Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   "Artificial Human" farms could replace medical testing on animals by the end of the decade. PETA wondering what they will protest if this happens   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 72
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1597 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Sep 2014 at 9:48 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-09-01 08:15:28 AM  
images.bwbx.io
What a 'human on a chip' might look like.
 
2014-09-01 08:39:24 AM  
PETA will just continue on with their high kill rate animal shelters.
 
2014-09-01 08:59:53 AM  
I'm sure some Jesus freak will object to this in 3..2..1..  because of a soul!  Can't define it, can't prove it exists, but these people object to embryonic stem cell research because of the 'soul' thing, so I'm sure they'll step up here.

Science saving human lives?  Never!  Pray for Jesus to save them - ignoring the fact that if Jesus existed, he could've saved them long ago when they first got sick, because he knows everything.  If he exists, he chose to let them get sick and die.  Every child who dies of cancer dies because Jesus let them die.
 
2014-09-01 09:28:05 AM  

syrynxx: I'm sure some Jesus freak will object to this in 3..2..1..  because of a soul!  Can't define it, can't prove it exists, but these people object to embryonic stem cell research because of the 'soul' thing, so I'm sure they'll step up here.

Science saving human lives?  Never!  Pray for Jesus to save them - ignoring the fact that if Jesus existed, he could've saved them long ago when they first got sick, because he knows everything.  If he exists, he chose to let them get sick and die.  Every child who dies of cancer dies because Jesus let them die.


Way to go. This thread has nothing to do with religion, and you've already started in on the Christian bashing.

/you schmuck
 
2014-09-01 09:29:26 AM  
"Last year an EU ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing came into force. However, the number of scientific animal experiments carried out in the UK is growing."

Is that a sign of backwardness in the UK or less research in Europe?
 
2014-09-01 09:36:18 AM  

Pokey.Clyde: This thread has nothing to do with religion, and you've already started in on the Christian bashing.


Yeah, I'm an atheist and this sort of language is offensive to me. Not all Christians are silly, those that are aren't silly *because* they're Christian, and there's no reason to suggest even the silly ones would object to technology in medical research.

It make the poster sound very young and sillier than the majority of Christians in the world.

(Substitute any religion up above except maybe Scientology. I can't help thinking they are all silly.)
 
2014-09-01 09:59:14 AM  
Finally... a use for lawyers....
 
2014-09-01 10:02:34 AM  

ginandbacon: Not all Christians are silly, those that are aren't silly *because* they're Christian, and there's no reason to suggest even the silly ones would object to technology in medical research.


Really? There's "no reason to suggest" that Christians might object to technology in research? There's no precedent of Christians opposing technological or medical advances based on their religious beliefs? Are you f#cking kidding me?
 
2014-09-01 10:03:35 AM  

ginandbacon: "Last year an EU ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing came into force. However, the number of scientific animal experiments carried out in the UK is growing."

Is that a sign of backwardness in the UK or less research in Europe?


Are they related all that much? There are lots of branches of science that test on animals other than the cosmetics industry.
 
2014-09-01 10:04:54 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: ginandbacon: Not all Christians are silly, those that are aren't silly *because* they're Christian, and there's no reason to suggest even the silly ones would object to technology in medical research.

Really? There's "no reason to suggest" that Christians might object to technology in research? There's no precedent of Christians opposing technological or medical advances based on their religious beliefs? Are you f#cking kidding me?


That.

Now that the religious part is out of the way, I'm gonna go take a shiat.  I'll be a more valuable use of my time.
 
2014-09-01 10:06:02 AM  
Of all of the things that won't happen this won't happen the most.
 
2014-09-01 10:08:18 AM  

ginandbacon: "Last year an EU ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing came into force. However, the number of scientific animal experiments carried out in the UK is growing."

Is that a sign of backwardness in the UK or less research in Europe?


What exactly do they test cosmetics on animals for anyway? I mean what are they trying to figure out? The thought that there are chimps running around looking like cheap hookers for science is disturbing to me.

...or is it?
 
2014-09-01 10:09:37 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: ginandbacon: Not all Christians are silly, those that are aren't silly *because* they're Christian, and there's no reason to suggest even the silly ones would object to technology in medical research.

Really? There's "no reason to suggest" that Christians might object to technology in research? There's no precedent of Christians opposing technological or medical advances based on their religious beliefs? Are you f#cking kidding me?


Do Christians oppose computers? I can only come up with the Amish as an example and they don't oppose technology, just modernity.

And why are you mixing stem cells up with microchips?
 
2014-09-01 10:10:39 AM  

Mugato: ginandbacon: "Last year an EU ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing came into force. However, the number of scientific animal experiments carried out in the UK is growing."

Is that a sign of backwardness in the UK or less research in Europe?

What exactly do they test cosmetics on animals for anyway? I mean what are they trying to figure out? The thought that there are chimps running around looking like cheap hookers for science is disturbing to me.

...or is it?


HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
 
2014-09-01 10:10:50 AM  
A better question subby, would it be cannibalism?

I had to laugh, the other day, when I saw someone create a company called Soylent -- an open sourced nutritional shake. This is their missing ingredient.
 
2014-09-01 10:11:14 AM  
Do they need healthcare?
 
2014-09-01 10:16:38 AM  

syrynxx: I'm sure some Jesus freak will object to this in 3..2..1..  because of a soul!  Can't define it, can't prove it exists, but these people object to embryonic stem cell research because of the 'soul' thing, so I'm sure they'll step up here.

Science saving human lives?  Never!  Pray for Jesus to save them - ignoring the fact that if Jesus existed, he could've saved them long ago when they first got sick, because he knows everything.  If he exists, he chose to let them get sick and die.  Every child who dies of cancer dies because Jesus let them die.


x1.fjcdn.com

*m'lady
 
2014-09-01 10:17:16 AM  

xria: ginandbacon: "Last year an EU ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing came into force. However, the number of scientific animal experiments carried out in the UK is growing."

Is that a sign of backwardness in the UK or less research in Europe?

Are they related all that much? There are lots of branches of science that test on animals other than the cosmetics industry.


I don't know, that's why I'm asking. My understanding is that 99.99% of ingredients in cosmetics have already been tested for decades so I wonder what the animal testing in the UK is. Is it on medical applications? And how much animal testing is done in Europe vs the UK if you removed cosmestic testing? It's the Daily Fail so we may never know...
 
2014-09-01 10:24:50 AM  
So back up. Are they saying they can or will be able to create organs in a lab and not depend on donors? I call dibs on the first liver. Better put me down for two.
 
2014-09-01 10:52:56 AM  

BalugaJoe: Do they need healthcare?


Maybe they need a sex change.
 
2014-09-01 10:54:24 AM  
Hard-hitting reporting from the Daily Fail.
 
2014-09-01 11:08:52 AM  
I think we all know how this will turn out

www.cinemavvenire.it
 
2014-09-01 11:09:50 AM  

nulluspixiusdemonica: Finally... a use for lawyers....


Besides target practice
 
2014-09-01 11:10:51 AM  
Kazuo Ishiguro approves
 
2014-09-01 11:12:01 AM  

loonatic112358: I think we all know how this will turn out

[www.cinemavvenire.it image 775x332]


Completely disappointing and nonsensical?
 
2014-09-01 11:13:55 AM  

Mugato: loonatic112358: I think we all know how this will turn out

[www.cinemavvenire.it image 775x332]

Completely disappointing and nonsensical?


Only when we get to the sequels

But for years people will be copying this
 
2014-09-01 11:16:17 AM  
Why not just use humans?

/I mean... we have plenty who serve no useful purpose
//Like me, for example
 
2014-09-01 11:17:32 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why not just use humans?

/I mean... we have plenty who serve no useful purpose
//Like me, for example


*puts the lotion on MMM*
 
2014-09-01 11:21:49 AM  

loonatic112358: Only when we get to the sequels

But for years people will be copying this


Well not to get off on a tangent here but originally it was supposed to be that humans's brains were used as a sort of serial processor for the machines but the studio suits thought that was too complicated and that's why they changed it to human batteries, which makes a lot less sense. Humans don't generate that much energy to run those big ass machines. Why not just use cows? They're bigger and don't require a matrix to survive. But I digress.
 
2014-09-01 11:22:23 AM  

ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why not just use humans?

/I mean... we have plenty who serve no useful purpose
//Like me, for example

*puts the lotion on MMM*


I am gettin' paid for this, right?

/right?
 
2014-09-01 11:25:52 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why not just use humans?

/I mean... we have plenty who serve no useful purpose
//Like me, for example


How close are we to actually cloning humans? Like in that movie The Island that got sued for ripping off that other movie. I realize it's more complicated than cloning a pig or whatever they can do now but will they eventually do it?

I bet if the Nazis won the war we'd have cloned humans by now.
 
2014-09-01 11:28:25 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why not just use humans?

/I mean... we have plenty who serve no useful purpose
//Like me, for example

*puts the lotion on MMM*

I am gettin' paid for this, right?

/right?


Me doing that to anyone is payment enough.
 
2014-09-01 11:34:42 AM  
There was an incredibly creepy Judge Dredd story about twenty five years back with these yellow synthetic humanoids who were having various diseases tested on them. The guy looking after them can't take it anymore and burns down the facility.

Unfortunately all my attempts to locate that story are only turning up the thirty five year old story "The Guinea Pig that Changed the Law", which has, I believe, the only legislation named for Joe Dredd - "The Dredd Act", banning medical experimentation on animals.

Any old British farkers remember the first story I'm thinking of?
 
2014-09-01 11:35:14 AM  

ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why not just use humans?

/I mean... we have plenty who serve no useful purpose
//Like me, for example

*puts the lotion on MMM*

I am gettin' paid for this, right?

/right?

Me doing that to anyone is payment enough.


Point taken

/oooh... right there
 
2014-09-01 11:40:57 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: ginandbacon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why not just use humans?

/I mean... we have plenty who serve no useful purpose
//Like me, for example

*puts the lotion on MMM*

I am gettin' paid for this, right?

/right?

Me doing that to anyone is payment enough.

Point taken

/oooh... right there


Cheeky monkey.
 
2014-09-01 11:41:00 AM  

Mugato: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why not just use humans?

/I mean... we have plenty who serve no useful purpose
//Like me, for example

How close are we to actually cloning humans? Like in that movie The Island that got sued for ripping off that other movie. I realize it's more complicated than cloning a pig or whatever they can do now but will they eventually do it?

I bet if the Nazis won the war we'd have cloned humans by now.


We could do it right now. The problems are many fold though (and not speaking ethically here) the most prevalent being that the cells you take to clone are basically the age of the body.

So take a 50 year old man, clone him, and the child will have all the age-related health issues of a 50 year.
 
2014-09-01 11:57:59 AM  
After reading the article I'm sadly disappointed that this wasn't another case of science imitating Spinal Tap's Sex Farm.
 
2014-09-01 12:00:47 PM  

Mugato: loonatic112358: Only when we get to the sequels

But for years people will be copying this

Well not to get off on a tangent here but originally it was supposed to be that humans's brains were used as a sort of serial processor for the machines but the studio suits thought that was too complicated and that's why they changed it to human batteries, which makes a lot less sense. Humans don't generate that much energy to run those big ass machines. Why not just use cows? They're bigger and don't require a matrix to survive. But I digress.


That argument makes more sense and also proves that studio execs are less useful then cows
 
2014-09-01 12:03:34 PM  

syrynxx: I'm sure some Jesus freak will object to this in 3..2..1..  because of a soul!  Can't define it, can't prove it exists, but these people object to embryonic stem cell research because of the 'soul' thing, so I'm sure they'll step up here.

Science saving human lives?  Never!  Pray for Jesus to save them - ignoring the fact that if Jesus existed, he could've saved them long ago when they first got sick, because he knows everything.  If he exists, he chose to let them get sick and die.  Every child who dies of cancer dies because Jesus let them die.


I just wanted to post a picture from Doctor Who, but you ruined the thread.
 
2014-09-01 12:05:36 PM  
Will these be grown in axlotl tanks?
 
2014-09-01 12:19:12 PM  

Mugato: loonatic112358: Only when we get to the sequels

But for years people will be copying this

Well not to get off on a tangent here but originally it was supposed to be that humans's brains were used as a sort of serial processor for the machines but the studio suits thought that was too complicated and that's why they changed it to human batteries, which makes a lot less sense. Humans don't generate that much energy to run those big ass machines. Why not just use cows? They're bigger and don't require a matrix to survive. But I digress.


I'd pay to see The Mootrix.
 
2014-09-01 12:34:17 PM  
PETA will keep on killing housepets cause that is what they o best. they are anti domestication of any kind.
 
2014-09-01 12:49:00 PM  

loonatic112358: I think we all know how this will turn out

[www.cinemavvenire.it image 775x332]


Nope.

www.nexusroute.co.uk
 
2014-09-01 12:59:45 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: ginandbacon: Not all Christians are silly, those that are aren't silly *because* they're Christian, and there's no reason to suggest even the silly ones would object to technology in medical research.

Really? There's "no reason to suggest" that Christians might object to technology in research? There's no precedent of Christians opposing technological or medical advances based on their religious beliefs? Are you f#cking kidding me?


On the other hand, if someone were to make a generalized statement about Muslims being backwards and anti-science, well that would be just wrong.
 
2014-09-01 01:12:43 PM  
Should I go with The Island reference

thisdistractedglobe.com

or the Never Let Me Go reference?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-09-01 01:19:04 PM  
I don't know about those "human on a chip" microprocessors.  I wonder if they really will react correctly?  I have my doubts.

Just making farms of (partial/whole) clones though... that would work.  No I don't think it would be any more unethical than raising cattle.  I think we should be doing this now, except for the objection of the fundies.

kroonermanblack: We could do it right now. The problems are many fold though (and not speaking ethically here) the most prevalent being that the cells you take to clone are basically the age of the body.

So take a 50 year old man, clone him, and the child will have all the age-related health issues of a 50 year.


I can't help but think you are very much mistaken here.  DNA does not change with age.  DNA can be damaged by environmental factors such as certain chemicals, radiation, etc. There may be some cells in your body where the DNA is slightly different due to occasional errors in copying as well.  But generally the DNA you have now is the DNA you where born with.  Although the telomeres would be shorter.  The information needed to clone you is all still there, and your clone would have to grow from scratch thus will start a embryo, then to a fetus, then to a baby, etc.  Normal growth processes.

There is no such thing as cloning an aged creature as far as I have seen.  If this has been accomplished (perhaps somehow using the adult stem cells?) then I would require a good citation to believe it.
 
2014-09-01 01:35:30 PM  

kieran57: Of all of the things that won't happen this won't happen the most.

Agreed

bk3k: I don't know about those "human on a chip" microprocessors.  I wonder if they really will react correctly?  I have my doubts...
I can't help but think you are very much mistaken here.  DNA does not change with age.  DNA can be damaged by environmental factors such as certain chemicals, radiation, etc. There may be some cells in your body where the DNA is slightly different due to occasional errors in copying as well.  But


They won't work. I'm studying how 5 parts of the brain intact to control blood pressure.  We also have to factor in kidneys,  adrenals,  vasculature, and the heart. Good luck designing a chip fir that and still figuring out how to include the parts we don't actually know about yet. How so you make a model for discovery?  How do you find what you need on chips or what program it should run without studying it in vivo first?
As for DNA, read up on age related damage in mitochondrial DNA. Not saying cloning couldn't work around it,  but strange things happen with age.
 
2014-09-01 01:36:33 PM  

loonatic112358: I think we all know how this will turn out

[www.cinemavvenire.it image 775x332]


If the machines offered me basically the virtual version of a holodeck capable of doing whatever I want? I'm in.
 
2014-09-01 01:38:08 PM  

loonatic112358: Mugato: loonatic112358: Only when we get to the sequels

But for years people will be copying this

Well not to get off on a tangent here but originally it was supposed to be that humans's brains were used as a sort of serial processor for the machines but the studio suits thought that was too complicated and that's why they changed it to human batteries, which makes a lot less sense. Humans don't generate that much energy to run those big ass machines. Why not just use cows? They're bigger and don't require a matrix to survive. But I digress.

That argument makes more sense and also proves that studio execs are less useful then cows


Well I have first hand knowledge of that.
 
2014-09-01 01:46:15 PM  

bk3k: Just making farms of (partial/whole) clones though... that would work.  No I don't think it would be any more unethical than raising cattle.  I think we should be doing this now, except for the objection of the fundies.


Well, what is your definition of a "whole" clone? Forgive me if I fail to understand the concept here, but does this hypothetical clone have a human brain that functions at some level controlling a fully integrated body? That part to me is key to "wholeness". Once you have an integrated, functioning human organism, even if it's only functioning on the level of a retard, then sorry but you've got a person there, with the right to life the same as anyone else.

/And don't take the above to mean I am against abortion. A fetus is not a fully integrated organism as it (mostly) depends on the mother to live. I suppose there's room for argument about later stages where it's potentially viable outside the womb, but that's a whole other discussion.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report