I’m almost certain I don’t want to know the answer, but I can’t help myself: how do you measure direction of evolution?
I suppose one could start off with a subject, indistinguishable in any way from anyone else in society, with the exception of a single, changed attribute that can be passed down to progeny via normal human reproduction, e.g.: mental ability, such as altered intelligence, recall, cognition, etc…, sense perception, such as altered sight, smell, touch, taste, etc…, or altered potential physical prowess or ability. Compare the changed attribute in the second and third generations to a societal baseline and voila!
Not necessarily. We could find ways to manipulate the genome in ways that make it more different than humans. There are probably many different ways to make a species more “smart”.
Only a human can be a slave. The creature would not be human. Also, there is no forward or backward in evolution. Only change.
OK, so we create a human that has pink hair. A few generations down the line, we find that the decendants on average have pinker hair than the societal baseline. Is that a step forward, or not?
Depends on the desired outcome. On its face I’d say no, although I think naturally occurring pink hair would be very interesting. Hair color does nothing to advance us as a species, unless, of course, it turned out that the gene(s) that controlled hair color affected/developed other attributes only in subjects exhibiting pink hair.
Except you can say exactly the same thing about, say, greater intelligence, or increased strength. Or for that matter, decreased intelligence or strength.
Cite? What makes one a slave? Knowledge of their own slavery?
I understand that. I meant progression through (possible) evolutionary milestones we may have achieved in distant time anyway, but in mere decades through genetic experimentation, and application of the result.
You have a point with increased or decreased strength, as a slightly stronger (or weaker) human is nothing that exceptional. However, consistently increased and measurable intelligence attributes, when compared to a baseline over generations would be, in my opinion, a step forward in the species [I’m purposely eschewing the word evolutionary], especially if such an increase persisted through the continual introduction of foreign half pairs of chromosomes in each successive generation.
You have to be kidding. I know there are some people who equate ownership of non-human animals with slavery, but that is a fringe belief. If you want to believe that, go ahead.
Frankly, we wouldn’t have to make chimps much smarter to make them useful in the sense of the OP. In fact, we might need to make them less smart, or start with animals that aren’t quite as intelligent. The problem with chimps is that they don’t always want to do what they are told and they’re really, really strong. If we had very docile chimps, they could perform all kinds of useful functions that humans do-- from factory work to household chores and yard work.
I don’t know if creating a humanoid slave-race is really practical or desireable. They’d compete for food and living space with humans; they’d require some kind of food, housing, and medical care; they’d be an expensive investment. Human slaves are preferable in this scenario because at least humans can breed; these beings cannot.
For the amount you’d have to pay to obtain and maintain this slave, you could hire a human.
Theoretically, they shouldn’t cost more than a large dog. We could feed them slave-chow.
Not that I advocate creating these things, but it should be possible to make them easy to feed. Grass & hay, or something.
Not kidding. You responded so matter of factly I thought you could point me to proof of your assertion.
This feels all kinds of wrong to me and, to be honest, I haven’t fully fleshed out why yet. The idea of creating an…I don’t know what, with enough intelligence to truly comprehend and carry out commands, whose sole purpose for existing is to do so, I simply can’t get behind. I feel the same way about oxen, carrier pigeons, horses, etc… and their intelligence is no where near the level of what we’re talking about here.
…plus you’d have maniacs like me who’d devote the remainder of their existence, and all available resources, trying to free them, and legislate basic homunculean rights for them.
Quoth Onomotopoeia:
Not only are you not talking about evolution now, but you’re not talking about genetics, either. If I have two copies of a novel gene (i.e., a gene that only I, originally, have), then my children will have one copy of it each, and each of their children will have a 50-50 chance of having one copy or no copy at all.
So why do you think slavery is wrong then?
None human animals aren’t self aware and self competent like an adult human.
You’re talking about creating an animal that has mental abilities that are near human.
It throws away the distinction that separates us from animals, and deserves the same considerations a human is given.
I don’t even think I need to touch how much the creature’s human ancestry, which gives it those mental abilities, muddies the waters anyway.
I can’t figure out why I would want a slave. Right now I have six beings who live in my house and increase my workload (seven if you include the husband person). The cats don’t do anything for me other than be kinda cute, so I have a hard time viewing them as slaves.
Well, they kill spiders and bugs and that’s cool, but if they didn’t, I wouldn’t get rid of them, so I think my intent in having cats isn’t to enslave them, even if nuts might say they are enslaved.
But to deliberately create beings whose purpose is, to use my same example, to kill the bugs and spiders and other pests, when that purpose is so singular that if they stopped killing the pests they would cease to have any value for me and I would cease to caretake them, I have issues with that.
I consider what we would do with the failures (failure to be whatever the “goal” is) to be relevant to our motives in general.
Pets, no. Unless you send your pooch to the salt mines…
Work animals, yes, in a broad sense of the word. What is slavery but captivity and forced labour without a just retribution for it? but can an animal feel a slave anyway?
But as I said my main disagreement is the implications on the human, or fully human, side of the situation.
But there’s a difference between human beings and non-human animals. Human beings have, you know, big brains and consciousness and so on.
If you give an animal a human-grade brain what’s the ethical distinction?
Is the essence of humanity simply that we belong to a particular species and no being outside our species is entitled to any moral or ethical considerations? If peaceful aliens from Alpha Centauri landed on the White House lawn tomorrow, would it be ethical to treat them as domesticated animals?
I doubt this can really be engineered. But if it really could, I’d rather they used that knowledge to make meenjoy doing my job and helping others more. I’d rather have a new desire for digging ditches myself than be a lazy cranky person watching someone else enjoy digging ditches.