It would be a cheap, quick way to show it can be done.
>>My personal ethics can accomodate an uplift by way of cortical augmentation
>>or other such biological procedure, but only insofar as it provides
>>empirical
>>data for use in similar procedures on humans. It seems unlikely that
>>crossbreeding a chimpanzee with a human will give us any information along
>>these lines and I have difficulty viewing this as uplifting a chimp, rather,
>>it seems more like retarding a human being on purpose, and for no valid
>>reason.
I understand. It was merely a suggestion. Recall my initial post.
Some people outside this list agree with you -- viz., that uplifting
is akin to trapping a human mind in a nonhuman (less than
human?) body. However, would you judge it the same if, say,
we found a genetic sequence which would increase intelligence
in chimps, would it be wrong to insert it in them? If not, imagine
that this sequence is from a human. Is it still not wrong to inset
it? If not, imagine (I know this is getting repetitive:) it is a
substantial amount of human genes and the method of
insertion is artsem. Is it still not wrong? At what point did the
experiment become wrong and why? What standard do we
use to judge?
>>I think any serious proponents of this idea need to answer at least two
>>questions:
>>
>>1. Will crossbreeding chimps and humans help us augment human beings?
I believe my initial post answers this question. The data from it will
also give us more parameters on just how far intelligence can be
stretched inside the biotic realm.
>>2. Is there any other reason to do it?
I believe my initial post answers this one too. However, I think it
better to try uplifting with other species and not use crossbreeding.
Later!
Daniel Ust