[dkjaudyeqooe]

The next logical step is to breed pigs with organs that especially suit humans, maybe with some genetic engineering to optimise them. I really can't see anyone needing an organ complaining that they're GMO.

As long as we treat animals well while they're alive (and why wouldn't you, you want high quality low stress organs) then there's really no limit here, morally.

[roywiggins]

That's what they've done here, this are GMO pigs designed to be more compatible with human biology.

> The heart transplanted into Mr. Bennett came from a genetically altered pig provided by Revivicor, a regenerative medicine company based in Blacksburg, Va.

> The pig had 10 genetic modifications. Four genes were knocked out, or inactivated, including one that encodes a molecule that causes an aggressive human rejection response.

> A growth gene was also inactivated to prevent the pig’s heart from continuing to grow after it was implanted, said Dr. Mohiuddin,who, with Dr. Griffith, did much of the research leading up to the transplant.

> In addition, six human genes were inserted into the genome of the donor pig — modifications designed to make the porcine organs more tolerable to the human immune system.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/health/heart-transplant-p...

[zo1]

Wow, great info. Very low-key and subtle, but the future is arriving slowly, one pig gene modification at a time!

[nottorp]

I now wonder if this guy will have to pay licensing costs for the copyright on the genes the rest of his (admittedly freshly prolonged) life...

[Cthulhu_]

Depends on whether he's going to use his heart to create more GMO pigs.

I mean if you buy a book that's it. You don't get a license to redistribute, but you get an unlimited license to read and use the book for whatever. That's how copyright law works.

[Buttons840]

And then the next step is to do research showing that pigs that are happy, stress free, and eat a good diet produce organs that are better for transplant. If so, this might be one of the most ethical animal industries.

[tonyedgecombe]

Maybe we could grow happy, stress free and well fed human beings. Then we wouldn't need so many transplants in the first place.

[Cthulhu_]

Oh we can, there was this guy in Germany that failed art school, he had a couple mates, they figured that with good genes, training and education they could...

You see where this is going, right? Oh, what you describe actually might fit the book Brave New World as well.

Anyway yeah I know what you mean, this is why things like education, well-paying low-stress jobs, housing, health care, access to food are so important. They encourage an overall healthy and happy population without imposing on them.

But the US is a bit of a shithole in that regard; low paying jobs, food deserts, financial worries, crippling debts to pay for a lifestyle that people can't afford but need, etc. The country and its policies are self-destructive, and, dare I say it, a kind of economic eugenics - if you're too poor to afford health care you'll be removed from the gene pool.

[Chris2048]

> You see where this is going, right?

Yes, a slippery-slope argument that all gene manipulation leads to eugenics.

Here's the counterpoint: The Nazis (and eugenicists / race-scientists in general) used the authority of science, but didn't actually do good science (and slipped in a lot of stuff that was pure ideology); so actual science is automatically different.

[account42]

But happy, stress free and well fed pigs are probably cheaper.

[moffkalast]

Or they could take a page from the semiconductor industry and replace human hearts with 128 genetically modified mouse hearts in an array.

[inglor_cz]

The problems of aging would creep on them later, but it isn't as if happy, stress free and well fed people stay healthy forever.

Aging is a process that affects everyone, the only thing that you can influence a bit is speed thereof.

[madaxe_again]

Ah, but the human is more economically productive than the pig, particularly when taken as a cohort, and healthcare and happiness are expensive - and there is therefore a point of diminishing returns for increased happiness and health.

It makes more sense to allow a certain portion of your population to die of preventable causes than to make them all happy, as the current net goal is economic productivity, not human happiness. This is demonstrated aptly by the lack of socialised healthcare in much of the world, and where it does exist, the relative paucity of resources provided.

So, while I agree in spirit with what you posit, capitalism and the value axis it brings has to die first.

[kevin_thibedeau]

It would be better if you got to keep the meat rather than letting it go to waste. Then you could indulge in autophagy by proxy.

[gpm]

If we're genetically modifying the pigs to be more like humans, I wonder if there would be health risks with eating the meat - specifically from prions. Similar to those that come from eating humans. Admittedly probably negligible until we modify them a heck of a lot more than we are right now (if they do theoretically exist).

[gambiting]

Prions don't appear from thin air - and you can already get deadly prions eating meat, the reason why you don't is the same why you don't get all kinds of deadly diseases from meat - it's (usually) well regulated and any outbreaks are immediately culled. A pig genetically modified to be "more like a human" wouldn't spontaniously get deadly prions.

[nicoburns]

Apparently they have recently granted permission for these (type of) pigs to be sold for meat so those who suffer with alpha-gal syndrome (and are thus allergic to regular meat) can eat it. So I’m guessing by not.

[roywiggins]

I think the ones approved for consumption don't have the full set of genetic modifications used for this transplant, they just have the alpha-gal change.

[wizzwizz4]

Pigs are already similar enough to humans that there are major risks from parasites; I don't think the small modifications we've seen so far would significantly increase prion risk.

[tjader]

The pig kidney and heart recently transplanted have already been genetically engineered. So far it's only to avoid rejection, but other modifications are likely on the roadmap.

[Pxtl]

In TFA that's actually what they describe - the pig was genetically engineered to reduce rejection and to control the growth of the heart to stay human-sized.

[dgellow]

> As long as we treat animals well while they're alive (and why wouldn't you, you want high quality low stress organs) then there's really no limit here, morally.

We have a really, really, horrible history of treating animals. It's obvious we wouldn't treat them well.

[siva7]

As long as we treat humans well while they're alive (and why wouldn't you, you want high quality low stress organs) then there's really no limit here, morally.

[mapme]

Wouldn’t you need to kill the animal in the prime of its life, causing a moral issue?

[drenvuk]

Pigs reach slaughter weight at about 6 months[0] and the lifetime of a domestic pig is 15 to 20 years. Their breeding age is 8+ months. So we kill them before they reach the prime of their life most of the time. Killing them at their prime might be less of a moral issue than what we do currently.

[0]https://modernfarmer.com/2016/05/raising-pigs/#:~:text=Most%....

[mapme]

That is an interesting comparison to other reasons why we kill animals, however, the point wasn’t a relative moral comparison to animal slaughter for food purposes but that it’s not zero cost morality wise to kill an animal in its prime.

[drenvuk]

It's not zero cost morality wise to kill anything at any point in their lifetime; from bacteria, to worms, to flies, to pigs each has its own weight on a person's conscience be it nil or hefty. I mean that. But a pig is not human so it's acceptable to me.

[sillysaurusx]

Would you feel the same if cats were the only animal whose organs could be harvested?

[gambiting]

Absolutely - why wouldn't you? Serious question.

[spoonjim]

Yes, I would be OK with killing any number of cats to save any human’s life.

[thih9]

> it's acceptable to me

Your earlier comment mentioned morality without qualifiers; here you refer to your own morality; this seems more accurate. Note that there are people who refuse to eat or otherwise harm animals and they cite moral reasons too.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

I don't think life length is an issue, the pig doesn't know how long it will live so there doesn't seem much scope for suffering.

It comes back to the question if never being born at all is better than some (domesticated) life at all.

[Pxtl]

Food animals are killed in adolescence for far less noble reasons.

I'm a vegetarian.

Grow me a goddamned lung pig.

[mapme]

I understand your view and agree with what you’ve said, however, the primary point was that there are moral implications if you intervene in another life so it is not a moral freebie.