Japan approves research method to grow human organs inside animals

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My base of reason on this issue should not be worse than yours. Whatever you have said in this thread, I can say that too. It is not that deep in knowledge.

Like I said, if you try to reason from a faith-based belief that humans have 'better' bodies, particularly when you admit you don't even know what that means, you're going to reach the wrong conclusions.

It also seems to me that someone who is unable to reason that out for themselves doesn't have the reasoning skills he thinks he has.

 

[juvenissun]

Lol! if you don't know the criteria you're judging by, 'better' is meaningless.

I suspect that would depend on the zoologist - they tend to get seriously attached to the subjects of their work. They understand that what 'physically capable' means depends on the environmental niche the creature occupies.

Again, it does not have to be meaningful to others. I am not trying to publish anything on this issue to earn a living. Whatever I learned here is only good to ME.

 

[juvenissun]

Like I said, if you try to reason from a faith-based belief that humans have 'better' bodies, particularly when you admit you don't even know what that means, you're going to reach the wrong conclusions.

It also seems to me that someone who is unable to reason that out for themselves doesn't have the reasoning skills he thinks he has.

You should know one truth: the end of science is religion. We try our best to do scientific reasoning. None of us can understand everything. But that should not stop us to make decisions. I made my decision on this issue mostly based on faith. However, you do have chance to change my mind by science. Unfortunately, I have not seen that yet.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Again, it does not have to be meaningful to others. I am not trying to publish anything on this issue to earn a living.

When you ask what others would do given a choice, you're implicitly asking what is meaningful to others

Whatever I learned here is only good to ME.

I hope you learned that you were mistaken about human bodies, but I doubt it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You should know one truth: the end of science is religion. We try our best to do scientific reasoning. None of us can understand everything. But that should not stop us to make decisions. I made my decision on this issue mostly based on faith. However, you do have chance to change my mind by science. Unfortunately, I have not seen that yet.

You've made a faith-based claim about human bodies that you can't substantiate have no criteria for, and members of the forum have explained that the evidence says it is mistaken in general, and have given a number of examples which show this. What you do with that information is up to you.

 

[juvenissun]

I hope you learned that you were mistaken about human bodies, but I doubt it.

On the contrary, I do learn that I might be right. Because no one convinced me yet.

 

[juvenissun]

You've made a faith-based claim about human bodies that you can't substantiate have no criteria for, and members of the forum have explained that the evidence says it is mistaken in general, and have given a number of examples which show this. What you do with that information is up to you.

I know those information, and I can give more of that kind of reasoning. Since I can do better, similar information is definitely not able to convince me.

 

[pitabread]

Why don't you say cockroaches? They are superior than YOU, but not me.

I suggest Tardigrades because again, they can survive conditions that where humans would be dead in moments. Perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with this amazing creature: Tardigrade - Wikipedia

Claiming that we are superior is just anthropomorphic egocentrism.

 

[pitabread]

On the contrary, I do learn that I might be right. Because no one convinced me yet.

Whether you are convinced or not seems a bit irrelevant. If you make a claim about superiority of something, then we need to determine objective measures by which said superiority can be measured. And I guarantee that if you sit down to do that you're going to find measures by which human bodies are not the most superior in all cases.

It's a little bit like saying you're not convinced that 2+2 = 4. You can be as unconvinced as you want, but objectively speaking 2+2 is still going to equal 4.

 

[Nithavela]

Whether you are convinced or not seems a bit irrelevant. If you make a claim about superiority of something, then we need to determine objective measures by which said superiority can be measured. And I guarantee that if you sit down to do that you're going to find measures by which human bodies are not the most superior in all cases.

It's a little bit like saying you're not convinced that 2+2 = 4. You can be as unconvinced as you want, but objectively speaking 2+2 is still going to equal 4.

I think its senseless to try and convince someone that 2+2 equals 4 if they state that they cant be convinced.

 

[pitabread]

I think its senseless to try and convince someone that 2+2 equals 4 if they state that they cant be convinced.

Absolutely. But at the same time it's equally irrelevant if a person doesn't want to be convinced that 2+2 = 4.

 

[Nithavela]

Absolutely. But at the same time it's equally irrelevant if a person doesn't want to be convinced that 2+2 = 4.

So what are you trying to accomplish here?

 

[pitabread]

So what are you trying to accomplish here?

I'm pointing out the futility of life.

 

[Hank77]

Can chimps do better than human by given the same level of intelligence? I don't think so. For the first, they have much shorter life span. (what is wrong with their body?)

Introducing 'Little Mama'.
Meet one of the oldest chimpanzees in captivity - CNN

 

[juvenissun]

I suggest Tardigrades because again, they can survive conditions that where humans would be dead in moments. Perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with this amazing creature: Tardigrade - Wikipedia

Claiming that we are superior is just anthropomorphic egocentrism.

How about to claim that we are very inferior? What good are we physically? Nothing, right?

 

[juvenissun]

Whether you are convinced or not seems a bit irrelevant. If you make a claim about superiority of something, then we need to determine objective measures by which said superiority can be measured. And I guarantee that if you sit down to do that you're going to find measures by which human bodies are not the most superior in all cases.

It's a little bit like saying you're not convinced that 2+2 = 4. You can be as unconvinced as you want, but objectively speaking 2+2 is still going to equal 4.

Do you see anything good on human body? Anything?

 

[pitabread]

How about to claim that we are very inferior? What good are we physically? Nothing, right?

I didn't say that. If you are trying to put words in my mouth or set up a strawman, this isn't going to anywhere good.

 

[juvenissun]

I didn't say that. If you are trying to put words in my mouth or set up a strawman, this isn't going to anywhere good.

If not, then what are you saying? What is the good on human body? Can you say something about it?

 

[pitabread]

Do you see anything good on human body? Anything?

If I had to name a few things, I'd say our opposable thumbs, our brain size to body mass ratio, and our physical ability to manifest complex language and communication.

Beyond that, the human body clearly has a lot of questionable design decisions. Like who thought putting a gonads in a vulnerable exterior location would be a good thing?

 

[juvenissun]

Introducing 'Little Mama'.
Meet one of the oldest chimpanzees in captivity - CNN

Talk in science. Do you know the average age?