survive and just the opposite for those with good genes. We are removed from nature so natural selection really doesn't apply to us much anymore, except for maybe diseases (but even with many diseases we have medicine and such to help). There isn't much pushing the human race to evolve, since we live in a time when most of the human race live long lives and their survival isn't quite as difficult as it would be in nature.

And what would you propose if the world was over populated beyond reasonable control, just let it happen?

I should think not, come back to reality.

(Yes I'm just making a point)

As they say, you can't really gain without a sacrafice, and if the gain is worth more than the sacrafice, it's usually a straight out yes (good outweighing the bad), but it depends on the situation and what value you put on the comparison.

I don't mean to be disrespectful of others beliefs, but I don't understand why a microscopic glob of cells is any more precious than an actual human life. The stem cells could be used to save many lives and cure so many diseases and problems. I think that an actual human's life is more important than a few cells.

It seems that the problem is what is the concept of human life. Something is human the moment it has the "essence" of humanity. From the moment of conception, this first cell has all the information that makes up for all a human being is. There isn't a stage later on in the whole process of embryo development that changes in essence so drastically to tell exactly -before this it isn't human; after this, it is. So tampering with cells, embryos, fetus, babies, adults or elderly people is exactly the same.
From all the advances and technology, I don't see any evolution or development in humankind: we may have the power to do anything, now is it correct to do it? For example, anyone has the means or the power to terminate another person's life. Does it mean that if we can do it, we have to?
So if we can play with cells and genes, does it mean that we have to do it? Does it mean that it's the only way we can deal with diseases?