Jump to content

Human-animal Mixing Going Too Far, Report Says


Recommended Posts

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060808_chimera.htm

 

Human-animal mixing going too far, report says

 

Aug. 9, 2006

Courtesy Scottish Council on Human Bioethics

and World Science staff

 

Scientists are going too far in creating mixed human-animal organisms, a Scottish organization is warning.

 

The Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, a professional group based in Edinburgh, has published a report on the ethical implications of the practice in the journal Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics. The report is online at www.schb.org.uk.

 

humandog.JPG

 

An artist's concept of what a human-dog hybrid might look like. The strange creatures are part of a sculpture by Australian artist Patricia Piccinini entitled "The Young Family," produced to spark reflection on the perils of creating human-animal mixtures.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

“Crossing the human species barrier is a procedure that has always fascinated humanity,” noted the report, made public Tuesday and written in light of draft legislation on human embryology being prepared by the U.K. Department of Health, to be published this summer.

 

Ancient Greek mythology speaks of monsters such as the Minotaur—a man with a bull’s head—and centaurs, mixtures of humans and horses.

 

But creatures of this nature may not remain confined to mythology for long, as scientists have begun tentatively creating mixed organisms. An array of experiments have produced animals with some human cells, for instance.

 

Such procedures “mix human and animal biological elements to such an extent that it questions the very concept of being entirely human,” the report said. This raises “grave and complex ethical difficulties.”

 

Some ethicists worry that the experiments might force society to make confounding decisions on whether, say, a human-chimp mix would have human rights. Other concerns are that such a creature could suffer from being outcast as a “monster,” from having a chimp as its biological father or mother, or from unusual health problems.

 

Some inter-species mixtures are powerful research tools, the report said.

 

This “became clear about a decade ago in a series of dramatic experiments in which small sections of brains from developing quails were taken and transplanted into the developing brains of chickens. The resulting chickens exhibited vocal trills and head bobs unique to quails, proving that the transplanted parts of the brain contained the neural circuitry for quail calls. It also offered astonishing proof that complex behaviours could be transferred across species.”

 

Later research has spawned human-animal creations, the report said. These usually die at the embryonic stage, but often survive if the mixtures involve only a few cells or genes transferred from one species to another.

 

The council cited the following examples:

 

In 2003, scientists at Cambridge University, U.K. conducted experiments involving fusing the nucleus of a human cell into frog eggs. The stated aim was to produce rejuvenated “master cells” that could be grown into replacement tissues for treating disease. It was not clear whether fertilization took place, but “some kind of development was initiated,” the report said.

 

 

In 2005, U.K. scientists transplanted a human chromosome into mouse embryos. The newly born mice carried copies of the chromosome and were able to pass it on to their own young.

 

 

The company Advanced Cell Technologies was reported, in 1999, to have created the first human embryo clone by inserting a human cell nucleus into a cow’s egg stripped of chromosomes. The result was an embryo that developed and divided for 12 days before being destroyed.

 

 

Panayiotis Zavos, the operator of a U.S. fertility laboratory, reported in 2003 that he had created around 200 cow-human hybrid embryos that lived for about two weeks and grew to several hundred cells in size, beyond the stage at which cells showed the first signs of developing into tissues and organs.

 

 

In 2003, Hui Zhen Sheng of Shanghai Second Medical University, China, announced that rabbit-human embryos had been created by fusing human cells with rabbit eggs stripped of their chromosomes. The embryos developed to the approximately 100-cell stage that forms after about four days of development.

The council made 16 recommendations, including that it should be illegal to mix animal and human sperm and eggs, or to create an embryo containing cells consisting of both human and animal chromosomes.

 

“The fertilisation of animal eggs with human sperm should not continue to be legal in the U.K. for research purposes,” said Calum MacKellar, the council’s director of research.

 

“Most people are not aware that these kinds of experiments have been taking place in the U.K. and find it deeply offensive. Parliament should follow France and Germany and prohibit the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos.”

 

In a report published in 2004, the President’s Council on Bioethics in the United States also advocated prohibiting the creation of animal-human embryos by uniting human and animal eggs and sperm. A draft law introduced in U.S. Congress by Senator Samuel Brownback (R-Kan.) would outlaw the creation of human-animal mixtures.

 

A 2005 report from the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee takes a more liberal stance, saying such embryos could be legal for research purposes if they are destroyed within 14 days.

 

“While there is revulsion in some quarters that such creations appear to blur the distinction between animals and humans, it could be argued that they are less human than, and therefore pose fewer ethical problems for research than fully human embryos,” the committee wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose their motives are to use their organs for human benefits? Are there any other alterior motives? I've heard that we would have made the monkeys slaves had they had an opposing thumb. Gosh, do you know what the ethics board is saying about all this? :eek: Where do we draw the line?

 

What gets me in the US, is that we have to give permission for someone to use our organs once we're dead, to save someone else's life. Even if we give permission, our family can still contest it! Hello? We're just deteriorating into dust... why don't they just take it anyway! Now they think it is more humane to treat animals like this than to just get what they need from a dying person? How does that make senes? :vent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me in the US, is that we have to give permission for someone to use our organs once we're dead, to save someone else's life. Even if we give permission, our family can still contest it! Hello? We're just deteriorating into dust... why don't they just take it anyway! Now they think it is more humane to treat animals like this than to just get what they need from a dying person? How does that make senes? :vent:

It's kinda complicated. Doctors might stop treatment on a person that could have been saved because they can be seen as a bag of organs. Transplants, as far as I know, are expensive and the organs are as well. Without permission problems can arise. I personally am for permission. I'm just saying if I'm in an accident I want to make sure that the doctors focus more on saving me than my organs.

 

humandog.JPG

This artwork is kinda creepy, and yet beautiful at the same time. I just love the realism in this art and it envokes a lot of emotions. Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's disgusting.

 

I feel a lot of medical science these days isn't done in the name of improving life, but in the name of "Let's just see how far we can go". We're reaching horror-movie proportions - our science will irresponsibly grow ever farther to the point of which we can no longer control it. And what's really terrible is that there doesn't seem to be a good point behind why we're doing this.

 

It IS "playing God". Whether you believe in God or not, it's not right for the human mind to assume that it can do anything without serious consequences. Just see where certain "advancements" in science have gotten us before: We've developed weapons so devastating that we keep trying to encourage and poke each other not to use them while all the while insisting that we should have the right to keep our own. This is what I'm talking about. We have no idea of the implications of what we're doing, only in this case "curiosity as to see what happens" isn't a valid excuse to do what we are doing, IMO.

 

Not that I'm against science - not at all; of course not. Science is one of the glories of the world. But we need to regulate it instead of allowing it to turn into Frankenstein and blowing the world to pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's disgusting.

Just making sure you know it is just artwork.

 

I'm not sure if I'm against it or for it yet. I just hope when it happens, probably will, the creature won't be in pain or tormented by society. Would I be able to actually be around or talk to a hybrid human? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't agree on something like this. It's one of those lines that mankind should cross. There are times when I feel that some scientist want to pursue all sorts of outragious projects, but they never seem to think about the consequences. I feel the only purpose of medical science is to help improve humanity by curing diseases, and things like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are times when I feel that some scientist want to pursue all sorts of outragious projects, but they never seem to think about the consequences.

What are the consequences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are times when I feel that some scientist want to pursue all sorts of outragious projects, but they never seem to think about the consequences.

What are the consequences?

Who knows? I mean there are some interesting and frightening things that could happen. I have read somewhere that they are trying to create a pig that is compatable with humans so they can use its organs for transplant. :ugh: I find the whole thing scarey. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, I wish I could live another 100 years just to see what happens. Will humans be able to re-grow limbs like amphibians? Will we extend our lives to 100's of years? Will we augment our minds and bodies with bio-tech, genetic engineering, robotics? Will AI's, human hybrids be considered equals in society?

 

Or will we just kill ourselves off? :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kinda complicated. Doctors might stop treatment on a person that could have been saved because they can be seen as a bag of organs. Transplants, as far as I know, are expensive and the organs are as well. Without permission problems can arise. I personally am for permission. I'm just saying if I'm in an accident I want to make sure that the doctors focus more on saving me than my organs.

:)Taylork, I doubt that a doctor is going to take a life! There are so many law suits that would erupt from that, they wouldn't dare! We could put video monitors and recordings in the surgery room, to validate justification. If I'm dying, brain dead, etc, just take my organs so the living can use them... instead of deteriorating into dust! Heck, if you or one of your family members were in need of a kidney or something... how would you feel about all these useful kidneys just deteriorating before your eyes? It's sad. This harvesting of human organs of those dead, seems to me, to be much more effective, efficient, and ethical, than abusing animal life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)Taylork, I doubt that a doctor is going to take a life!

What if I talked about his wife before I went under? :Hmm: Bet he would think about it!

 

I'm not worried about a doctor taking my life and more worried about them stopping treatment. Let's say I'm dying from a gunshot wound and the doctor sees that I'm an organ donor. I'm just worried that when they see the chance of me surviving is low they stop working on me instead of trying to save me until I died.

 

 

 

There are times when I feel that some scientist want to pursue all sorts of outragious projects, but they never seem to think about the consequences.

What are the consequences?

Who knows? I mean there are some interesting and frightening things that could happen. I have read somewhere that they are trying to create a pig that is compatable with humans so they can use its organs for transplant. :ugh: I find the whole thing scarey. :eek:

What's wrong with engineering pigs so we can have there organs? We eat them. Just seems like a better deal when I get a nice plate of bacon to go along with my brand new heart. That's good eaten :woohoo:

 

So anyway, what's wrong with wanting to create a new species?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that life itself should not be treated as a commodity.

 

If I'm terminal and I have a couple of kidneys that are in good working order, by all means, you're welcome to them.

 

But if somebody needs a pair of kidneys....you create a human-animal hybrid to grow the kidneys, so you won't have to grow a human, since it's okay to kill a half-human....you kill the hybrid to harvest the kidneys......what have you won? You've merely ended one life for the sake of another. The death toll turns out the same.

 

Scientists often seem to believe that whatever biological creature they dream up - its life, emotions, and intelligence, don't matter. They often say this is so because as opposed to religious teaching, life to them isn't some miracle or sacred thing. Nothing more than a biological fact. It IS something to be toyed with. Which raises the question as to why scientists aren't donating their kidneys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that life itself should not be treated as a commodity.

 

But if somebody needs a pair of kidneys....you create a human-animal hybrid to grow the kidneys, so you won't have to grow a human, since it's okay to kill a half-human....you kill the hybrid to harvest the kidneys......what have you won? You've merely ended one life for the sake of another. The death toll turns out the same.

I'm going to hope you aren't a vegan/vegetarian or my example won't work. I believe we already treat life as a commodity when it concerns animals. I'm going to replace some words in your post to help get my point across.

 

"But if somebody needs a food....you create a big plot of land just so you can raise animals, so you can have unlimited food, so you won't ever worry about having a lack of food, since it's okay to kill an animal....you kill the animal to harvest them as food......what have you won? You've merely ended one life for the sake of another. The death toll turns out the same."

 

My example probably didn't work :HaHa: But I still don't get it. I see no difference in killing harvested animals for food and raising genetically engineered animals for organs (and possible food). One you kill a creature so a human can eat and another you kill a creature so one human can live. In both we treat life like a commodity. Do you feel killing animals for their organs is wrong because the creature created might have a near human intellegence so you shouldn't do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I still don't get it. I see no difference in killing harvested animals for food and raising genetically engineered animals for organs (and possible food). One you kill something so a human can eat and another you kill a creature so one human can live. In both we treat life like a commodity. Do you feel killing animals for their organs is wrong because the creature created might have a near human intellegence so you shouldn't do it?

:)Taylork, I can see some merit to your position, yet... would you consider these aspects too?

 

Now that you have this hybrid animal, half human, to harvest its organs, are you going to eat the rest of him/her? Isn't that a bit like cannibalism? :Hmm:

 

Why don't you think that encouraging people, or just have a law to just take organs from people that can't be revived to life? If we have more scrutiny and documentation for people entering medical fascilites with life threatening conditions, we can be sure that doctors will strive to save that life, or go to jail, and/or face law suits that ensure they lose their licesnse and everything they own. What would be the problem then, as I don't see it as a valid problem now. :shrug:

 

Don't you think it is quite narcissistic of humans to think it is ok to torture the life of other species, just so it can suit our whims, when other avenues are obvious? I think that we go too far now, in how we exploit animals for them as food. IMO, what we do to chickens will one day be looked upon by a future generation with absolute horror! :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that you have this hybrid animal, half human, to harvest its organs, are you going to eat the rest of him/her? Isn't that a bit like cannibalism? :Hmm:

:eek: ewwww....point taken. I can see how it can be immoral now. But I think that when I'm on my death bed waiting for a heart my opinion would quickly change.

 

Why don't you think that encouraging people, or just have a law to just take organs from people that can't be revived to life? If we have more scrutiny and documentation for people entering medical fascilites with life threatening conditions, we can be sure that doctors will strive to save that life, or go to jail, and/or face law suits that ensure they lose their licesnse and everything they own. What would be the problem then, as I don't see it as a valid problem now. :shrug:
If that were so then I would agree. But it's very difficult to prove that a doctor couldn't strive to save a life. Not saying it couldn't happen but just imagine trying to prove to a judge that you did every single possible medical action in an attempt to save a life but couldn't so you felt it was okay to take his organs.

 

Don't you think it is quite narcissistic of humans to think it is ok to torture the life of other species, just so it can suit our whims, when other avenues are obvious? I think that we go too far now, in how we exploit animals for them as food. IMO, what we do to chickens will one day be looked upon by a future generation with absolute horror! :eek:

I do think it's very horrible how they treat animals like chickens so we can eat them. Go check out kentucky fried cruelty to see what I mean. http://www.kfccruelty.com/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some predictions of Futurist Magazine a few years ago. It was predicted that the abortion battles of the late 20th Centry would pale in comparison to the battles of the 21st Century. It was predicted that the biggest debates and battles would be over the definition of what is considered human and what is not.

 

Will people be killed, though, in the name of stopping this as they do with abortion? Or will it just be more of an intellectual and morality debate?

 

I suppose their motives are to use their organs for human benefits? Are there any other alterior motives? I've heard that we would have made the monkeys slaves had they had an opposing thumb. Gosh, do you know what the ethics board is saying about all this? :eek: Where do we draw the line?

 

What gets me in the US, is that we have to give permission for someone to use our organs once we're dead, to save someone else's life. Even if we give permission, our family can still contest it! Hello? We're just deteriorating into dust... why don't they just take it anyway! Now they think it is more humane to treat animals like this than to just get what they need from a dying person? How does that make senes? :vent:

 

 

I feel sorry for the porr animals. It doesn't seem right to me. I put more stock in enginerring organs from scartch using complex frameworks. Science has made great progress in this area. Comparing the animal harvest with this cutting edge technology makes the former seem pretty barbaric, don't you think?

 

This all depends on the views that are held about a dead body. Is it sacred and untouchable or it just a rotting hunk of flesh and bone? Some religious groups are entirely opposed to simple procedures such as autopsies. They feel that it's disrepectful to the dead. I find this idea pretty silly.

 

What gets me in the US, is that we have to give permission for someone to use our organs once we're dead, to save someone else's life. Even if we give permission, our family can still contest it! Hello? We're just deteriorating into dust... why don't they just take it anyway! Now they think it is more humane to treat animals like this than to just get what they need from a dying person? How does that make senes? :vent:

It's kinda complicated. Doctors might stop treatment on a person that could have been saved because they can be seen as a bag of organs. Transplants, as far as I know, are expensive and the organs are as well. Without permission problems can arise. I personally am for permission. I'm just saying if I'm in an accident I want to make sure that the doctors focus more on saving me than my organs.

 

humandog.JPG

This artwork is kinda creepy, and yet beautiful at the same time. I just love the realism in this art and it envokes a lot of emotions. Well done.

 

This is true. Our organs are worth a buttload of money! I've heard of cases in other countries, nothing here, where people are abducted, a kidney removed and then thrown back on the street.

 

It's disgusting.

Just making sure you know it is just artwork.

 

I'm not sure if I'm against it or for it yet. I just hope when it happens, probably will, the creature won't be in pain or tormented by society. Would I be able to actually be around or talk to a hybrid human? No.

 

You know, you wouldn't even have to have a hybrid. You could manipulate the genes that control the brain so that they became smarter. With the chimp we now the areas where the differences are. We could xhange these areas to something similar to what they are with us and we'd have a chimp as smart as a human without the hybridization. I know it's not as easy as this but it's not that far away.

 

humandog.JPG

This artwork is kinda creepy, and yet beautiful at the same time. I just love the realism in this art and it envokes a lot of emotions. Well done.

 

I think it's beautiful, too. But I don't think it's accurate. It doesn't look, at all, like a dog to me. It looks like strange water buffalo without the horns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is some pretty interesting stuff. Mixing human genes with animal genes? Only if they gave me wings. I see animal-human hybrids(assuming they become a reality) as the next cheap labor source. It would be the worst morality crisis in history. I would like to see some animal-animal combination concepts. That would be a cool picture :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I find that picture absolutely abhorrant At least if that thing was actually alive it certainly would be. How can you say it is beautiful? Would you still say that if it was alive and couldn't actually do anything except look at you with a dull glaze. I don't know how much feelings animals have but many would say a dog has many ... would you not feel for it!? eeuch! Its the stuff of nightmares

 

Having said that I am all for science and development of anything that would help life survive and fight disease and illness. But there is a line that should not be crossed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I find that picture absolutely abhorrant At least if that thing was actually alive it certainly would be. How can you say it is beautiful? Would you still say that if it was alive and couldn't actually do anything except look at you with a dull glaze. I don't know how much feelings animals have but many would say a dog has many ... would you not feel for it!? eeuch! Its the stuff of nightmares

 

Having said that I am all for science and development of anything that would help life survive and fight disease and illness. But there is a line that should not be crossed

02ploogfrank.gif

Just because it's a monster doesn't make the artwork any less beautiful. The model of the human/dog hybrid obviously envokes feeling in everyone and makes us think. Which is what art should do. I see pain in a creature that is almost human and I want to feel for it, whether it be pity or haterd I still feel something. Also you can see the pain in the creatures eyes and it seems vunerable even though it appears threatenening. I know personally how hard it is to envoke genuine emotion in artwork especially ones that are subtle. Also the pups in the picture look surprising close to human. The level of realism is so strong that i wasn't even sure if it was a real creature or not. The fact that is at a high level of realism, the feeling that comes to each of us when we see it, and emotions that you can see coming from the art work to me makes it beautiful. Or maybe I think it's beautiful because I can't create anything close to this myself :shrug:

 

-EDIT-

To help this make more sense pretend your child drew a creature that was intentionally ugly. When you looked at it, it was surprising realistic and very well done. Also she made her hideous creature sad looking and crying. Now do you tell her "I find that picture absolutely abhorrant". I hope not, I would say that the picture was beautiful and well done. It's beautiful to me because it's high level artwork. If the creature was real I couldn't see myself wanting to be around it unless I created it myself. If I made it I don't think I could help but love my creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To help this make more sense pretend your child drew a creature that was intentionally ugly. When you looked at it, it was surprising realistic and very well done. Also she made her hideous creature sad looking and crying. Now do you tell her "I find that picture absolutely abhorrant". I hope not, I would say that the picture was beautiful and well done. It's beautiful to me because it's high level artwork. If the creature was real I couldn't see myself wanting to be around it unless I created it myself. If I made it I don't think I could help but love my creation.

 

As an artist, myself, I know exactly what you're talking about. As an author, I know it well, too. Just because the subject is bad doesn't mean beauty cannot be found. I'm instantly reminded of Schindler's List. The subject was horrible, disturbing and disgusting, but it was just made so incredibly well. It really seemed real. It sucked you right in and mde you feel like you were right there experinecing it all with them. That is good art!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose their motives are to use their organs for human benefits? Are there any other alterior motives? I've heard that we would have made the monkeys slaves had they had an opposing thumb. Gosh, do you know what the ethics board is saying about all this? :eek: Where do we draw the line?

 

What gets me in the US, is that we have to give permission for someone to use our organs once we're dead, to save someone else's life. Even if we give permission, our family can still contest it! Hello? We're just deteriorating into dust... why don't they just take it anyway! Now they think it is more humane to treat animals like this than to just get what they need from a dying person? How does that make senes? :vent:

 

 

I feel sorry for the porr animals. It doesn't seem right to me. I put more stock in enginerring organs from scartch using complex frameworks. Science has made great progress in this area. Comparing the animal harvest with this cutting edge technology makes the former seem pretty barbaric, don't you think?

 

This all depends on the views that are held about a dead body. Is it sacred and untouchable or it just a rotting hunk of flesh and bone? Some religious groups are entirely opposed to simple procedures such as autopsies. They feel that it's disrepectful to the dead. I find this idea pretty silly.

 

I worked for many years in hospitals and I always felt that the dead were rather like empty houses. Who ever lived there was gone but I still treated the body with respect because it had been home to someones loved one. I always thought that I would have no problem with donating my organs or a loved ones organs. I knew that they would be put to good use, I even worked for the Eye Bank for awhile. But after my father died following a prolonged illness I refused to give permission for an autopsy. When the Doctor asked me why I had no GOOD answer it just seemed like they had hurt him so much when he was alive that they should just let him rest. Pretty silly when I look back on it but that was how I felt in the moment. Have any of you ever given permission for a loved ones organs to harvested? I was just wondering what your experences with the system were. I know that it seems easier when you are talking about it than that moment when you have to say goodbye and give permission. At least that is how is was for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any of you ever given permission for a loved ones organs to harvested? I was just wondering what your experences with the system were. I know that it seems easier when you are talking about it than that moment when you have to say goodbye and give permission. At least that is how is was for me.

 

:)Comix, I will say that when my father passed away, my mother refused to let them harvest any of his organs. The hospital seemed most interested in the 'skin', and I was saddened that my mother declined permission. Yet, her wishes were maintained. I suppose it is a difficult decision to be made. That is why I think they should make a law where they just take it... and we don't know, and don't think about it. Our body is just going to deteriorate to dust! I think it is crazy for people to spend so much money at funerals too! I mean if someone is going to spend $20,000 or more on me... do it while I'm alive! Earthly possessions are made for an earthly experience, IMO. That is why it is listed on my driver's license that I am an organ donor, and I have expressed to all my family that is my wish. Heck, the doctor is going to do everything he can to save us anyway. I think that is their nature, and that is also how they validate their bill to the insurance company. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:)Comix, I will say that when my father passed away, my mother refused to let them harvest any of his organs. The hospital seemed most interested in the 'skin', and I was saddened that my mother declined permission. Yet, her wishes were maintained. I suppose it is a difficult decision to be made. That is why I think they should make a law where they just take it... and we don't know, and don't think about it. Our body is just going to deteriorate to dust! I think it is crazy for people to spend so much money at funerals too! I mean if someone is going to spend $20,000 or more on me... do it while I'm alive! Earthly possessions are made for an earthly experience, IMO. That is why it is listed on my driver's license that I am an organ donor, and I have expressed to all my family that is my wish. Heck, the doctor is going to do everything he can to save us anyway. I think that is their nature, and that is also how they validate their bill to the insurance company. :wicked:

I agree that most doctors will do anything to keep you alive. I worked in a catholic hospital and most of the doctors would not honor living wills that stated that the person wanted to be allowed to expire. When my Dad coded they ignored his wish not to be revived and did it anyway.

I also agree with you about the funerals! That is just crazy. I find the thought of putting folks in a box in the ground kinda creepy :ugh: Especially in coffins that cost enough to send a couple of kids to college. We had my dad cremated according to his wishes and scattered his ashes in the Chimney Rocks national park. Which is illegal by the way - that is what the park ranger told us when he found out what we were doing. :HaHa: too late.

I too have organ donor marked on my drivers lic. I hope that my kids will follow through.

On the other hand I have had discussions with some doctors that felt that maybe we are trying too hard to "save" everyone. Just because you can do it does not always mean that you should do it. I realize that this is kinda of a hot button topic but interesting just the same. I over heard a doctor telling a family that their 87 year old mother might be better off if extreme measures were not taken to extend her life - since she had cancer and was in agony. But the family did not agree and wanted everything possible done to keep her alive. Hard decisions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To help this make more sense pretend your child drew a creature that was intentionally ugly. When you looked at it, it was surprising realistic and very well done. Also she made her hideous creature sad looking and crying. Now do you tell her "I find that picture absolutely abhorrant". I hope not, I would say that the picture was beautiful and well done. It's beautiful to me because it's high level artwork. If the creature was real I couldn't see myself wanting to be around it unless I created it myself. If I made it I don't think I could help but love my creation.

 

As an artist, myself, I know exactly what you're talking about. As an author, I know it well, too. Just because the subject is bad doesn't mean beauty cannot be found. I'm instantly reminded of Schindler's List. The subject was horrible, disturbing and disgusting, but it was just made so incredibly well. It really seemed real. It sucked you right in and mde you feel like you were right there experinecing it all with them. That is good art!

 

Hmm...Ok I accept the art angle I too thought schindlers list was superb and yes in a way beautiful. But that used a dark event and made moving 'art' from it... it did not create the dark events. You cannot say Hitlers actions were beautiful in any way

If an animal was born like that in your picture then there would be ways of making beautiful if - like Schindlers list - it was done properly My feeling quote of 'absolutely abhorrant' would be directed at the sitaution where scientists had created the animal just to see what would happen. To me this is too far

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.