In her talk about animal robotics, Emily Anthes, author of Frankenstein's Cat, brought up the ethical question of whether we as scientists, society, or even just as citizens of the animal kingdom owe it to other animals to share the power of recent advances in biology and technology. If we have the capability to improve the lives of other animals, is it our moral responsibility to do so? How far is its reach, to all animals, or only the species that we use in our experiments?
It's a nice idea in theory, the great, good, and gentle humans bestowing godly graces on the other, more unfortunate animals, a sort of universal marxism between all fauna of the planet-- but it's also complete fantasy. I don't think we owe it to use our discoveries to improve animal lives at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to say all ethical guidelines to the treatment of animals, both inside and outside of the lab, should just be thrown to the wind, but we have to draw a line somewhere. It's one thing to try to better our own race-- we want that and we understand the consequences to some degree-- but to go out and play god among the other animals is foolish and impractical. By bettering one species we risk throwing the delicate balance of an ecosystem out of whack and by improving all species... well, what would be the point? The prey would be better at escaping the hunters, but the hunters are better at catching the prey. Also, implanting any biotech is out the window because good luck finding funding for that, let alone just the process of capturing every single animal. And for those who are sacrificed for research, while valiant, would have probably lived only marginally longer or shorter out in the wild; animals take advantage of other animals all the time.
Really, we're just really better off left learning how to help ourselves first.
No comments:
Post a Comment