Genetically modified cats for sale

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html)

(CNN) -- A California biotechnology company has started taking orders for a hypoallergenic cat for pet lovers prone to allergies.

Have you seen the movie Gattica with Ethan Hawk, Uma Thurman and Jude Law? This hypoallergenic cat is basically the first step to that movie coming true. First we have the clone d cat known as "CC" now you can order a cat to go that you aren't allergic to. What's next, a cat that walks on its hind legs? How soon until we start mixing different species just to make a profit?

Doing small things like this cat are nothing, the real deal is genetically altering people in the womb, or preordering your child to go the way you want it. People are already ordering the gender of their future offspring, why not hair color, or sin tones. Why note athletic abilities. Didn't Hitler try to create the perfect race before? Maybe I'm over reacting but genetic manipulation leads to nothing but discrimination on an entirely whole new level that is basic in nature.

It boils down to certain groups hating others because they are different. In this case it would be to genetically enhanced against normal, naturally bread people. Talk about a pedigree.

all genetic modification is stupid and worthless... we should not be genetically modifying ANYTHING, no matter what... leave organisms alone

Let me know when they make a cat with purple hair that pisses out chocolate milk.


Seriously though, this is pretty cool for those suffering from the gum disease known as GINGIVITIS
allergies.

I would agree that this one modification all by its self is most likely harmless. I would also applaud their foresight in the neutering of these cats in an effort to keep them from breeding because the ramifications would be unknown. But once you start something you can never un-start it.

very very true, although, i think if they were going to bother modding these cats, they should allow them to breed:D

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
all genetic modification is stupid and worthless... we should not be genetically modifying ANYTHING, no matter what... leave organisms alone

You're right, I mean, what if we found out how to manipulate people's gene's so that they wouldn't get Diabetes or Cancer!

That would be pretty pointless.

I think it's neato, cats are cool and all people should have one :cool:

While there are some downsides to genetic modification, I think that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Think of all the stuff you could do...the health benefits alone will make it worth doing.

No offence to anyone who has, but if you have a cat alergy, don't get a cat. I don't see the point in this maybe I'll get one when they do something cool like glow in the dark http://www.mongabay.com/external/glowing_fish.htm)

I'm glad they stoped them breeding but to quote jurassic park "life always finds a way" GM is dangerous because no one really knows what they will happen (If you beleive the films anyway) I don't think this is as bad as the GM crops though.

i believe in God, so, from a religous standpoint, He always has a reason and a use for everything, and because He is perfect, we shouldn't mess with His work... but that is just a religious view:eek:

Don't you think we could find something better to do with millions of dollars? I mean toward a much more rewarding end?Like curing cancer? Nah, lets modify cats so people won't sneeze when they're around them!

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
i believe in God, so, from a religous standpoint, He always has a reason and a use for everything, and because He is perfect, we shouldn't mess with His work... but that is just a religious view:eek: He did give the animals to us to use...and GE is has already proven a very useful tool. Modifying humans is a different matter entirely.

Originally posted by Feanaro
Don't you think we could find something better to do with millions of dollars? I mean toward a much more rewarding end?Like curing cancer? Nah, lets modify cats so people won't sneeze when they're around them! You know, people don't just come up with experience out of the blue. They aquire it by doing similar, small things first, then they are able to do other things that are far harder...

crops have been modified since the beginning of agriculture. And the dogs you see now at some point they never existed, they came about through cross breeding, aka very old-school genetic modification.

there is a BIG difference between cross breeding to create hybrids between two existing things, and modifying to create something new and never before seen

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
there is a BIG difference between cross breeding to create hybrids between two existing things, and modifying to create something new and never before seen Actually, it's much the same, although the element of chance plays a much greater role in the former. I think the issue here is how fast things can get radically different with GE.

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
there is a BIG difference between cross breeding to create hybrids between two existing things, and modifying to create something new and never before seen but both end with something you've never seen. So they're very much the same. Like SD said, the first one just involves more chance, where as with genetic engineering, you know what you'll get. :)

and SD is right, the issue is how many changes will we see due to genetic engineering, how far will people go? Things like that.

well then, just to stay consistant:lightning no GE at all!!!!:lightning but i do see a big moral difference between the two, even though you do end up with the same theoretical end, one is just more natural than the other. (and yes shok, i do have some morals

So you'd rather people suffer and die from diseases that we could eventually cure through learning more about our genes?


I think any religious viewpoint that impedes science (so long as the progress isn't amorally gotten) is in fact amoral.

I admittedly don't know the Bible very well but does it explicitly say somewhere, "Thou shallt not modify my creation" (or whatever), or is that just something that people just read into it?

so you would rather kill viruses, malignant cells, and bacteria than humans and animals??? what kind of sick pseudo-life double standarded fellow are you?

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
so you would rather kill viruses, malignant cells, and bacteria than humans and animals??? what kind of sick pseudo-life double standarded fellow are you?

Huh?

Yes I would rather kill viruses and bacterias.

*Was that sarcasm? No offense but it sounds...weird...

Have you ever taken anti-biotics kettch?

i'm just sick of everyone with double standards, and could it be, but canceris here for some reason, we jsut don't know what

Edit: no:explode:

Or even just let your immune system do it's job.

Your white blood cells are vicious killers!


But yes, I would be very pleased to wipe out malicious viruses and bacteriums.

but my white blood cells are not sentient.... they are mindless slaves...i do not hold them responsible, and they are a NATURAL means

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
but my white blood cells are not sentient

So viruses are sentient so we can't kill them. :confused:

"sen·tient
adj.

Having sense perception; conscious.
Experiencing sensation or feeling."

I've always seen sentience as a slightly prejudiced term. It ascribes value to the human mind and sensation over and above any other animal's mind and sensation.

Having said that, we cannot describe a virus as being sentient in the pure technical sense of the word, because it's doubtful whether it perceives the world in any way we would understand it.

So you'd rather people suffer and die from diseases that we could eventually cure through learning more about our genes?Don't forget that disease is the only natural control for our population. We have no predators other than the microscopic. To remove disease is to doom the world to human overcrowding.

Last time I checked, it was debatable wether viruses were actually 'alive'... ;)

Old age happens to kill a lot of us too. Diseases are not necessary for that. And if sometime in the future someone figures out how to make us live for far longer than we do now, I guess they (the people around then) will have to determine its morality.

Overcrowding? I thought that was what space was for. Oh, that's right - people don't want to 'waste' their hardearned money on such useless endeavors...

we're doomed to a life of conflict, We'll always have war. Perhaps our own greed is our downfall. And there will be things in our life that we will never cure. But does that mean we can't try, no.

I see no double standard here kettch. Virii kill people and other animals, self defense is a time when I think killing is okay, but only as a last resort, surely you can avoid dangerous situations to avoid conflict.

Gattaca is one scary movie... because unlike a lot of sci-fi you can actually imagine it happening. Those that can afford "perfect" kids becoming a seperate class from those that are imperfect and who then can't get jobs. :(

The other problem i see with all this is that all this diversity is what allows species to survive and evolve. If you start altering things to make everything the way you think it should be, you take out a lot of the redundancy built into the species.... and so a single disease might have a much more devastating effect.

I think genetic modification is hardly a black and white issue. I mean, through selective breeding we can manipulate natural genetic change to achieve our desired results, but it's kind of amoral to selectively breed humans, so does direct genetic modification of humans go against morals? Or is it a way to get the kinds of results we want without the difficulty of selective breeding?

If we found a way to modify humans so that we never got sick, would it be worth possibly changing our genes enough to classify us as a different species to do it?

I don't know, and anyone who says they DO know is either lying or they're not very open minded.

Superstitious people and those that refuse to educate themselves on the topics of genetics will always be suspicious of the motives of those that are proponents of genetic manipulation and cloning.

Let's face it, we're ultimately talking about cloning here. Indeed, most of modern society is lacking in education when it comes to the science of genetics (science in general for the United States) and many, if not most people, equate genetics to cloning.

So let's face this too. Some day, there will be a clone of a human, if there's not already.

The arguments against cloning, in my view, are actually invalid. There are several main arguments, one of the more promenant being that the results will be genetic "monstrosities" or horribly misdeveloped. If that is the case, then there really is no problem. Regular cloning won't happen, because scientist/cloners will not want this type of result. They just won't do it. No restrictions needed.

Another argument is against having an "identical you." As someone mentioned earlier, that won't happen. You would not only have to clone the physiology of the person, but the environment as well. Right down to the number of cloudy days and unexpected loud noises. Couldn't be done.

Playing god is another argument, but that one isn't valid for many reasons. Scientifically speaking, it is entirely invalid. Even if one buys into the whole faith meme, there are still theological reasons why it's invalid. In at least three religious documents used by the world's major religions, it mentions man being created in a diety's "image." That, in itself, would indicate that it is acceptable to take on "god-like" qualities in order to maintain and improve the human condition. Fundamentalists no doubt would fume at that statement, but it is valid none the less. Throughout history, man's attempts to improve the human condition and general knowledge have been considered "playing god," such as medical advances in surgery, blood transfusion, and family planning. Also in areas of science such as astronomy, biology, and nuclear chemistry.

Michael Shermer at
Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=13&articleID=00084EAF-2081-1E61-A98A809EC5880105) said, "the soul of science is found in courageous thought and creative experiment, not in restrictive fear and prohibitions." I have to agree, otherwise we would still subscribe to the religious poppycock that the Sun orbits the Earth.

I suppose the end result could be cloning, but my argument is more about the acts of taking say, a sperm and an egg and combining them to form the embryo, and then altering the genes of it for some beneficial purpose, not technically cloning, but possibly even changing the exact species of the would-be child.

Is it amoral to make ourselves not human in order to make us better humans?

Originally posted by ET Warrior
Is it amoral to make ourselves not human in order to make us better humans? perhaps this is another form of evolution. Perhaps this was fated. Perhaps this was the step we were evolved to in order to save our selves? *shrugs*

Personally I want gene splicing. I want a prehensile tail. :(

tell you what, IS, i don't like GE, you want a prehensile tail, i will go kill a monkey, and sew it's tail onto your a**, deal? we will figure out how to make it work later

Originally posted by InsaneSith
perhaps this is another form of evolution. Perhaps this was fated. Perhaps this was the step we were evolved to in order to save our selves? *shrugs*

So there it is. That's the debate. SHOULD we? Are we saving ourselves or dooming ourselves? Who can know? This is why Genetic manipulation cannot be looked at in a black and white fashion, because we just. don't. know.

never heard truer words come from your keyboard(petty insult intended)lol, well, is it worth risking?

Originally posted by ET Warrior
So there it is. That's the debate. SHOULD we? Are we saving ourselves or dooming ourselves? Who can know? This is why Genetic manipulation cannot be looked at in a black and white fashion, because we just. don't. know. indeed, that was my point, was to show it is a grey. Science is never black and white anyway. There is always uncertainty, that's what nature is, chance.
That's why people cling to faith. So they feel a bit of certainty.

I think we should allow studies, to see how this stuff pans out, I for one am still neither for or against genetic engineering. I don't have all the facts to make a decision.

In an attempt to answer your question, "is it wrong" I submit to you my "Clintonian" response. Yes and no. I will explain.

Yes it is wrong because it is an artificial genetic manipulation through the use of science. The genes of the subject are being mutated in an "X-Men" style way that would generated fear and hatred for the "more advanced" super humans. This is nothing new in the history of man. Hitler had tried it in his Nazi Germany through breeding practice, genocide and sterilizations. His ways were more of a natural means of breeding but were artificial and racist none the less. To alter the genetic makeup of a living creator, be it sentient or not, could cause it to have unknown and uncalculated genetic mutations that are devastating to a species. If the human race were to ever have such a devastating mutation introduced into its gene pool, it could mean the extinction of us all. This is not some isolated island or some small crop of tomatoes that can be plowed under for fertilizer, this is the human race, our species that can be made extinct. Do you want to risk the death of mankind because you want to make a person with perfect hair? What if fixing one genetic problem causes a mutation in a third generation? Genes can lye dormant for generations until the recessive gene finally comes out and is visible. What then when we realize that we cured asthma only to make us more susceptible to skin cancer or infections? What happens if a mutation makes an entire generation sterile? What then if one generation can not reproduce? The human race is then doomed. The genetic make up of the human race has changed over the many years that we have been on this earth, but it has done it at a very slow and steady pace and it has done it that way to keep us safe from a genetic nightmare.

No it is not wrong because altering the genetic makeup of the human race through the use of science in a quick pace is no different from controlled breeding or a human controlled natural selection where the fittest survive. In nature, the most fit survive. It is our nature to want to attach ourselves socially and economically with the most attractive and the strongest groups and individuals. To genetically alter ourselves would simply be doing this very same thing, a natural phenomenon, through science. We are uncomfortable with the idea of this process because the process itself is not common nor does it appear to be a real process on its surface. However, with much study and effort, a lot could be accomplished for mankind.

While this process of genetic manipulation holds much promise of human development, I am of the opinion that there is too much unknown risk involved to our species. The consequences could very well be ultimate devastation if we get to far ahead of ourselves. I believe that it is worth looking at and studying on a small level and at a very small and controlled pace.

People always find a way to exclude others, people always will. Prejudice will sadly never go away. I've been talking about this for a while now with another forum member actually. We've been discussing people calling us freaks if we got genetically altered. I get called a freak anyway because of my beliefs and my appearance. So it'd be nothing new to me. People are born with genetic defects and people outcast them too. Personally I'd rather make friends with the genetically altered person than be mean to them, they have to have some qualities that would make them an excellent ally :D

i say we do it with squirrels... they are tough animals, we could make super-genious squirrels

although, i , of course, would be responsible for their education

Only if we name one Tom, Tom the super-squirrel.

deal


ooh ooh, we can sew on monkey tails too

Huzzah!

Skin, you neglected to mention one reason to oppose cloning research... a reason that may cause one to oppose an awful lot of research actually, the reason being: Humanity is not a responsible race, nor sufficiently intelligent to accurately predict the social or ecological ramifications of our actions.

I've never really bothered to oppose direct human cloning, because frankly what's the point?

Genetic manipulation though? I'm opposed to that. It's dangerous. More dangerous than anything we've ever done, in fact. Genetic manipulation could merely make a better, better housecat...

Or it could unleash a destructive force like unto the fist of the deity of your choice punching the world right in the groin, repeatedly.

Furthermore, a moral issue: Do we have the right to decide any creature's future? Selective breeding of livestock is bad enough, but it has parallels all through nature. But creating slave-races? Not good. Replicant territory.

I agree with InsanneSith in that there will always be prejudice no matter what society attempts. This would add to it on a grand scale.

Anyone ever read the Uplift series by David Brin? Interesting, and it's about exactly this topic...

Sometimes I think "so what if it destroys us all, atleast we'd go out interestingly. Instead of dying from old age lying on the floor for 3 days, and only being found because the stench of our corpse bothered the neighbors yoga time, and they came over to complain because they couldn't find their center. I don't wanna die like that, alone and forgotten only to be found because my rotting flesh was a nuisance."

*shrugs*

alrighty then
well aimed ewokian spear shot to the eye

originaly quoted by Insane Sith
sometimes I think "so what if it destroys us all, atleast we'd go out interestingly. Instead of dying from old age lying on the floor for 3 days, and only being found because the stench of our corpse bothered the neighbors yoga time, and they came over to complain because they couldn't find their center. I don't wanna die like that, alone and forgotten only to be found because my rotting flesh was a nuisance."

Hmmm, very deep, but I get your point. Dying of old age and in a state of dependence on others is a frightening idea for all people I would say. Dying alone is another that most people share. Do you have issues Mr. "Insane" Sith that we can assist you with?

But I get your point, better to live and have lost than not to have tried, or something like that.

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
all genetic modification is stupid and worthless... we should not be genetically modifying ANYTHING, no matter what... leave organisms alone

You are being too harsh. 'White' bio-engineering (called so because the altered organisms live out their lives in labs as opposed to 'green' bioengineering where the GMO live in the field) could potentially be used to test and develop medicine, as well as obtaining substances that are rare and/or expensive to extract.

'Green' bio-engineering, on the other hand, carries a disproportional risk of contamination, IMO.

You're right, I mean, what if we found out how to manipulate people's gene's so that they wouldn't get Diabetes or Cancer!

[/stinging sarcasm]

Actually, genetically modifying humans is more problematic than that. Usually genes do more than one thing (and most effects are caused by more than one gene), and it is also not uncommon for something considered in one time and place to be an advantage/disadvantage to be lethal/beneficial in another time and place.

As those of you who have read my previous posts on issues like this will know, my favorite example of this is the disease known as Sicle Cell Anemia, that inhibits the blood's ability to carry oxygen, meaning that people suffering from it are less physically fit than healthy people.

It also happens to make you resistent to Malaria.

This rather than any moral problems, is my primary argument against genetic engineering: We may optimize an entire species towards present conditions, only to find that the conditions have suddenly changed. And then the species in question will lack the all-important diversity that allows it to survive such change.

crops have been modified since the beginning of agriculture. And the dogs you see now at some point they never existed, they came about through cross breeding, aka very old-school genetic modification.

That is not the same. Until now humans have only been able to modify phenotypes, meaning that almost without exception, only dominant genes could be eliminated. Now, however, we can eliminate non-dominant genes as well, giving us a control that we have never had before. It is not simply a matter of speed and efficiency, it reaches much further than anything we've been able to do before, and as such it should be controlled by all humanity, not just a few big corporations. We enter a new era. Best be careful, lest we trip on the doorstep.

Don't forget that disease is the only natural control for our population. We have no predators other than the microscopic.

We have Man itself...

"It is the most tragic irony of Mankind that, in a universe poised to destroy him, he is as likely to turn his weapon on his fellow man as on their mutual enemies."

To remove disease is to doom the world to human overcrowding.

That's a Malthusian view of population. It is not entirely unmerited, but it is of very limited usefulness.

Last time I checked, it was debatable wether viruses were actually 'alive'...

I think that the consensus is that they are... But I'm not entirely sure.