[cleanair (OP)]

I repeat, if you can't define truth, you can't suggest that science (or philosophy - I forget which) is a search for truth. No sane man would set out on a search without knowing how he would recognise his goal when he found it, and most of the scientists I know are sane.

A philosophers task may be to construct a concept of truth that is used to make suggestions for proper human behaviour. Science is an example of supposed proper human behaviour. Philosophy would first construct a concept of truth (e.g. "the result of a process of rigorous testing and re-examination of data") and with that, it could construct a method for achieving results, the scientific method.

This theoretical construction process could be described as a search for truth. Ultimately however, "truth" in this example remains merely a philosophical concept.

With regard to the synthetic biology revolution. What is life? How could you responsibly or intelligently start to "redesign" life without being able to answer the basic question what life is?

It appears that the assumption that there is nothing more than the truth that the scientific method can prove, could be at the basis of the synthetic biology revolution.

I shared the following argument in the OT:

"If it is not known where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed."

Truth with regard to the origin of life may be of a different nature then the outcome of the scientific method can logically provide (non-physical). Thus, it may need a new philosophical concept for truth.

[cleanair (OP)]

You mention value. Who determines that value?

The customer, of course. At one end, we can use the scientific method to cure disease or avert a disaster; at the other, folk are intrigued or entertained in a planetarium. Cash or applause are always welcome.

Philosophy could be a more robust approach to testing the validity of ideas with regard to a definition of value in its context.

An example: moral outrage. On the one end: a clear demand (value as defined by the emotions of people). In philosophy the subject could be examined from a more outsiders perspective to weigh in other factors that may be relevant in order to determine the best path forward for humanity. It doesn't instruct people to do things, it merely provides theoretical constructs (concepts) that could be accepted into the human realism. Science is an example of a philosophical construct that is accepted into the human realism.

[alancalverd]

Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?

[cleanair (OP)]

Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?

You can add science to the list. Philosophy doesn't instruct people to do things. It is merely an attempt to add intelligence to human behaviour such as the practice of science.

In the hands of a scientist, philosophy may have a good effect for humanity.

You may be correct that philosophy can be abused. In essence, the synthetic biology revolution may also be based on a philosophical concept.

The question in this topic is: what is the philosophical concept (intelligent idea) behind the synthetic biology revolution?

(repeated) The Economist reports that the synthetic biology revolution is 'unguided', apparently purely driven by market (money). What is the 'good intention' of such a practice while considering that, while in its infancy, it is already at 400 billion USD per year in revenue in the US.

[alancalverd]

OK, let's assume that, since philosophers assert that all intellectual and anti-intellectual endeavour is a branch of philosophy, philosophy is the root of all evil. So what?

Merely putting "intelligent idea" in brackets does not confer any merit on a philosophical concept. Looking back at the geocentric universe, transubstantiation, eugenics, and a thousand other philosophical concepts, I don't see much evidence of intelligence. Arrogance, in spades.

It is also worth noting that economists claim that all human activity is economic. Like philosophers, they are rarely in agreement and never right.

Yes, genetic engineering is driven by economics. If you can produce a disease-resistant, glyphosate-tolerant edible crop that doesn't rot or sprout in storage, you can feed the world and make a profit for your investors. I can't think of any ethical objection to either, unless you think that pension funds are a Bad Thing.

By "unguided" I assume you mean "free from the interference of ignorant busybodies". I'm sure that the scientists and accountants who are running the business have a pretty good idea of what they are doing, and why. My only concerns are the repeated failure of gene therapy - a humanistic problem of raised and dashed expectations - and the potential for global food monopoly (imagine Monsanto being as successful as Microsoft). I haven't met an economist or a philosopher who had a sensible solution for either, but doctors and farmers are worth talking to.   

[cleanair (OP)]

OK, let's assume that, since philosophers assert that all intellectual and anti-intellectual endeavour is a branch of philosophy, philosophy is the root of all evil. So what?

Philosophy is an attempt to define what may not be definable. It could serve human behaviour by providing a concept for intelligence. The result (philosophical concept) would be an estimate based on a perspective on humans in time. It could be based on values that change over time.

What is value? It may be that in modern times humans may be better equipped to weigh relevant matters to provide an ethical meaning to value.

In essence it could also be argued that humans would return to an ancient wisdom: think before you act.

Yes, genetic engineering is driven by economics. If you can produce a disease-resistant, glyphosate-tolerant edible crop that doesn't rot or sprout in storage, you can feed the world and make a profit for your investors. I can't think of any ethical objection to either, unless you think that pension funds are a Bad Thing.

What I am missing is an intelligent argumentation or idea (a philosophical concept) that clearly advocates that pursuing a synthetic biology revolution is essential for human progress.

It appears that it is a dumb practice (unguided) that coincidentally enables to generate massive amounts of money for bio-tech companies, an industry that sprung out of Big Pharma of which the ethical foundation for existence has been questionable.

Making money on disease creates an incentive to promote disease with chronic disease as the ideal situation. Essentially, with their massive often ill gotten funds, Big Pharma invested into bio-tech to secure further growth. The origin of the bio-tech industry may be corruption for a large part.

As mentioned before, humans figuratively speaking started out of a cave and when weighing the potential for natural disaster against not making progress sufficiently fast could be in favor of the latter by definition. I can see from a political perspective that simply enabling Big Pharma companies to create research capacity sufficiently fast by any means would be in favor of humanity. In the case of a major species threatening event, the capacity of Big Pharma can be 100% dedicated to solving the problem.

At present times however, an argument could be that humans should evolve and put intelligence before practice.

The potential for exponential growth could heighten the risk of letting it run dumb. A mistake can potentially cause a disaster for the human species or even nature on earth.

Therefore the question in this topic: what is the intelligent idea or driving force behind the synthetic biology revolution? (if there is any, considering that The Economist reported it to be "unguided")

This forum has changed my perspective on genetic engineering a lot, but the question has remained unanswered and I haven't seen any valid arguments or theoretical concepts to advocate for a synthetic biology revolution.

Feeding the world population is cute but it is not a philosophical concept or an intelligent argumentation that justifies the root of the practice. It would merely be a proposed side effect that could be beneficial to some poor people in the world, as if Big Pharma would care for them.

[alancalverd]

Philosophy is an attempt to define what may not be definable.

This is more commonly known as intellectual masturbation.

It could serve human behaviour by providing a concept for intelligence.

We have a perfectly good definition: the ability to use information. Or even better: the ability to surprise an observer.

What I am missing is an intelligent argumentation or idea (a philosophical concept) that clearly advocates that persuing a synthetic biology revolution is essential for human progress.

Farming, medicine. You might argue that medicine in the long term takes humanity backwards by improving the survival of the least fit, but a fair slice of Nazism already rests on that philosophical foundation, so the job has been done and recorded.

Philosophically guided biology has led to mass starvation (Lysenko - wheat, Mao - sparrows). Suit yourself, but Amartya Sen has a very different perspective on famine: it has never happened in a capitalist democracy.

Making money on disease creates an incentive to promote disease with chronic disease as the ideal situation.

Not sure what you mean by "promote disease" - I'm not aware of anyone advocating or intentionally spreading more disease. Anyway, in a free society you are at liberty to refuse treatment. Your cancer, your choice. Most people prefer to pay for research and treatment. Obviously I'm biased as my pension fund is partly invested in chronic diagnostics and if people with back pain or lung disease all decided that suicide was preferable, I'd be a bit short of cash. 

 

think before you act

Not merely ancient but current wisdom. In fact I've never heard anyone advocating anything else. Politicians may appear to act without concern for the harm they may do, but your death is inconsequential if it leads to their re-election, and that is always carefully planned. 

Frankly, you are a bit late on the scene. What you call synthetic biology has been going on for at least 40,000 and possibly 200,000 years. It's just in the last 100 years that we have got a lot better at it, with far less waste and suffering involved. The intelligent idea behind most human progress is "more" or "better". But The Economist won't sell many copies if they only contain two words.

[cleanair (OP)]

Philosophy is an attempt to define what may not be definable.

This is more commonly known as intellectual masturbation.

The validity of that analogy would depend on the concept of truth. As mentioned before, the origin of life, of the human mind and of the Universe may need a new concept of truth, other than 'the result of the scientific method'.

It could serve human behaviour by providing a concept for intelligence.

We have a perfectly good definition: the ability to use information. Or even better: the ability to surprise an observer.

To what would a mere "ability to use information" lead humanity to? And how can that result be declared "good"? There may be more to intelligence then a mere use of information, it may also be about how to use information and for that aspect philosophy could add an intelligent structure. (an attempt, but verified by among others, you/scientists).

Philosophy would become in effect when it is accepted into the human realism. Before that happens, you would need to accept it as a reality, like you essentially have done with the scientific method.

A quote from Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) that I mentioned before:

The objective man, who no longer curses and scolds like the pessimist, the IDEAL man of learning in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand of one who is more powerful He is only an instrument, we may say, he is a MIRROR - he is no "purpose in himself"

Making money on disease creates an incentive to promote disease with chronic disease as the ideal situation.

Not sure what you mean by "promote disease" - I'm not aware of anyone advocating or intentionally spreading more disease. Anyway, in a free society you are at liberty to refuse treatment. Your cancer, your choice. Most people prefer to pay for research and treatment. Obviously I'm biased as my pension fund is partly invested in chronic diagnostics and if people with back pain or lung disease all decided that suicide was preferable, I'd be a bit short of cash. 

It is about the incentive, the reward system, and it's logical effectuality. The mindset is basically "if you don't do it, another (company) will.". It's either take that grey area billion USD extra or lose the fight to survive.

If chronic illness is the money maker, why wouldn't companies naturally pursue that result?

There is a ton of evidence by the way but that may be more suitable for a topic dedicated on the subject.

Frankly, you are a bit late on the scene. What you call synthetic biology has been going on for at least 40,000 and possibly 200,000 years. It's just in the last 100 years that we have got a lot better at it, with far less waste and suffering involved. The intelligent idea behind most human progress is "more" or "better". But The Economist won't sell many copies if they only contain two words.

The Economist did mention corporate corruption on the cover. May it have been a hint (for thinking)?


economist-gmo.jpg (60.71 kB . 400x526 - viewed 3850 times)

I do not agree with the argument that a market driven synthetic biology revolution could be compared with humans selecting plants or animals for farming and thereby influencing the natural evolution of parts of nature for their advantage.

The primary question is: what is life? How can you responsibly or intelligently start to "redesign" life without being able to provide an answer to the basic question what life is?

It appears that the assumption that there is nothing more than the truth that the scientific method can prove (uniformitarianism) could be at the basis of the synthetic biology revolution.

A multi-trillion USD endeavor is hard to undo or change.

With the risks introduced by exponential growth, a mistake can potentially cause a disaster for the human species or even nature on earth. Therefor it may be extra important to think before you act instead of letting companies run dumb.

From Big Pharma's perspective. Maybe all that they want at the root is to continue growth, to repeat it's history by being allowed to uncontrollably pursue maximum progress for science?

[alancalverd]

As mentioned before, the origin of life, of the human mind and of the Universe may need a new concept of truth, other than 'the result of the scientific method'.

Baffling set of words. The scientific method produces scientific knowledge. Truth is undefined. There is a useful concept of "true value" in metrology but nobody ever claims to have found it!

To what would a mere "ability to use information" lead humanity to? And how can that result be declared "good"?

It has got us to where we are, rather than where philosophy would have left us, at every stage in the evolution of society. Whether it is "good" depends on your assessment of the status quo, but I think most people would prefer to be here and now rather than in the stone age, pre-human Africa, or in any corrupt theocracy (hint - they are all corrupt).

If chronic illness is the money maker, why wouldn't companies naturally pursue that result?

It is, and they do. Are you suggesting that there is something morally wrong with treating cancer?

What do  you have against billion-dollar companies? Would you prefer to see drug trials abandoned or scaled down to a few animal experiments only (remember thalidomide - perfectly safe when tested on rabbits). It costs millions to bring a drug to market and 90% never make it. Nobody is going to invest in R&D at that level of risk unless there is a potential profit at the end, and enough capital at the beginning to carry the program through.  The objective of investment isn't to beat your competitor, but to make an ethical profit: in most industries the guy who comes second makes the most money because he has funded fewer mistakes.

How can you responsibly or intelligently start to "redesign" life without being able to provide an answer to the basic question what life is?

Straw man. AFAIK nobody is trying to redesign life or even define it. You can make a faster car without defining convenience, and you can breed a fatter pig without defining life.

Uniformitarianism is an absurd philosophical and religious concept with no relationship to science. We have not observed any change in the laws of physics over the short time that we have been looking, but it is obvious that the timeless laws we have invented are incomplete (they don't describe what happened before the Big Bang) and only tested over a short distance (the observable universe).

Your argument becomes increasingly (exponentially?) incoherent as it progresses, but we can agree that growth is not necessarily a Good Thing. Problem is that economists and politicians can't think of anything else that is measurable. I resigned from a government-backed initiative some years ago. I had set up a club for manufacturers to collaborate in bringing their products to fruition, but government funding redefined our mission: to make a region of the EU "competitive". Competitive with what? Another region, of course. And if we achieved our objective, our citizens would have to pay more tax to support an initiative in the other region, ad infinitum. Bollocks.
 

[cleanair (OP)]

Baffling set of words. The scientific method produces scientific knowledge. Truth is undefined. There is a useful concept of "true value" in metrology but nobody ever claims to have found it!

Maybe the term validity of concept would be more appropriate. Could the scientific method result in a definition of validity of a concept for the origin of life, for the human mind or for the Universe?

It has got us to where we are, rather than where philosophy would have left us, at every stage in the evolution of society. Whether it is "good" depends on your assessment of the status quo, but I think most people would prefer to be here and now rather than in the stone age, pre-human Africa, or in any corrupt theocracy (hint - they are all corrupt).

As mentioned in a previous post, humans figuratively speaking started out of a cave and any progress was almost by definition of value. It may be that ultimately thinking (philosophy as a science) about what is actually done may become essential BEFORE major endeavors such as a synthetic biology revolution are initiated.

If chronic illness is the money maker, why wouldn't companies naturally pursue that result?

It is, and they do. Are you suggesting that there is something morally wrong with treating cancer?

What do  you have against billion-dollar companies?

It is nothing personal. I am pointing at a reward system that may be flawed. If chronic disease is the money maker then I don't think that you have to try to defend how ethical companies or it's leaders can be. Massive amounts of profound corruption scandals over the years have provided an insight that we should look at the consequences of the reward system with the assumption that no ethical behavior of companies can be expected. The outcome doesn't seem to serve humanity.

It is Big Pharma that is fueling the synthetic biology revolution.

Big pharma raises bet on biotech as frontier for growth

In the past month (January 2019) Big Pharma spent almost $100bn on acquisitions in bio-tech.

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/80a21ca2-136b-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e

$ 100bn per month is $ 1.2 trillion USD per year of funds from Big Pharma funneled to bio-tech that funds the synthetic biology revolution.

The Economist reported that synthetic biology, while in it's infancy, is at $ 400 billion USD revenue per year (2% of US GDP).

It is a unimaginable large force that directly impacts the well-being of animals and plants on a very large scale. The $ 1.2 trillion USD investment (per year) will boost the impact in the next years, potentially resulting in new exponential growth related risks.

The biggest problem may be that the synthetic biology revolution out of sight from people. Big Pharma operated on humans with families that provided a level of oversight and scrutiny. Major corruption still happened but there was some level of ethical scrutiny that (hopefully) could prevent catastrophic forms of corruption.

When Big Pharma-like companies operate out of sight on nature that cannot speak for itself, what could the consequences be?

How can you responsibly or intelligently start to "redesign" life without being able to provide an answer to the basic question what life is?

Straw man. AFAIK nobody is trying to redesign life or even define it. You can make a faster car without defining convenience, and you can breed a fatter pig without defining life.

That's not in correspondence with what can be extracted from the report in The Economist:

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.

The report presents the practice as an attempt to redesign life (nature) to serve human interests. Primarily the interests, as it appears, of Big Pharma like companies.

Synthetic biology is a step further than introducing genetic changes to for example a pig. With Big Pharma investing +$1 trillion USD per year in bio-tech, what will the effect be on plants and animals?

Your argument becomes increasingly (exponentially?) incoherent as it progresses, but we can agree that growth is not necessarily a Good Thing. Problem is that economists and politicians can't think of anything else that is measurable. I resigned from a government-backed initiative some years ago. I had set up a club for manufacturers to collaborate in bringing their products to fruition, but government funding redefined our mission: to make a region of the EU "competitive". Competitive with what? Another region, of course. And if we achieved our objective, our citizens would have to pay more tax to support an initiative in the other region, ad infinitum. Bollocks.

I am not into politics. This post wasn't started to argue what's right or wrong or how the world should be. It was merely started to ask a question to gather insights with regard to a practice that appears to have no intelligent concept to justify it. Before I started it, I didn't know what type of arguments there could be in favor of a synthetic biology revolution.

On other forums the defense had generally been: why care? There is no evidence that it causes harm, so why not do it? I hoped to discover more intelligent arguments with regard to the motive to start such a great endeavor.

With regard to it being right or wrong.

There is a worldwide movement among young people towards veganism. People are increasingly paying attention to animal welfare and meat consumption is falling fast.

Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat

A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2018/03/23/millennials-move-away-from-meat/#210b03f3a4a4

The choice seems simple. Is it still justified to eat animals if a plant-based diet provides greater vitality and therefore a better chance of survival for humans?

Developments in Animal Ethics provide an increasing basis for empathy and understanding for animals and therefore the ability to formulate ethics for animals.

Another reason for scientists to engage with the philosophy of animal ethics is that it might help them confront topics that have been traditionally off-limits: in particular, the notion of animal minds. While minds are difficult enough to talk about in humans, this difficulty is exacerbated when it comes to non-human animals.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/animals-science-behaviour-and-ethics

In the meantime, however, a GMO practice is underway that could cause unprecedented greater damage and suffering to nature than the meat industry has ever caused in its entire existence.

It seems strange.

The Economist calls the synthetic biology revolution (GMO) an unguided practice. That is a red flag (a warning).

What effect will the $ 1.2 trillion USD of Big Pharma investment for 2019 have on plants and animals?

[alancalverd]

validity of concept

More meaningless words! If by "concept" you mean "hypothesis", then science is all about testing the validity of hypotheses. There are some concepts such as energy, that have significant utility. Linguistic precision is important. The "definition of a concept for the origin of life" is meaningless, but a sound hypothesis for the primordial evolution of living things would be interesting.

thinking (philosophy as a science) about what is actually done may become essential

I've never knowingly done an experiment or developed a product or process without thinking about it first, and my clients, shareholders colleagues and regulatory authorities think about it too, when necessary. What are we trying to measure/demonstrate/build? Why? And more importantly, why not? "Fishing" is only undertaken in very restricted circumstances. George Bush Senior (not the idiot son) explained his Balkan strategy thus: "No President should commit ground troops unless he can tell them who they are fighting, what they are fighting for, how they will know they have won, and what will happen when they go home." Pity GW and the British Arselicker didn't listen, but I've never met a scientist who didn't apply the same criteria to any planned venture.

$ 100bn per month is $ 1.2 trillion USD per year of funds from Big Pharma funneled to bio-tech that funds the synthetic biology revolution.

'Twas ever thus, and ever should be. Individual  genius tends not to flourish in big corporations - you can spend more time in the boardroom than on the workbench. But venture capitalists are always looking to sponsor small companies with big ideas, and once the pioneers have demonstrated the feasibility of their idea, it's time to sell out to a corporation with enough muscle to put it into production. I've just done it twice in a year, and I'm delighted to get on with the next invention and not have to worry about Phase 3 clinical trials, packaging and marketing.

life could be transformed....

meaningless journalese. The nearest anyone has come to a definition of life is "the abstract property that distinguishes living things from non-living things". You can't modify an abstract by combining physical entities.

The world shift away from meat is illusory. Meat consumption in China is rising faster than it is falling in the West. However www.iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-7058/18/7/46/pdf is an article I wrote 14 years ago that explains why it would be useful to reduce the population of farm animals as a test of the carbon dioxide global warming hypothesis. My thesis was developed for the World Bank by a couple of American economists and is now part of UN and UK longterm policy. I'm pleased to see the NAS* is now on board.  Watch out for a film "Eating ourselves to Extinction" which should be out next year (it was promised for this year - I hope they haven't edited my scene out!)

It is absurd to suggest that other species do not have minds like ours. Only a priest or a philosopher could promulgate such ignorance of the obvious facts. Indeed priests are proven guilty by eliminating the "nefesh" of other species from the christian translations of Genesis. Why? Because there was money in bear-baiting! So economics is guilty too.

What effect will the $ 1.2 trillion USD of Big Pharma investment for 2019 have on plants and animals?

None, compared with the effect of 7 - 8 billion people eating them. Or killing each other in order to acquire land to grow more. 

I hoped to discover more intelligent arguments with regard to the motive to start such a great endeavour

I answered that some way back. "More" or "better" is the motive for any endeavour, and in an honest marketplace, a better product earns more money. Stormzy is worth a lot more than Mozart ever was, QED.


*As this was the organisation that told the Wright Brothers "there is no conceivable use for the airplane", maybe it's not such a good endorsement - but we all make mistakes.

[cleanair (OP)]

Watch out for a film "Eating ourselves to Extinction" which should be out next year (it was promised for this year - I hope they haven't edited my scene out!)

9 million cows in the US may soon be unable to re-produce. A disaster.

The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction

“Inbreeding is accumulating faster than it ever has,” Dechow says.

https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed-cows-is-setting-them-up-for-extinction/

A mistake by flawed science of the past that in this case could wipe out the cow. It is an example why caution with a synthetic biology revolution may be essential.

It is absurd to suggest that other species do not have minds like ours.

A Dutch saying is "What you don't know, doesn't bother you". 

Many people appear to consider animals as meaningless humps of nutrients. Many people truly believe that for example the purpose of a cow is to be food for humans. The problem may be knowledge. A lack of ability to understand a potential problem with how they perceive and treat animals.

The field animal ethics of philosophy could make a change in the way humans perceive animals. The knowledge that it creates can fuel a culture shift in science and humanity.

It is essentially very simple: animal minds have been considered a "black box" by science. It wasn't given attention and thus people in general didn't know anything about it and cannot understand a problem with treating animals in a specific way (i.e. without respect).

Another reason for scientists to engage with the philosophy of animal ethics is that it might help them confront topics that have been traditionally off-limits: in particular, the notion of animal minds. While minds are difficult enough to talk about in humans, this difficulty is exacerbated when it comes to non-human animals.

... animal minds and consciousness have been consigned to a “black box”, an entity too complex or confusing to delve into, but whose inputs and outputs become the object of study.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/animals-science-behaviour-and-ethics

Recent developments in animal ethics provide an increasing basis for empathy and understanding for animals and therefore the ability to formulate ethics for animals.

Animal ethics evolves on the basis of advancements in intelligence and empathy. It could be an argument that humans should choose wisely if they have the capacity to do so. A greater capacity in intelligence and empathy for animals may come with new responsibilities.

[alancalverd]

9 million cows in the US may soon be unable to re-produce. A disaster.

Not for the cows, many of which suffer greatly during calving. Nor for the environment. Bit of a bummer for the farmers, perhaps, but there's plenty of choice of subspecies.

A mistake by flawed science of the past that in this case could wipe out the cow.

No, just those breeds that can't. They are all derived from wild species, so there's still a decent gene pool available.

Recent developments in animal ethics

Philosophical arrogance. The RSPCA was founded in 1824, American Humane in 1877. Time to catch up with reality!