Human / animal Hybrids.....it's true!

[zenfisher]

Physically there is enough room for humans...that is providing they don't use any resources or eat any food( Vegetable or Animal) Overpopulation is not a myth. If it were a myth...there would be no starving children. Its a matter of population outstripping the resources of an area. As for land use, that is an entirely different proposition. People and animals are displaced by, mining,forestry, farming, manufacturing and many other industries and activities we choose to participate in on this planet.

Lets go back to grade school and look at what happens with the population of lynx and hares. We know that as the population of linx rises the population of hares decrease and vice versa.Now add simple introduction of farmers who shoot the hares, keeping the hare population down. What lynx survive, usually end up moving out of the area to find alternate food sources. As people move, pushing the lynx further into areas that already have diminishing resources, their population decreases.This is fine with a relatively small animal. Have you noticed the increase in cougar and bear attacks recently.

Lets look at an animal that is an herbivore. Take the caribou. We want to drill for oil in places that this animal migrates through for eons. We are disrupting the flow of their life, decimating their herds becasue of attitudes like...There is no over population problem on this planet.

You want a highly visible example of how little space we have on this planet. Drive down any major ( or not so major) highway and count the deer carcasses. Don't want to do that ...talk to people in the suburbs of any city or town. ask them about the deer rifling through their gardens.

Let's take a more recent example... horses did not exist on this continent until Europeans settled here. Over the years a number of mustangs got loose and began to form herds. Horse tend to be a migratory animal as well. so they began to do what comes naturally to them and began to migrate in the areas the buffalo used to. Now five centuries later, the wild mustangs are about to be corralled off and sent to the dog food factories.

Let's take a succesful story, the timber wolf,finally after years of careful management, was reintroduced to Yellowstone Park.After a few years, they are now considering opening up a bounty on them. Why because they are killing farmers stock near the park. Why ...because the wolves have a limited number of food sources in the park.

These are but a few of thousands of examples I can bring to the front of this argument.

So, don't feed me this line about how ovepopulation is a myth.

Some parents may indeed get rid of their pets, others would actually consult a doctor and get a prescription for their child.

I still maintain, I would first save the one that affords you the most opportunity to save both. If it were my pet I would place next priority on saving it.

Let me ask you a question... If you had the opportunity to save both of them...and it meant you had to save the animal first....would you save the animal first? Or would you just save the child and let the animal perish?

 

[zenfisher]

Physically there is enough room for humans...that is providing they don't use any resources or eat any food( Vegetable or Animal) Overpopulation is not a myth. If it were a myth...there would be no starving children. Its a matter of population outstripping the resources of an area. As for land use, that is an entirely different proposition. People and animals are displaced by, mining,forestry, farming, manufacturing and many other industries and activities we choose to participate in on this planet.

Lets go back to grade school and look at what happens with the population of lynx and hares. We know that as the population of linx rises the population of hares decrease and vice versa.Now add simple introduction of farmers who shoot the hares, keeping the hare population down. What lynx survive, usually end up moving out of the area to find alternate food sources. As people move, pushing the lynx further into areas that already have diminishing resources, their population decreases.This is fine with a relatively small animal. Have you noticed the increase in cougar and bear attacks recently.

Lets look at an animal that is an herbivore. Take the caribou. We want to drill for oil in places that this animal migrates through for eons. We are disrupting the flow of their life, decimating their herds becasue of attitudes like...There is no over population problem on this planet.

You want a highly visible example of how little space we have on this planet. Drive down any major ( or not so major) highway and count the deer carcasses. Don't want to do that ...talk to people in the suburbs of any city or town. ask them about the deer rifling through their gardens.

Let's take a more recent example... horses did not exist on this continent until Europeans settled here. Over the years a number of mustangs got loose and began to form herds. Horse tend to be a migratory animal as well. so they began to do what comes naturally to them and began to migrate in the areas the buffalo used to. Now five centuries later, the wild mustangs are about to be corralled off and sent to the dog food factories.

Let's take a succesful story, the timber wolf,finally after years of careful management, was reintroduced to Yellowstone Park.After a few years, they are now considering opening up a bounty on them. Why because they are killing farmers stock near the park. Why ...because the wolves have a limited number of food sources in the park.

These are but a few of thousands of examples I can bring to the front of this argument.

So, don't feed me this line about how ovepopulation is a myth.

Some parents may indeed get rid of their pets, others would actually consult a doctor and get a prescription for their child.

I still maintain, I would first save the one that affords you the most opportunity to save both. If it were my pet I would place next priority on saving it.

Let me ask you a question... If you had the opportunity to save both of them...and it meant you had to save the animal first....would you save the animal first? Or would you just save the child and let the animal perish?

 

[zenfisher]

Physically there is enough room for humans...that is providing they don't use any resources or eat any food( Vegetable or Animal) Overpopulation is not a myth. If it were a myth...there would be no starving children. Its a matter of population outstripping the resources of an area. As for land use, that is an entirely different proposition. People and animals are displaced by, mining,forestry, farming, manufacturing and many other industries and activities we choose to participate in on this planet.

Lets go back to grade school and look at what happens with the population of lynx and hares. We know that as the population of linx rises the population of hares decrease and vice versa.Now add simple introduction of farmers who shoot the hares, keeping the hare population down. What lynx survive, usually end up moving out of the area to find alternate food sources. As people move, pushing the lynx further into areas that already have diminishing resources, their population decreases.This is fine with a relatively small animal. Have you noticed the increase in cougar and bear attacks recently.

Lets look at an animal that is an herbivore. Take the caribou. We want to drill for oil in places that this animal migrates through for eons. We are disrupting the flow of their life, decimating their herds becasue of attitudes like...There is no over population problem on this planet.

You want a highly visible example of how little space we have on this planet. Drive down any major ( or not so major) highway and count the deer carcasses. Don't want to do that ...talk to people in the suburbs of any city or town. ask them about the deer rifling through their gardens.

Let's take a more recent example... horses did not exist on this continent until Europeans settled here. Over the years a number of mustangs got loose and began to form herds. Horse tend to be a migratory animal as well. so they began to do what comes naturally to them and began to migrate in the areas the buffalo used to. Now five centuries later, the wild mustangs are about to be corralled off and sent to the dog food factories.

Let's take a succesful story, the timber wolf,finally after years of careful management, was reintroduced to Yellowstone Park.After a few years, they are now considering opening up a bounty on them. Why because they are killing farmers stock near the park. Why ...because the wolves have a limited number of food sources in the park.

These are but a few of thousands of examples I can bring to the front of this argument.

So, don't feed me this line about how ovepopulation is a myth.

Some parents may indeed get rid of their pets, others would actually consult a doctor and get a prescription for their child.

I still maintain, I would first save the one that affords you the most opportunity to save both. If it were my pet I would place next priority on saving it.

Let me ask you a question... If you had the opportunity to save both of them...and it meant you had to save the animal first....would you save the animal first? Or would you just save the child and let the animal perish?

 

[Karlin]

Re: Medical science not trustworthy

It bothers me that this is happening, maybe its just the creepy factor.
The reason for messing with human-animal hybrids is for medical research, they say. But, there could be more to it, like creating soldiers that are dispensible and have special talents.

I see it as potentially weakening the human genome, blurring the human-animal distinction - i.e. "the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species." If the earth ever goes "wild" again, this could really be a mess.

And besides, the human body is nearly perfect, and if we just stopped messing it up with toxic air and processed foods and socially induced stresses, we would not need such dangerous science. I doubt very much this is being done for altruistic reasons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
quote from link -
Con:
"Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity."

Pro:
"biomedical science, for research that would save human lives"
better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
K - medical science is such a corrupt business, we cannot trust them with this kind of genetic experiments.

Testing pills? Crikey, there are no safe pills. There are safe treatments that we do not use - substances that come from nature have few side effects, which is safer because our bodies come from nature.

No natural substance can be patented, and without a patent the profits are not nearly as big, and thats the only reason we are not using any natural substances in modern medicine. All patented pharmaceuticals have side effects, all of them.

So this whacko research is just because of some economic bulltweet, and in the long run of evolution it isn't safe to tinker with the genome.

My main complaint about modern medicine is that they refuse to look at the CAUSES of disease and focus on creating treatments because thats where the money is.
It sound ideal to just grow a heart or whatever in a pig to reduce the waiting lines for transplants, but why are we having so much heart disease? Addressing the causes would do more for human health that this weirdness.

And who will be able to afford these treatments? only the Elites and wealthy people. It is expensive research to be doing anyhow, there are better ways to serve mankind.

Okay, I am ranting, but thats what I do best!
Karlin

 

[Karlin]

Re: Medical science not trustworthy

It bothers me that this is happening, maybe its just the creepy factor.
The reason for messing with human-animal hybrids is for medical research, they say. But, there could be more to it, like creating soldiers that are dispensible and have special talents.

I see it as potentially weakening the human genome, blurring the human-animal distinction - i.e. "the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species." If the earth ever goes "wild" again, this could really be a mess.

And besides, the human body is nearly perfect, and if we just stopped messing it up with toxic air and processed foods and socially induced stresses, we would not need such dangerous science. I doubt very much this is being done for altruistic reasons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
quote from link -
Con:
"Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity."

Pro:
"biomedical science, for research that would save human lives"
better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
K - medical science is such a corrupt business, we cannot trust them with this kind of genetic experiments.

Testing pills? Crikey, there are no safe pills. There are safe treatments that we do not use - substances that come from nature have few side effects, which is safer because our bodies come from nature.

No natural substance can be patented, and without a patent the profits are not nearly as big, and thats the only reason we are not using any natural substances in modern medicine. All patented pharmaceuticals have side effects, all of them.

So this whacko research is just because of some economic bulltweet, and in the long run of evolution it isn't safe to tinker with the genome.

My main complaint about modern medicine is that they refuse to look at the CAUSES of disease and focus on creating treatments because thats where the money is.
It sound ideal to just grow a heart or whatever in a pig to reduce the waiting lines for transplants, but why are we having so much heart disease? Addressing the causes would do more for human health that this weirdness.

And who will be able to afford these treatments? only the Elites and wealthy people. It is expensive research to be doing anyhow, there are better ways to serve mankind.

Okay, I am ranting, but thats what I do best!
Karlin

 

[Karlin]

Re: Medical science not trustworthy

It bothers me that this is happening, maybe its just the creepy factor.
The reason for messing with human-animal hybrids is for medical research, they say. But, there could be more to it, like creating soldiers that are dispensible and have special talents.

I see it as potentially weakening the human genome, blurring the human-animal distinction - i.e. "the mixing of human stem cells with embryonic animals to create new species." If the earth ever goes "wild" again, this could really be a mess.

And besides, the human body is nearly perfect, and if we just stopped messing it up with toxic air and processed foods and socially induced stresses, we would not need such dangerous science. I doubt very much this is being done for altruistic reasons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
quote from link -
Con:
"Research projects that create human-animal chimeras risk disturbing fragile ecosystems, endanger health, and affront species integrity."

Pro:
"biomedical science, for research that would save human lives"
better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
K - medical science is such a corrupt business, we cannot trust them with this kind of genetic experiments.

Testing pills? Crikey, there are no safe pills. There are safe treatments that we do not use - substances that come from nature have few side effects, which is safer because our bodies come from nature.

No natural substance can be patented, and without a patent the profits are not nearly as big, and thats the only reason we are not using any natural substances in modern medicine. All patented pharmaceuticals have side effects, all of them.

So this whacko research is just because of some economic bulltweet, and in the long run of evolution it isn't safe to tinker with the genome.

My main complaint about modern medicine is that they refuse to look at the CAUSES of disease and focus on creating treatments because thats where the money is.
It sound ideal to just grow a heart or whatever in a pig to reduce the waiting lines for transplants, but why are we having so much heart disease? Addressing the causes would do more for human health that this weirdness.

And who will be able to afford these treatments? only the Elites and wealthy people. It is expensive research to be doing anyhow, there are better ways to serve mankind.

Okay, I am ranting, but thats what I do best!
Karlin

 

[zenfisher]

I see hybrids more as a survival issue. The world is a finite place, this means limited space and resources for both human, plant and animal populations. Hybrids afford us the luxury of allowing the human species to exist in other enviroments. For example ...underwater, thin atmospheres like mars, or in the case of green house gases (CO2) ...adapting to the various enviroments may allow us to use and share our resources more efficiently. Thus allowing us to preserve and save the planet from our own success as a species.

I too, take dim views on modern medicine. I realize, they are trying to help. While in a previous post I reccomended the use of prescriptions to solve an allergy problem. I also see an inherent danger there. Our current technology does not have the means to filter out prescriptions that are either flushed or entering the water system through our own bodily wastes.

Our bodies are one of the most efficient filtering systems there is. There are still trace amounts of drugs that enter the food supply system. One only has to look at the relationship between dwindling wildlife populations and the increased use of birth control pills to see a problem. This is only one medication. Medicinal science did not take this into account as an affect that could come back and haunt us.

Despite this, I still believe that it is only further exploration in medicine that will allow us to adapt to how we have already changed this world. Hybrids may be part of the solution, but we must learn to treat ourselves and the other living beings on this planet just a little better.

 

[zenfisher]

I see hybrids more as a survival issue. The world is a finite place, this means limited space and resources for both human, plant and animal populations. Hybrids afford us the luxury of allowing the human species to exist in other enviroments. For example ...underwater, thin atmospheres like mars, or in the case of green house gases (CO2) ...adapting to the various enviroments may allow us to use and share our resources more efficiently. Thus allowing us to preserve and save the planet from our own success as a species.

I too, take dim views on modern medicine. I realize, they are trying to help. While in a previous post I reccomended the use of prescriptions to solve an allergy problem. I also see an inherent danger there. Our current technology does not have the means to filter out prescriptions that are either flushed or entering the water system through our own bodily wastes.

Our bodies are one of the most efficient filtering systems there is. There are still trace amounts of drugs that enter the food supply system. One only has to look at the relationship between dwindling wildlife populations and the increased use of birth control pills to see a problem. This is only one medication. Medicinal science did not take this into account as an affect that could come back and haunt us.

Despite this, I still believe that it is only further exploration in medicine that will allow us to adapt to how we have already changed this world. Hybrids may be part of the solution, but we must learn to treat ourselves and the other living beings on this planet just a little better.

 

[zenfisher]

I see hybrids more as a survival issue. The world is a finite place, this means limited space and resources for both human, plant and animal populations. Hybrids afford us the luxury of allowing the human species to exist in other enviroments. For example ...underwater, thin atmospheres like mars, or in the case of green house gases (CO2) ...adapting to the various enviroments may allow us to use and share our resources more efficiently. Thus allowing us to preserve and save the planet from our own success as a species.

I too, take dim views on modern medicine. I realize, they are trying to help. While in a previous post I reccomended the use of prescriptions to solve an allergy problem. I also see an inherent danger there. Our current technology does not have the means to filter out prescriptions that are either flushed or entering the water system through our own bodily wastes.

Our bodies are one of the most efficient filtering systems there is. There are still trace amounts of drugs that enter the food supply system. One only has to look at the relationship between dwindling wildlife populations and the increased use of birth control pills to see a problem. This is only one medication. Medicinal science did not take this into account as an affect that could come back and haunt us.

Despite this, I still believe that it is only further exploration in medicine that will allow us to adapt to how we have already changed this world. Hybrids may be part of the solution, but we must learn to treat ourselves and the other living beings on this planet just a little better.

 

[Twila]

I realize, they are trying to help

I wonder.....I've often thought that their claim of helping was a thin disguise at...discovering the next thing that will make their name known....Famous.

I'm not sure of the reasons why but I find it disturbing to mess around with mother nature. Could be the act of playing god disturbs me or it could be that something will come of it and that something will be the detriment to the whole of humanity. What I don't get from the article is a feeling of hope. I get a feeling of gloom and impending doom.

 

[Twila]

I realize, they are trying to help

I wonder.....I've often thought that their claim of helping was a thin disguise at...discovering the next thing that will make their name known....Famous.

I'm not sure of the reasons why but I find it disturbing to mess around with mother nature. Could be the act of playing god disturbs me or it could be that something will come of it and that something will be the detriment to the whole of humanity. What I don't get from the article is a feeling of hope. I get a feeling of gloom and impending doom.

 

[Twila]

I realize, they are trying to help

I wonder.....I've often thought that their claim of helping was a thin disguise at...discovering the next thing that will make their name known....Famous.

I'm not sure of the reasons why but I find it disturbing to mess around with mother nature. Could be the act of playing god disturbs me or it could be that something will come of it and that something will be the detriment to the whole of humanity. What I don't get from the article is a feeling of hope. I get a feeling of gloom and impending doom.

 

[zenfisher]

We've been tinkering with Mother Nature since we learned to walk upright. I think it is the overall reasoning behind why we do things that is important. If it is done to better our or another species life, I think that is a noble goal. If it is done solely to make a buck, that is a different issue.

There are still many religions that don't allow blood transfusion. Which has integrity ? Allowing yourself to die for religious idealogy or making a simple modification to your blood so that you would be able to live? Letting yourself die because you won't allow a simple procedure seems somewhat devoid of logic.

A transfusion is a somewhat simplistic example, but it is an accepted method in which we alter our bodies everyday.If you take a pill you are changing how your body chemistry acts.This is just alterations on a microbiological level.

 

[zenfisher]

We've been tinkering with Mother Nature since we learned to walk upright. I think it is the overall reasoning behind why we do things that is important. If it is done to better our or another species life, I think that is a noble goal. If it is done solely to make a buck, that is a different issue.

There are still many religions that don't allow blood transfusion. Which has integrity ? Allowing yourself to die for religious idealogy or making a simple modification to your blood so that you would be able to live? Letting yourself die because you won't allow a simple procedure seems somewhat devoid of logic.

A transfusion is a somewhat simplistic example, but it is an accepted method in which we alter our bodies everyday.If you take a pill you are changing how your body chemistry acts.This is just alterations on a microbiological level.

 

[zenfisher]

We've been tinkering with Mother Nature since we learned to walk upright. I think it is the overall reasoning behind why we do things that is important. If it is done to better our or another species life, I think that is a noble goal. If it is done solely to make a buck, that is a different issue.

There are still many religions that don't allow blood transfusion. Which has integrity ? Allowing yourself to die for religious idealogy or making a simple modification to your blood so that you would be able to live? Letting yourself die because you won't allow a simple procedure seems somewhat devoid of logic.

A transfusion is a somewhat simplistic example, but it is an accepted method in which we alter our bodies everyday.If you take a pill you are changing how your body chemistry acts.This is just alterations on a microbiological level.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

If I knew 100% that I would save both of them I would save the animal first, otherwise I would save the child first and then worry about the animal.

As to the examples your giving about overpopulation, I respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter what time in history we talk about, humans and animals have always wanted to be in the same places. After all don't animals and humans basically want the same thing: food, water and shelter.

Just as we've had deer eating the lettuce in our back yards, the african tribes were competing for the animals with the lions in africa a 1000 years agos, as were the caveman 1000's of years ago competing with the carnivores of their time. Were there overpopulation problems back in the caveman times??

As for the starving children in the world, do you honestly believe that if the rich countries would share their food that there would be one child in the world that would go to bed hungry. I don't. Hungry children are created as a result of greed and politics not a lack of food.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

If I knew 100% that I would save both of them I would save the animal first, otherwise I would save the child first and then worry about the animal.

As to the examples your giving about overpopulation, I respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter what time in history we talk about, humans and animals have always wanted to be in the same places. After all don't animals and humans basically want the same thing: food, water and shelter.

Just as we've had deer eating the lettuce in our back yards, the african tribes were competing for the animals with the lions in africa a 1000 years agos, as were the caveman 1000's of years ago competing with the carnivores of their time. Were there overpopulation problems back in the caveman times??

As for the starving children in the world, do you honestly believe that if the rich countries would share their food that there would be one child in the world that would go to bed hungry. I don't. Hungry children are created as a result of greed and politics not a lack of food.

 

[tibear]

zenfisher,

If I knew 100% that I would save both of them I would save the animal first, otherwise I would save the child first and then worry about the animal.

As to the examples your giving about overpopulation, I respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter what time in history we talk about, humans and animals have always wanted to be in the same places. After all don't animals and humans basically want the same thing: food, water and shelter.

Just as we've had deer eating the lettuce in our back yards, the african tribes were competing for the animals with the lions in africa a 1000 years agos, as were the caveman 1000's of years ago competing with the carnivores of their time. Were there overpopulation problems back in the caveman times??

As for the starving children in the world, do you honestly believe that if the rich countries would share their food that there would be one child in the world that would go to bed hungry. I don't. Hungry children are created as a result of greed and politics not a lack of food.

 

[zenfisher]

We don't compete with animals for food. We just take over.That has happened since we stood upright.I work with a guy that lived on a farm in Ethiopa. He said it is not uncommon for lions to follow people home. Not because they are stalking them, but because they know how wasteful we are. Its an easy meal without the risk of injuring themselves while hunting. It also uses up much less energy than hunting.

How do you think we managed to tame dogs? They were wolves. Also following us around because they knew they could a meal out of it.

We developed symbiotic relationships with many carnivores. Think about the traditional pets. Now think about the animals we eat. Not many carnivores in that lot. We tend to eat animals that graze.

How many cavemen were around competing for resources. Was it six billion plus? I think it was probably closer to twenty thousand globally.

I do agree that politics plays an important role in the amount of hungry. Having too many people in one location is also a major contributing factor. I agree the first and second world could easily feed the third world.That does not discount the fact that wildlife and plant populations are dwindling.

 

[zenfisher]

We don't compete with animals for food. We just take over.That has happened since we stood upright.I work with a guy that lived on a farm in Ethiopa. He said it is not uncommon for lions to follow people home. Not because they are stalking them, but because they know how wasteful we are. Its an easy meal without the risk of injuring themselves while hunting. It also uses up much less energy than hunting.

How do you think we managed to tame dogs? They were wolves. Also following us around because they knew they could a meal out of it.

We developed symbiotic relationships with many carnivores. Think about the traditional pets. Now think about the animals we eat. Not many carnivores in that lot. We tend to eat animals that graze.

How many cavemen were around competing for resources. Was it six billion plus? I think it was probably closer to twenty thousand globally.

I do agree that politics plays an important role in the amount of hungry. Having too many people in one location is also a major contributing factor. I agree the first and second world could easily feed the third world.That does not discount the fact that wildlife and plant populations are dwindling.