I know these are scientists and a 'Human embryo model' is a perfectly valid name, because it's a model of a human embryo, but it's a disaster from a marketing perspective. People will see 'human embryo' and it doesn't matter that it's just a model of one. You are now growing fetus-slaves.
Please call it something else.
Edit: they are calling it 'hematoids' and make it clear that it is quite different from an embryo. I'm not sure why it's compared to them in the first place then.
Just on a philosophical level, is there anything that would make such embryos more "slaves" than embryos or fetuses in a womb? It's not as if in a womb they have any ability to assert conscious control over their environment, even if they had the cognitive and sensorial capacity.
> is there anything that would make such embryos more "slaves" than embryos or fetuses in a womb?
Arguably much-less-so, given the complicated and morally-ambiguous mechanics of primate gestation [0] where a fetus in the womb exercises a degree of biochemical control and extortion over the mother.
it wouldnt matter because of the context. It is expected that an embryo grows into a baby that is born. The very delaying of that expectation that denotes the slave label. Preventing the natural progression is a retardation of freedom. Since these embryo units are designed and purpose built, they are no more slave than the native embryo. If these designer embryos have capacity to develop further on their own, then there is an argument and correlation to be made.
The hilarity of the very first comment I read after this one being someone complaining that this is the work of the anti christ and nothing will be sacred anymore.
Oh goody. Living human tissue, mimicking an embryo if not a baby, without consciousness or soul, grown and molded for our purposes and pleasures in a lab. This is excellent news everyone. A clear sign that we're winning the fight against the Antichrist (per Peter Thiel). It does kind of make you wonder though, what life is going to be like when absolutely nothing is sacred.
There is no shortage of taboos in modern society, only the concrete focus shifts as generations change. Some things lose their sacredness and others gain it.
It was probably completely safe to draw a Muhammad cartoon and sign it in the West of 1950. Doing this now is a recipe for spending the rest of your life under police protection.
The explosion of hate speech laws all over the West is another instance thereof, though much less sanguinary.
No. These don't develop like embryos and do not have to come from embryonic stem cells.
The structures differ from real human embryos in many ways, and cannot develop into them because they lack several embryonic tissues, as well as the supporting yolk sac and placenta needed for further development.
The human stem cells used to derive hematoids can be created from any cell in the body. This means the approach also holds great potential for personalised medicine in the future, by allowing the production of blood that is fully compatible with a patient’s own body.
Yes, it would be exactly the same as the original, "crude" blood doping of injecting your own blood.
For people talking about "augmented games" and such, bear in mind that one of the reasons it was banned was that young athletes were suddenly dying a lot from heart problems.
I'm an organ donor, and I have no problem giving my organs away after I'm quite positive I won't feel it. I think as long as there is no sensation, there is no pain, and certainly no formal concept of "self". But still, with matters of exploitation of our bodies, we should tread very very lightly.
I know these are scientists and a 'Human embryo model' is a perfectly valid name, because it's a model of a human embryo, but it's a disaster from a marketing perspective. People will see 'human embryo' and it doesn't matter that it's just a model of one. You are now growing fetus-slaves.
Please call it something else.
Edit: they are calling it 'hematoids' and make it clear that it is quite different from an embryo. I'm not sure why it's compared to them in the first place then.
Just on a philosophical level, is there anything that would make such embryos more "slaves" than embryos or fetuses in a womb? It's not as if in a womb they have any ability to assert conscious control over their environment, even if they had the cognitive and sensorial capacity.
> is there anything that would make such embryos more "slaves" than embryos or fetuses in a womb?
Arguably much-less-so, given the complicated and morally-ambiguous mechanics of primate gestation [0] where a fetus in the womb exercises a degree of biochemical control and extortion over the mother.
[0] https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet...
it wouldnt matter because of the context. It is expected that an embryo grows into a baby that is born. The very delaying of that expectation that denotes the slave label. Preventing the natural progression is a retardation of freedom. Since these embryo units are designed and purpose built, they are no more slave than the native embryo. If these designer embryos have capacity to develop further on their own, then there is an argument and correlation to be made.
The hilarity of the very first comment I read after this one being someone complaining that this is the work of the anti christ and nothing will be sacred anymore.
Bryan Johnson will be getting these transfused into himself ASAP.
Oh goody. Living human tissue, mimicking an embryo if not a baby, without consciousness or soul, grown and molded for our purposes and pleasures in a lab. This is excellent news everyone. A clear sign that we're winning the fight against the Antichrist (per Peter Thiel). It does kind of make you wonder though, what life is going to be like when absolutely nothing is sacred.
"absolutely nothing is sacred."
There is no shortage of taboos in modern society, only the concrete focus shifts as generations change. Some things lose their sacredness and others gain it.
It was probably completely safe to draw a Muhammad cartoon and sign it in the West of 1950. Doing this now is a recipe for spending the rest of your life under police protection.
The explosion of hate speech laws all over the West is another instance thereof, though much less sanguinary.
We're growing humans ?
No. These don't develop like embryos and do not have to come from embryonic stem cells.
The structures differ from real human embryos in many ways, and cannot develop into them because they lack several embryonic tissues, as well as the supporting yolk sac and placenta needed for further development.
The human stem cells used to derive hematoids can be created from any cell in the body. This means the approach also holds great potential for personalised medicine in the future, by allowing the production of blood that is fully compatible with a patient’s own body.
Perfect blood doping.
Kind of sad that that's the first thing that comes to mind...
I find it ironic that thats the first thing that comes to mind. I know people with rare blood groups, I think this could be huge for them.
I believe this could also be detected.
Yes, it would be exactly the same as the original, "crude" blood doping of injecting your own blood.
For people talking about "augmented games" and such, bear in mind that one of the reasons it was banned was that young athletes were suddenly dying a lot from heart problems.
Could you do this using current medicine by extracting and donating blood back to yourself after a week?
Yes, Lance Armstrong did just that! https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/ReasonedDecision.pd...
I'm pretty certain I read of people doing this in cycling tournaments.
If that's what it takes get this technology everywhere i'm all for it lol.
An alternate Olympics where everyone is sponsored by medical companies :D
We have the Enhanced Games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Games), so we already have an alternative Olympics that definitely includes medical companies.
As if the un-enhanced games weren't already getting closer to playing a game of chicken with your health on the line.
We are not. These are embryo-like structures. Not actual human embryos.
[dead]
they have no mouth even if they want to scream.
I'm an organ donor, and I have no problem giving my organs away after I'm quite positive I won't feel it. I think as long as there is no sensation, there is no pain, and certainly no formal concept of "self". But still, with matters of exploitation of our bodies, we should tread very very lightly.
that's an odd thing to bring up out of nowhere.
That's the technocratic endgame b/c a few people are rich enough to realize the potential for life extension using the same type of technology.
We've been growing humans since the beginning of time. This one is just in vitro.