Recently I posed a question, regarding the desirability of breeding a race of beautiful, submissive, sterile..

Question

...neo-humans who would be of limited intellegnce, docile and complient. Many people objected but those objections seemed to centre around their abhorance of slavery. However, this cuts no ice, since the breed would be sterile and genetically diferent form humans and of impoved phenotype they are not human. The member of species, with the exeption of abnormal individuals, must be able to interbreed, since this is not the case here, the new breed is sterile remember, they cannot be classified as human. Therefore, this is not like human slaves. So, who would like to own one of these beautiful, sterile, complient beings?

iswd1 you really need to learn to read more carefully, I claimed that they were not human because they were genetically diferent to the point which they as a breed were unable to interbreed with humans, in this case because they were sterile. Furthermore READ and you will see that I state that apart from genetically abnormal members of a species so I allow that some members of a species may be infertile but that is diferent from the breed as a whole being infertile - Doh!

I despair, this is a question in the philosophical section. Has no one here even the modicum of intellegence to understand what the question is about?

Glen s no, it is clearly you that have been watching too many movies!

This is not about Brave new world

xtwright, GOOD, at least you understand the question but why is it wrong?

Answer 1

What if we cloned a race of humans but genetically altered them just enough escape our usual classifaction of "human"? Then would it be ok to enslave them?

No. Always, just no.

Answer 2

Okay ... first .... I am going to have to say it is a very enticing question to answer, if not an odd one. Second, it sounds like you got tired of your blow up doll and want to update to a more authentic one.

On to the question. Just because this breed is "sterile" does not classify them as not human. There are many humans on earth who are sterile and not able to reproduce but they are obviously still human. People also make themselves sterile through medical procedures so they can no longer have kids and menopause and aging also ceases this ability. This does not by any means denotes their classification of being human.

I am assuming when you are saying their are of limited intelligence means they do not require consciousness perhaps because I think that I have heard that is the first thing that makes us "mammals" different from other mammals and thus human. Also, I believe that our intelligence as a species is what makes us superior to all other animals but you say this new breed is of "improved phenotype". I don't necessarily seem like they are improved if they take a step back intellectually. Also, a race that is supposed to be docile, compliant and submissive does sound like slavery, they just might not know any better to know they don't have to be treated this way. And to be honest, when slavery was going on a lot of slaves were uneducated and of limited intelligence so they also did not understand it was wrong. Which does not make it right. I am very confused about your interbreed point because interbreed still does not mean they are sterile and I think that is what you are saying but I'm lost at abnormal individuals. Also, there are many religious and scientific implications when you get on the subject of genetic engineering. Many say it is wrong because we should not mess with evolution and we will mess up the fragile balance of life if we clone or obviously completely generate another species and introduce them to the environment. It sounds to me like this is the kind of girl you want and it's a little sad that you wouldn't want someone who was an individual and most of all human. If it is not a form of slavery than what would their purpose be. And is our society so hung up on physical appearance that we would want a "beautiful" race just have something pretty to look at? We are defined by free will and our ability to make our own choices and be essentially, completely different from one another yet still one as a race on earth. Submission is not what built this world. Leadership and diversity is what allowed new technology to be invented, reserched and executed. It's the reason we have genetic engineering in the first place, because we have evolved through the generations that can discover things like that. While it is nice to have people be easily "led", I guess you could say, if it means needing the help to do something good under a good leadership, these kind of adjectives spring to mind Hitler and Nazi Germany. He only wanted a "white race" of blue eyed blind haired people. And the submission was incredible and compliancy was obvious. I understand where you are going with this and while it may sound like a good idea in theory, it would never be good for the future of our species and the fate of our planet.

After reading your edit, I understand why you are getting frustrated because you don't think people are reading it right. But there are parts that have read and re read and I think it's the style of your writing that is confusing. Since it's confusing idea, it might seem clear to you but it is not clear to us because I was making the same mistakes. If it's philosophy you want, you should read Nietzche (spelling?). He talked a lot like you. (And he was one of Hitler's favorite authors.)

Answer 3

Aside from the fact that this entire question is worthless and has no merit, what you suggest is the same thing that has been discussed in relation to cloning and ethics.

Many people believe it would be a viable solution to clone human beings, keeping them in a state of suspended animation (I.e., asleep, drug enduced coma) and harvest them for body parts/organs to help the person they were cloned from (Seeing as how there is no potential for rejection due to it being an exact replica of the person needing the transfer).

However, the idea has been shot down numerous times by anyone and everyone who knows anything about bioethicism and , not to forget, has a heart.

So, to answer your question, no I would not want to own these creatures of yours. And yes, I think your name is fitting.

**EDIT**

Also, your logic has flaws in it. You claim they would not be "Human" because they're sterile? I hate to burst your ego bubble bud, but there are already a great number of "Humans" that are sterile, either by choice or circumstance.

Answer 4

A rose is a rose is a rose. No matter how you make it sound,you're talking about human beings. Humans evolve no matter what. That's what makes us unique. Your Neo- Humans wouldn't stay the same. They would grow mentally and eventually question their existence and ask why they were created and by whom.
How do you think they're going to react when you tell them they were created to serve as some sort of slave?

Answer 5

You have been watching too many old cartoons.Will we use them to set up Mars for us,and will we also be using exo-suits?The real prob with your idea is that life always finds a way to make more copys of it's self.So meek becomes fierce;they will have to be smart enough to use tools and solve prob's,so smack-bang they take over the lab and us.One person forced to work?Break and enter,carjack?Fine ok,road crew clean up and cut the grass on highway US17.One person forced to work+all people that are part of your race/sex/whatever?No thank you,we have been there,done that.

Answer 6

I wouldn't! I don't believe in or like the thought of owning any being - human or no! (I do NOT own a pet for the same reason, - and I don't like Zoo's) I teach my children that even though they might want to make people do something, they must accept the fact that everything they own is themselves, and that everybody is free to make their own choices.

Answer 7

so are you saying if someone is sterile theyre not human?are you crazy?if someones retarded or disabled arent they human?the description you give is still a human.i feel quite sick and disturbed by what you suggest,neo humans.you need to write a film or a book because you have an excellent imagination.i am not religious but i can only pray your ideas never become a reality.

Answer 8

First if they are sterile how do you plan to breed them? With the exception of the Donkey all sterile breeds have proven too cost ineffective to breed.

As for submissive, we have many breeds sumissive to us. Dogs being one example. Many people consider them beautifull, a few even in rather bizzarre ways. Some species of dogs given oppsing digits and a language which they could physically produce would apparently serve your purposes since there is no mention of sexual conduct. Given the high levels of intelligence in certain breeds of dogs they would be more than capable of some very mundane tasks.

Given other purposes, machinery actually serves as slaves already. With the age of AI fast approaching the intelligence aspect is soon possible. Biomachines include cybernetics may become such. Ole Aunt Edna if she couldn't afford a proper funeral might be forced into the labor force after death or even to work off back taxes. You know the IRS, give them a chance and even death won't stop an audit.

Theoretically our deffinition of what is proper or improper to enslave is based on intelligence. Still there are practical limits. Dolphins have shown a high level of intelligence yet are "enslaved" for performances. This would be very different than the role of dogs which is mutually benificial. Dolphins trained to act as underwater search and rescue would be less of enslavement and more like having a job, however unatural having a job would be to such creatures. As such if the creatures were of limited intelligence then as Humans we would feel ok with their enslavement. We have demonstrated this many times against other human cultures. So much so that no ethnic group does not have a tale of being enslaved somewhere in it's history.

The practical aspect is thus. Machinery is cheaper, more reliable, more controlled and can be better tailored in the forseeable future. That does not mean that bioengineers in the future will not create living machines which will of course last far longer than inanimate objects. The table which heals itself for example. Or that can given a mechanical or dietary stimulus change color, shape, size or texture. This will be real technology sometime in the future. So too will be table diseases. The one and only reason besides the death of your table that you replace such furniture. It will of course have the intelligence level of a plant or less and likely be based off of a plant for it's DNA base. Still the concept is basically machinery. Instead of working in lifeless metal/plastic it is a machine made up of living tissue. We have used bacteria for such purposes for thousands of years. Yeast is one of our most common machines. It creates beer. It raises up bread. Yeast is even used to fuel cars in some places by fermenting fuel grade alchohol. We use insects as a form of insectiside and use cats to remove rodents. So we already use bacteria as a part in a machine. We already use higher animal forms as tools. Getting used to a living table would not take very long.

So the creation of a species, based on humans to me would be redundant. We have machines to remove labor intensive work. We will soon have machines for all forms of pleasure. We are developing machines for dangerous work already. Soon we will have machines which will even think. We have species for comfort and to serve our egos which are already domesticated.

So the only purpose, practical one I can see in the creation of a sub species of humanity is pure intimidation of other humans. Such a sub species before it is technologically feasible to create will be inferior to machines that we can build for all purposes. They will carry a permanent stigma. Then they will be romanticized as is human nature. Given higher levels of intelligence and raised up to be our equal. When this happens those who created/controlled the sub-species would be despised. Revolts would happen and the new species now granted higher intellligence would resent it's method birth creating a species wide complex for thousands of years or more. So in short why incur such a headache?

Answer 9

If they're trained for evil sign me up, I'll need about a legion's worth. But if they're good, ethical or moral neo-humans they would be of no use for my evil bidding and therefore a waste of my precious resources.

Answer 10

Done before mate. "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Read and learn, 'cos you not as originally evil as you like to think....