I think we've done the unthinkable

[blondeflyer7 0]

Quote

Nothing left to hide right?

Now look what you've done Clay****shakes head**

[wlie 0]

Another fine point made by Captain Clay

My other ride is the relative wind.

[wmw999 2,120]

Quote

Is the evolution of man predestined? Are we as a species limited to what we can change?
IMHO I think not.
Yes it may be messy at first but will the benefits overshadow this?

I'd just like us to consider the various aspects of messy before we get there. I think we're going there eventually too. And it's not a bad thing necessarily.

But if you're going to screw around with something, the planning and consideration level go up when you pay the consequences yourself. It's OK to break some eggs making an omelet if you're not an egg yourself.

The Chinese have already been experimenting with humans; they limit the size of families. Which means that girl babies are sometimes killed so that boy babies can be the official child-of-record. I'm not sure that's what they intended when they just wanted to limit the population growth.

Wendy W.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Now look what you've done Clay

Just doing my best at hijacking this volitile thread before it gets any real momentum.

[wlie 0]

Quote

It's OK to break some eggs making an omelet if you're not an egg yourself.

Ditto. Then again, we're only kidding ourselves.

My other ride is the relative wind.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Quote

They have a democracy, sort of, so they must approve of such things.

It has to be a cool country when they elect Porn stars to congress.

Good knowledge, Clayster!

[blondeflyer7 0]

Quote

Now look what you've done Clay


Just doing my best at hijacking this volitile thread before it gets any real momentum.

hmmm....well ok I guess that makes sense.....did I just say that....what is wrong with me I'm slipping

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Good knowledge, Clayster!

OTOH, Mousolini's daughter is also heavily involved in politics there. You might think they would have learned the first time.

[billvon 2,394]

>Cloning a kidney or a heart for a transplant, great. Anything beyond that, not great.

To clone a kidney, you have to take a human genome, begin its development into an embryo and then supress everything but kidney development. There are no such things as "kidney genes." This is sort of the heart of the issue. Are you OK with taking a blastocyst with the _potential_ of becoming human and causing it to develop into only a kidney, rather than a human?

[hagar 0]

Quote

Just out of curiosity...why are people so oposed to this. And please don't say it is unnatural...so is jumping from high places so let's hear some other arguments...

There is one very valid reason not to clone humans: Most of the time cloning doesn't give the desired result. One would have to accept many miscarriages and seriously deformities to get a successfully cloned human.
It took more than 200 tries to create Dolly the sheep.

---
PCSS #10

[billvon 2,394]

>It took more than 200 tries to create Dolly the sheep.

True, but it takes, on average, 3 tries to make a successful human the old fashioned way. The other 2 out of 3 don't implant or are spontaneously aborted (miscarriage.) And that's nothing compared to IVF, where success rates are closer to 1 in 5. We indeed have a long way to go with human cloning, but the problems are not insurmountable.

I guess the thing I don't understand about human cloning to produce babies is that I don't see it as much different than IVF. It is hideously difficult and expensive, and at first, neither one will be super successful. It is completely unnatural. It can give infertile couples children, which I think is a good thing.

Therapeutic cloning is a completely different issue. Cloning will simply be used eventually. Any US ban on it will last only as long as it takes for Sweden to develop an Alzheimer's cure based on cloning (for example.) Morals are all well and good, but letting millions of people become demented and incontinent for the sake of morals is sort of a hard sell in a democratic society.

[skygeek 0]

Quote

To clone a kidney, you have to take a human genome, begin its development into an embryo and then supress everything but kidney development. There are no such things as "kidney genes." This is sort of the heart of the issue. Are you OK with taking a blastocyst with the _potential_ of becoming human and causing it to develop into only a kidney, rather than a human?

Honestly, I would be OK with it if the end result was a Human that no longer had to go in for dialisys twice a week for the rest of there lives.

Welcome to the New World Order. Expect no Mercy.

[billvon 2,394]

>Honestly, I would be OK with it if the end result was a Human that no
> longer had to go in for dialisys twice a week for the rest of
> there lives.

I agree; or more importantly, save someone from an early death from a heart defect.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Nothing left to hide right?

Not like they could be blackmailed for a sex scandal....

We may be past that. A a sex scandal involving politicians in the US is almost unheard of. Of course, now 30% of the comedians are unemployed also.

[Zenister 0]

"my father was a scapel, my mother a test tube"

-R.Heinlen Friday

now the real questions start.
do clones have rights?
souls?
are they people or property?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[skygeek 0]

I guess the question is:

"When will people see cloning as a tool to progress humankind and not just another cool way to make babies?"

Welcome to the New World Order. Expect no Mercy.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

To clone a kidney, you have to take a human genome, begin its development into an embryo and then supress everything but kidney development. There are no such things as "kidney genes." This is sort of the heart of the issue. Are you OK with taking a blastocyst with the _potential_ of becoming human and causing it to develop into only a kidney, rather than a human?

Absolutely! Why? Because at some point, the technology will develop where the victim of whatever ailment they suffer will be able to provide the baseline for a replicated organ, minus the defective genetic material creating the problem. It becomes a self determination issue at that point.

If the scientist in this article is right, then we are about to witness leaps in this technology that boggle the mind. Try applying Moore's Law to bio-genetics...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Any US ban on it will last only as long as it takes for Sweden to develop an Alzheimer's cure based on cloning (for example.) Morals are all well and good, but letting millions of people become demented and incontinent for the sake of morals is sort of a hard sell in a democratic society.

Succinct and accurate as hell.

I think the only difference between IVF and cloning is that the IVF babies go to parents who want them desperately. I think the coldly scientific thing to do with clones is produce them without more than a brain stem to use them for research. Everyone will scream about that until they cure cancer, like you said. Then they will be destroyed and everyone will try to forget the price paid for a cancer free world.

[wlie 0]

Besides being able to reproduce an organ for the purpose of healing, I think the notion of "I want to live forever" is the reason behind cloning a human.

Not so much as to leave behind a legacy, but to have a "40yr junior" take over where you left off.

I doubt that you can transfer your mind to your 40 yr junior when you leave your 88 year old body.

My other ride is the relative wind.

[billvon 2,394]

>Personally, I think that we dehumanize people if we treat them too
>much as tools.

I can't see cloning being any worse than IVF in that regard. It's just another way to get pregnant.

>And I think if the means to create something like in Brave New World
> existed, people would exploit it, and it would become part of the
> landscape.

The big issue with Brave New World was the change from human mothers to mechanical government 'wombs' - I don't see pure cloning in anything like the same light.

>Plus, again personally, I'd like to make sure that we're not going to
> be creating problems; sometimes, by diddling one thing (or gene,
> or whatever), we find out there are other, unanticipated
> consequences.

I think that's one of the _pluses_ of cloning. Outside some specific problems we know about now (telomere erosion) the new human is a genetic copy of the old one. We can better predict what health problems the new human will have, since the old one's genome has been 'tested.' Also, keep in mind that we are not comparing cloning to a perfect child conceived naturally; we are comparing them to _all_ children, including those with Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, skeletal dysplasias, spinal bifida etc. If cloning can help increase a child's odds of developing normally, I think that's a good thing.

[wlie 0]

Quote

the new human is a genetic copy of the old one. We can better predict what health problems the new human will have, since the old one's genome has been 'tested.'

Question is:
1) Who benefits from getting cloned? Definitely not you or me. Michael Jackson? Yeah maybe.

2) How long does it take to create another you? It's not like running yourself on the Xerox.

3) What's the point if it's the clone that's going to live? Until you can implant your mind into the clone, you're still going to have to face judgement.

My other ride is the relative wind.

[billvon 2,394]

>Who benefits from getting cloned? Definitely not you or me.

Infertile couples. May not be an issue for you, but I know a few skydivers who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on that problem.

>How long does it take to create another you?

Nine months, like always.

>What's the point if it's the clone that's going to live?

The same point anyone wants to make by having children, I suppose.

>Until you can implant your mind into the clone, you're still going to
> have to face judgement.

?? What are you talking about? Do people have kids because they want to implant their minds into them?

[wmw999 2,120]

Quote

Quote

>Personally, I think that we dehumanize people if we treat them too
>much as tools.

I can't see cloning being any worse than IVF in that regard. It's just another way to get pregnant.

When I wrote that, I wasn't thinking about the parents, they can do anything they want. But, you know, every time we have children, we're using them as tools in one way or another. Part of being a parent is taking that responsibility seriously.

Quote

The big issue with Brave New World was the change from human mothers to mechanical government 'wombs' - I don't see pure cloning in anything like the same light.

Well, the big issue for me with Brave New World was the deliberate creation of purpose-bred and cloned humans. I'm anthropomorphic enough to think that's just wrong

Quote

Quote

>we find out there are other, unanticipated consequences.

I think that's one of the _pluses_ of cloning. Outside some specific problems we know about now (telomere erosion) the new human is a genetic copy of the old one.

I think I'm still erring on the side of figuring that early cloning is likely to be done by vain, rich, people who think they're better than everyone else. Or, that it will be done by parents of athletically-gifted kids to ensure a dynasty.

This is a good discussion.

Wendy W.

[wlie 0]

The sad truth is yes. Some people would raise their kids to be like them. Including their flaws by not acknowledging them.

Besides, aren't kids in a sense a clone of their parents?

My other ride is the relative wind.

[kingbunky 3]

Quote

Quote

Any requests??

Lets get started with a Brittany Spears, a J-Lo, and one Dove.

come on now... the world only needs (and can only handle!) one dove!!!

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001