Legislature banning animal-human hybrids

[Bloodyredbaron]

Nonsense Pariah, only good can come of human/animal hybrids.



Only good.

[Berserker]

Fortunecity broke your joke

[Scott Gardener]

PariahPoet:

I actually think the ban is a good idea for the same reason I support the pit bull ban. It's not because human hybrids or pit bulls don't deserve to live, but because there is very little hope of them ever having a decent life...

We don't know that. Who's to say that, by the time we get to the point when we can do it, that cultural sensibilities won't have changed so drastically that they'll be welcomed with open arms? It could happen. I don't see it as the most likely timeline, but to pass a law because of what we think could happen, given reasonable possibility of numerous alternatives, is not valid logic. We just don't have either the technology nor the cultural intellect to deal with the issue. So, they're trying to outlaw the issue from ever coming up. But, if it's technically possible, sooner or later, someone is going to do it. I'd rather it not be a clandestine underground. Yes, it's possible that the first hybrids will be pigs with human hearts, used for slaughter for transplants. And yes, it's possible that the first human / wolf hybrid could end up being a corporation's slave to be pitted in staged arena fights for reality show TV. But, it's not hard to find willing subjects on this forum who would gladly turn themselves into wolf / human hybrids, and it's also perfectly imaginable that human / other-animal hybridization might be a way to, say, colonize an alien planet for which we're not very well-fit, but a genetically modified being is; or, that animal hybridization could be done as a way of solving some present or future problem, such as ensuring that we biological organisms can keep up with rapidly evolving AIs.

As for pit bulls, my son-in-law has one named Callie, and he's living a charmed life. He thinks he's a lap dog, and he lets a tiny little terrier named Charlie push him around. Just because some humans are psychopaths with a particular breed doesn't justify going after the breed instead of the psychopaths.

Children born from poverty-stricken mothers are, by raw statistics and ignoring political or ethical interpretations, more likely to grow up to be criminals. By this argument, one would also have to advocate laws forbidding people below the poverty line from reproducing. (Note: I'm not actually advocating this! I'm presenting a reductio ad absurdum argument.)

[Aki]

If you're born a human hybrid your only option is to live in a cage in a lab and eventually be killed for your organs.

That makes the assumption that all hybrids would be born. I imagine a sizeable majority might be made from existing humans. Like the use pig stem cells to regrow missing limbs that the US Army was looking at according to Baph. It's also hard to imagine that if they did that they would stop there - they might start looking into ways to further augment soldiers rather than just a way to regrow a lost limb. Hell, the army's already working on Exoskeletons, I'm sure using animal DNA to make super-soldiers is something they desperately want as well.

[RedEye]

Again, my response:

That law will last until somewhere somebody comes up with a cure for one of the Big Bads by adding a little something extra to somebody's genome.

So what, if you grow fur, fangs, and have pointy and mobile ears and a tail? You're alive; and that has a way of undercutting most laws prohibiting it.
People will do a lot of things if it means they stay alive...

[Uniform Two Six]

I'm sure using animal DNA to make super-soldiers is something they desperately want as well.

I can't help but think back to the "Dog Boys" from Shadowrun. They were this race of genetically engineered creatures that were half human, half canine. They were designed specifically to act as engineered soldiers. The bad guys created them using canine genetic material because they wanted their territoriality as well as their pack mentality and their tendency to bond to humans from their "pack", so to speak. They were also intended to be entirely expendable. Very dark stuff.

EDIT: Rifts, not Shadowrun. My bad.

[Wingman]

Without bones, these ten gnarled hooves cannot support its weight. Select the pistol, and then, select your horse.

I feel this needs to be linked here.

[Berserker]

Children born from poverty-stricken mothers are, by raw statistics and ignoring political or ethical interpretations, more likely to grow up to be criminals. By this argument, one would also have to advocate laws forbidding people below the poverty line from reproducing. (Note: I'm not actually advocating this! I'm presenting a reductio ad absurdum argument.)

Not to veer off topic, but I think the main argument behind Pit Bulls is the idea that they are instinctively more prone to violence than other breeds, and that it is because of this instinct that people choose the Pit Bull as an attack dog.

[Terastas]

I'm sure using animal DNA to make super-soldiers is something they desperately want as well.

I can't help but think back to the "Dog Boys" from Shadowrun. They were this race of genetically engineered creatures that were half human, half canine. They were designed specifically to act as engineered soldiers. The bad guys created them using canine genetic material because they wanted their territoriality as well as their pack mentality and their tendency to bond to humans from their "pack", so to speak. They were also intended to be entirely expendable. Very dark stuff.

Or if you don't mind a more camp example, the kangaroo-men from Tank Girl.

This is probably the level which these idiots think they're going to prohibit, but personally, I don't think anyone with even a quarter of a brain would ever let it reach that level. What people often forget is that both a democracy and a global union should be naturally opposed to war in any way, shape or form. The pursuit of military advancements of any kind naturally attracts the hostility of the world (such as that which Iran and North Korea are presently faced with). As long as there are people willing to join the army to try and pay their way through college, anyone that even thinks of breeding auto-drafted super-soldiers is going to have to keep those thoughts to themselves lest their entire career be compromised.

If super-soldiers ever do come into existence, it will be through surgery, not genetics; they will modify volunteers with ears like a dog's instead of trying to splice humans with dogs. That will allow them to both avoid the hassles concerning genetic tampering and "involuntary" soldiers, as well as allow them to bypass the law banning hybrids altogether.

In other words, it will only be things that were not meant to be restricted by this law that ultimately will be. That's why the religious reich won't be able to hold it up for very long no matter how strong they get.

[sugarpoultry]

I'm not sure if the video is a joke or not..... it seems unreal to believe. I don't watch msnbc, and I haven't seen anything on this on any of the other channels or news. Dunno... The host looks like he's desperately trying to hold back laughs.

Hybrid stuff isn't unheard of, I just don't think its #1 priority like others have said.

[Uniform Two Six]

As long as there are people willing to join the army to try and pay their way through college, anyone that even thinks of breeding auto-drafted super-soldiers is going to have to keep those thoughts to themselves lest their entire career be compromised.

If super-soldiers ever do come into existence, it will be through surgery, not genetics;

I don't know. I can imagine a rationale getting traction that engineering troops could be beneficial. Forget super-soldiers. Think -- troops who are designed to have just enough intelligence to carry out their missions and a built in obedience, as well as (most importantly) no family to get pissed off if they feel that their son or daughter was either mistreated, or sent off to die stupidly. Hell, simply test-tube-breeding your troops as opposed to trying to recruit them might be appealing to the Pentagon. Right now, the number one problem concerning the U.S. Army is recruiting. Not combat casualties, not weapon system development, not even general funding -- recruitment. They were having problems back during the good years. Right now, with two very unpopular wars going on, they're basically screwed. Having the ability to design in extras like enhanced sight, hearing, and smell, would just be icing on the cake.

Truthfully, however, if this level of genetic manipulation ever becomes possible (never mind economically feasable) it probably won't be in our lifetimes. More likely (although still probably in the quite distant future) would be the use of artificial intelligence paired with robotic technology. Very early prototypes are already in service for precisely these reasons; You will be far more willing to sacrifice an EOD drone or a Predator when you know that the worst that can happen is that a piece of equipment is destroyed (as opposed to a living breathing person who necessitates another flag draped coffin). Even better, a robot that is outwardly just a box with wheels or a Predator drone or something, doesn't elicit that "Awwwww" response in the taxpayers that a lovable furry creature might (as the Army found out the hard way when it got out that they were "surplussing" German Shepherd dogs who -- despite being attack trained -- had outlived their usefulness. Americans love dogs).

[Scott Gardener]

Berserker, about pit bulls: Actually, no. Pit bulls are not inherently more aggressive than other dogs. They're just better able to do serious damage when trained to become aggressive. Terriers are more aggressive, but their small size makes them more obnoxious than a real threat to anyone other than small children. But, standard poodles, I kid you not, are more dangerous. Granted, I'm not going to dismiss pit bulls as dangerous. If I saw one I didn't know, I'd be pretty apprehensive about going near the beastie. But, that doesn't justify an active extermination program, any more than we actively advocate killing off the children of people who are exceptionally muscle-bound and tall.

[Berserker]

Berserker, about pit bulls: Actually, no. Pit bulls are not inherently more aggressive than other dogs.


If I saw one I didn't know, I'd be pretty apprehensive about going near the beastie.

These two statements seem to contradict each other. If I saw a Golden Retriever I didn't know, for example, I would not be apprehensive about going near it. Unlike a pit bull. I'm not advocating any kind of extermination agenda or anything like that, but the anecdotal evidence of attacks against normal people who did not mistreat or mis-train their pit bulls (even animals with no history of aggression or abuse whatsoever,) is too widespread to ignore. Seriously, google "pit bull mauls owner" and then google "Golden Retriever mauls owner." The difference is night and day. I can understand that this evidence may seem too sensational, due to the overblown and propaganda-like nature of news. But still.

Not all dogs are born with a "clean slate," and not all dogs are behaviorally equal. I don't believe in nurture over nature, especially with animals. We're not talking about the kind of grumpy temperament where a dog is constantly bitey, or rough with people, as Poodles tend to be. I'm talking about an animal that can seem perfectly fine one minute, and then suddenly snap and tear out your jugular the next minute. Large carnivores in zoos behave this way; not our beloved puppies, right?

It's true that humans are the ones who probably screwed up this breed, creating a dog over generations that now has a strain of dangerous genetics. But they are still genetics.

[RedEye]

Hmmm... With the technology we have today, about the only creature we could hybridize with humans...

Is a Chimpanzee.

I'll leave it there. Let your imaginations provide the requesite grossness.

[AriesWolf]

I love how the best defense/argument the guy can muster is "The definition of what human is will be challenged!"

Definitions of things change, humanity included. The future has never been known for suffering lightly fools who attempt to hold steadfast to old definitions and practices.

I don't know about the rest of you, but personally, I see enough crap on the news every day to think the "definition of what human is" SHOULD be challenged.

[Berserker]

Hmmm... With the technology we have today, about the only creature we could hybridize with humans...

Is a Chimpanzee.

I'll leave it there. Let your imaginations provide the requesite grossness.

Meh not too different from some of the humans I've seen. There are some fugly people out there.

[Wingman]

Hmmm... With the technology we have today, about the only creature we could hybridize with humans...

Is a Chimpanzee.

I'll leave it there. Let your imaginations provide the requesite grossness.

I saw an article the other day about how a chimp tried to rape his female handler, so I guess the conversion has already begun.

As long as there are people willing to join the army to try and pay their way through college, anyone that even thinks of breeding auto-drafted super-soldiers is going to have to keep those thoughts to themselves lest their entire career be compromised.

If super-soldiers ever do come into existence, it will be through surgery, not genetics;

I don't see how someone proposing the creation of a warrior class would compromise someone's career. Aside from some moral arguments, such as "forcing or brainwashing" them into fighting against their will, the populace will be in love with the idea that their friends and family members will be that much less likely to suffer injury or death while in the armed forces. Those same arguments could be applied to your proposed surgical method, if you're tinkering around in there, what's to say that the doctors aren't doing things other than what's listed on the brochure? If someone is given, say, grafts of muscle tissue to allow them to carry heavier loads, hit harder, along with "stress management" treatments, I'll bet you good money it won't take long for the "brainwashed killing machine" accusations and protests to start. Someone's poor baby boy can now crush a Voltswagon with his hands, and has the empathy of your average Bowflex machine. He's been 'traumatized' and now he's fit only for combat.

On the other hand, lab-bred-and-born soldiers could be made that way from day one, so that 'real people' wouldn't have to. Yeah, it's a cruel system, but it would be effective, even if not as fast to enact as robotics would be. Which is why robotics would be the more likely course taken, with operators controlling drones.


In the Clone book series (Starting with Clone Republic) a warrior class composed of genetically modified clones is a main feature, with each clone physically identical, but hardwired to see themselves as being a blond-haired and blue-eyed human whereas all the other soldiers are brown-eyed brown-haired clones. It's interesting to see the clone character who is racist towards clones, when he himself is a clone. Loyalty is hardwired into them, to the point where you give them shovels and tell them to dig a hole through a sidewalk, sparks will fly before one of them even thinks about digging in the dirt beside the cement sidewalk.

I'll straight up say it, grafting canine ears onto a soldier is a downright silly idea. Almost as silly as giving them breast implants for distracting the enemy and raising morale. Microphones and accessories were invented for a reason, and they don't just function for the specific person they were stitched to.

This is getting rather off-topic, so I'll stop now, but if anyone cares to continue this this discussion in a different thread, I'd be willing to join in.

[Set]

One little tiny nitpick here, then I'm done.

..people who did not mistreat or mis-train their pit bulls

...What?

Do you know a thing about Pit Bulls?

These are dogs bred for fighting other dogs. NOT people. In the dogfighting world, any animal who shows even the -slightest- hint of aggression towards a human being is killed. The entire point of a Pit Bull is to not be aggressive towards humans.

So yes, those people, nice as they may seem, DID in fact screw up.

[Berserker]

So yes, those people, nice as they may seem, DID in fact screw up.

Are you kidding me? Pit bulls aren't just bred for fighting other dogs, they're bred to be aggressive period. It is in their genes.

Take a look at Scott's anecdote. "As for pit bulls, my son-in-law has one named Callie, and he's living a charmed life. He thinks he's a lap dog, and he lets a tiny little terrier named Charlie push him around." We've seen this story a billion times before in pit bull attack cases. There have been tons of pit bull owners out there just like this one, who never thought their lovable lap dogs would just suddenly snap one day and maul a kid or an elderly lady. I guess if Scott's son-in-law's pit bull ever attacked someone, it would be the owner's fault? I'm sorry, but the "owner's fault" argument doesn't hold water compared to the long history of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

As I said, Golden Retriever owners don't have this history. It isn't the fact that 100% of Goldies are treated well (which would be a ludicrous assumption,) but rather that Goldies simply don't go nuts and confuse little kids with prey.

[Uniform Two Six]

Which is why robotics would be the more likely course taken, with operators controlling drones.

What do you need operators for? Seriously. We already have autonomous weapons systems that possess very, very primitive AI that already are given limited "kill discretion." The U.S. Navy's Aegis air defense system is designed to operate as a command node for a battle group, with the subordinate escorts acting as slave nodes. When put into "autonomous" mode, the computer takes complete control, and the FCs on all the various ships in the battle group just sit back and watch. And for those of you who get flashes of Terminator and "Skynet," yes, there have already been fatal accidents. Back in the 90s sometime, during an exercise with the Turkish Navy, U.S.S. Saratoga (CV-60) fired a Sea Sparrow missile into a Turkish destroyer when the FC on the battle group's air defense flagship accidentally put the group into autonomous mode.

[Terastas]

I don't know. I can imagine a rationale getting traction that engineering troops could be beneficial. Forget super-soldiers. Think -- troops who are designed to have just enough intelligence to carry out their missions and a built in obedience, as well as (most importantly) no family to get pissed off if they feel that their son or daughter was either mistreated, or sent off to die stupidly.

Well, you pretty much rebutted this for yourself already, but I'll say it anyway:

Robots.

The military is practicing this to some extent already with remote-controlled reconnaissance jets, bomb-defusing drones, landmine sweepers and TV-guided missiles. If a soldier dies, there's a funeral; if a robot is destroyed, the military orders another one and the company that produces them stays in business a little longer.

It's also why I specified "volunteers" instead of just plain draftees; it would be people that want those modifications that would be the first to get them. Otherwise, as Wingman already stated, the military would prefer to rely on scanners, microphones, etc. instead of bioengineering. The only benefits of a surgical procedures over electronics would be the resistance to electrical interference and independence from power sources, which would be enough to justify following research as it develops, but not actively funding it; would be enough to justify offering the procedures once developed, but not actively mandating them.

Besides, I'm having a hard time imagining "super soldiers" being as super as they're being described in this thread sometimes. Why would the military need soldiers that can rip a car in half with their bare hands (wouldn't it be cheaper to just give him a chainsaw)?

[Uniform Two Six]

Besides, I'm having a hard time imagining "super soldiers" being as super as they're being described in this thread sometimes. Why would the military need soldiers that can rip a car in half with their bare hands (wouldn't it be cheaper to just give him a chainsaw)?

Or just put a LAW into it... or run a tank over it. Same result.

But wouldn't it be cool to be able to rip a car in half with your bare hands?


Seriously though, I could think of a few "super-soldier" modifications that would actually have utility on the battlefield. Being able to grow the reflective layer at the back of the retina (can't quite recall the medical term for that organ) and mucking around with the cone/rod structure ratio, so that a trooper can see in the dark without the need of an AN/PVS-7 (which goes through batteries like nothing else). Having a sense of smell like a canid. There's a reason military working dogs are in such high demand right now. Being able to simply smell IEDs would be awesometastic.

[Wingman]

Seriously though, I could think of a few "super-soldier" modifications that would actually have utility on the battlefield. Being able to grow the reflective layer at the back of the retina (can't quite recall the medical term for that organ) and mucking around with the cone/rod structure ratio, so that a trooper can see in the dark without the need of an AN/PVS-7 (which goes through batteries like nothing else). Having a sense of smell like a canid. There's a reason military working dogs are in such high demand right now. Being able to simply smell IEDs would be awesometastic.

Tapetum lucidum, or usually referred to as eyeshine. I have heard some scuttlebutt about quantum dot injections that do the same, without requiring much mucking about that could make you go blind or something. Would be nice, though everyone with it would be running around as a Riddick clone, which wouldn't be a bad thing. In fact, aside from his attitude, I'd say Riddick would probably be a fairly ideal supersoldier.

[Aki]

I'm sure using animal DNA to make super-soldiers is something they desperately want as well.

I can't help but think back to the "Dog Boys" from Shadowrun. They were this race of genetically engineered creatures that were half human, half canine. They were designed specifically to act as engineered soldiers. The bad guys created them using canine genetic material because they wanted their territoriality as well as their pack mentality and their tendency to bond to humans from their "pack", so to speak. They were also intended to be entirely expendable. Very dark stuff.

Of course, Cyberpunk's always dark like that. Even if it's fantasy-cyberpunk like SR.

Truthfully, however, if this level of genetic manipulation ever becomes possible (never mind economically feasable) it probably won't be in our lifetimes. More likely (although still probably in the quite distant future) would be the use of artificial intelligence paired with robotic technology. Very early prototypes are already in service for precisely these reasons; You will be far more willing to sacrifice an EOD drone or a Predator when you know that the worst that can happen is that a piece of equipment is destroyed (as opposed to a living breathing person who necessitates another flag draped coffin). Even better, a robot that is outwardly just a box with wheels or a Predator drone or something, doesn't elicit that "Awwwww" response in the taxpayers that a lovable furry creature might (as the Army found out the hard way when it got out that they were "surplussing" German Shepherd dogs who -- despite being attack trained -- had outlived their usefulness. Americans love dogs).

Even in the future it would be more likely to be using robotic/controlled drones like that. The Army currently has one that's the size of a hummer that can sit and wait for weeks, doing nothing but watching and watching and waiting...

And of course the Predators are, due to their design, largely silent and can be affixed with a couple missles. the only warning any threat would get before being killed is the whine of the props and the roar of the missles.

Besides, I'm having a hard time imagining "super soldiers" being as super as they're being described in this thread sometimes. Why would the military need soldiers that can rip a car in half with their bare hands (wouldn't it be cheaper to just give him a chainsaw)?

All sorts of reasons. Carrying injured comrades, hand to hand combat, more strength means increased carrying capacity, etc. A soldier who can rip a car in half with his bare hands can walk into battle with signicantly more ammunition, supplies and armor. He can also do severe damage in close quarters.

Also a chainsaw would be terrible in that situation, both because a chainsaw is load, noisey and guzzle gas and because a chainsaw wouldn't be able to do more than scratch up the metal.

[Uniform Two Six]

Even in the future it would be more likely to be using robotic/controlled drones like that. The Army currently has one that's the size of a hummer that can sit and wait for weeks, doing nothing but watching and watching and waiting...

There's a couple of practical problems with controlled drones, though. Without fully controlling AI, you still need an operator. Either the operator is remote in CONUS which means that you have to use precious satellitte bandwith (the secure stuff is getting more and more scarce each year), or he's in theatre which means that he can still be killed by simply targeting his base. Another concern is electronic signals warfare. Now, you don't have to worry too much about this kind of thing when you're fighting primarily illiterate hicks (like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda), but remember, just because they're kicking our a** doesn't mean they're a first rate adversary. You go up against a technically sophisticated opponent (say the PRC, for instance), and you have to worry about the security of your signals. One bad thing that can happen is that if your operator is in theatre, there's a danger that they can figure out his location and hit him with artillery or airstrikes. This means that if they can force you to go EMCON for force protection reasons, then you lose your drone support. A worse problem would be if they managed to crack your signals, at which point they can get control of the drones and use them against you. Army and Air Force don't really worry about this scenario, because they have a great deal of confidence in our encryption technology. That's dangerous. The Germans had the same kind of confidence in their signals security in World War II, and they learned that lesson the hard way.

And of course the Predators are, due to their design, largely silent and can be affixed with a couple missles. the only warning any threat would get before being killed is the whine of the props and the roar of the missles.

Again the problem is control. The only really effective way to control a Predator is by satellitte. That assumes that you have the satellittes. The Russians (and possibly the Chinese) are working on "birdkiller" systems to take out American satellittes. The Predator has an autopilot feature that allows it to fly unassisted, but only for navigational purposes. Once it gets to the AO, it needs operator input, which means that you need the satellitte.

A soldier who can rip a car in half with his bare hands can walk into battle with signicantly more ammunition, supplies and armor.

Actually, they've found that the lightly built folks are better in the field because heavily muscled people tend to have much poorer endurance and a higher metabolism, meaning they can't go as far on the same amount of food. I'm not kidding. Defense has actually done studies on this. If you don't believe me, just take a look at somebody in special forces. I was passing through NAS North Island (real close to the SEAL base in Coronado) when these guys came into the exchange. They looked emaciated, no lie. I actually thought to myself that if there was anybody on the base that I could take in a fight, it would have to be these guys. They looked like Holocaust survivors or something. Then I saw they were all wearing SEAL badges. Whoops (I am so glad I didn't open my mouth and embarrass myself).